Back in June, the Davis City Council agreed to place Measure J on the ballot as currently written with the current ten year sunset extended to 2020. At the same time they entertained the idea at the behest of Councilmember Stephen Souza to look into a business park exemption. The idea was to have commissions such as Business and Economic Development, Open Space, and the Planning Commission consider such an exemption. However, none of the commissioners were very interested in such a change.
In September, the City Council directed staff to return with necessary administrative documents prior to the end of the year to place the renewal of Measure J on the June 2010 ballot for voter consideration. At that time, Council also directed that the language of Measure J should remain unaltered, however they did provide for “technical edits” that were in fact discussed at the time.
Writes Ms. Hess:
“The proposed ordinance does include a proposed modification that has not been discussed with the City Council to date.”
She continues:
“The provisions of Measure J require establishing a list of baseline project features which cannot be modified without subsequent voter approval. Measure J also specifies changes that can be made to a project that do not require subsequent voter approval, including those that “do not significantly modify or reduce the baseline project features and required provision of open space, recreational amenities, design features and public facilities…””
Here is the key point:
“no process has been established as to who and how it is determined if a proposed change is “significant”.”
The Chamber of Commerce has submitted a letter to the City to suggest that this be addressed through the incorporation of a new process. It would put such decisions to the Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council.
Here’s the proposed revision to Measure J:
Any requested modification to a land use designation or development project entitlement that does not increase the number of permitted dwellings or units or the intensity of commercial/industrial development and does not significantly modify or reduce the baseline project features and required provision of open space, recreational amenities, design features and public facilities, as specified in the exhibits and plans approved by the [u]voters. Any request for a modification pursuant to this section shall be heard and determined by the Planning Commission after a noticed public hearing. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, whose decision shall be final. The City Council may adopt procedures for the hearing of a request for modification. In the absence of specific procedural regulations, the procedures set forth in the City’s Zoning Code applicable to hearing applications for conditional use permits and appeals therefrom shall be used for hearings and determinations related to requested modifications.[/u]
Writes Ms. Hess:
“Staff [believes] that establishing a public hearing process for determining what is a “significant” alteration of an approved project under Measure J is appropriate, ensures a public process for making such determinations, and provides needed procedural clarity.”
The Vanguard believes otherwise. This appears to be a concerted attack on Measure J that would significantly weaken it. It would attempt to get one version of a project to the voters for approval and then potentially allow a different version of the project to be developed after the vote.
The tactic would on the one hand weaken Measure J, but on the other hand, it would in a sense be self-defeating. All one had to do was look at the debate on the baseline features during the Measure P vote to realize that the public needed assurances that the developer’s promises would be carried out. Under the existing rules there was some doubt – under these proposed rules, there would be zero chance of assuring the voters. Thus, ironically this change would make passage under a Measure J vote even less likely than what currently exists.
This change is recommended by city staff, however, there is additional discussion that will examine Kevin Wolf’s proposal of an earlier Measure J vote. As we wrote last week, the Vanguard sees no good reason to change Measure J. There are both philosophical and practical grounds for this objection. From a philosophical standpoint, I believe that the voters need to able to weigh in on the final project to make an informed decision. This is related to the concern for the Chamber of Commerce proposal.
From a practical standpoint, judging from my experience observing Measure P, I do not see that the voters will be willing to approve anything that is not ironclad and final.
Staff does however present two alternatives that could be evaluated by council.
First, “present pre-applications to the voters prior to the entitlement processing.” Under this proposal:
“Applicants would submit a pre-application to the City for preliminary review of project merits. The City Council may vote to place the proposal on the ballot. The focus of the ballot measure would be on a set of guidelines established for the project, such as location, size, type of development, and timing of build-out. Only upon an affirmative citizen vote would the applicant then proceed to the entitlement process based on these guidelines. The final entitlements and Development Agreement would go through community outreach, staff and commission reviews, and ultimately before the City Council for action. If an aspect of the project deviates from the guidelines presented to the voters the project would be required to go back to the voters.”
While the staff does acknowledge some benefit from this approach in that it would establish whether there is public support exists early in the process something that could save time and money and then if the project has support, details could be worked out.
But the drawbacks seem to heavily outweigh the benefits.
- It is unknown whether the level of detail will be adequate to satisfy the voters to the point where they are comfortable entrusting the details to the entitlement process.
- Unless the measure was purely advisory, CEQA review, almost certainly in the form of an EIR, would still be required before the measure went to the voters.
- The uncertainty for a developer is not eliminated as citizen referendums can still require a project to go before the voters after the entitlement process.
- Ensuring the project details are wholly consistent with the “guidelines” established by the voters may prove to be challenging. A process to establish how “consistency” is determined could minimize such conflicts, but would not necessarily eliminate them.
From our standpoint, this is a fairly accurate portrayal of the drawbacks of this proposal and from practical considerations it seems untenable. The first drawback suggests once again that the process intended to make process easier for projects to gain approval might actually have the opposite impact as the voters demand precision and could easily campaign against a project arguing there is no assurance that you will get what they are promising.
The second drawback however is interesting in that if there is an EIR, the process developed here may not actually save any time or money. After all, the EIR was approved for Measure P at the same time the project was voted on by Council. So what steps would have been avoided.
From the developer’s perspective, they still have no assurances that the project will not have to go to a vote twice.
As such, this does not seem a practical proposal.
The second alternative is that they would process only the General Plan Amendment for voter approval.
Staff suggests that this would establish public support for a proposal early in the process but not as early as the first approach.
Again there are considerable drawbacks.
- There is question as to whether the level of detail will be sufficient for city commissions, and the City Council to take action in the affirmative on a proposal. If approved by the City Council the same concern about adequacy of details for voter approval remains.
- The list of baseline project features required under Measure J would likely still be required, thereby dictating that at least some basic site planning be performed early. This may not necessarily save an applicant significant time or expenditure.
- CEQA review would still be required before the General Plan amendment could be placed before the voters.
- Additional CEQA analysis may be required at the project level, but would be deferred until after a project has received an affirmative Measure J vote.
- The uncertainty for a developer is not fully eliminated as citizen referendums could still require a project to go before the voters at the time the zoning or development agreement is brought forward for Council action.
- Under state law, the city generally cannot preclude property applicants from filing all entitlement applications at the same time.
From our standpoint, neither of these proposals seem to be good ideas. On the surface they are aimed to either streamline or water down the Measure J review process. But ironically all of them suffer from the significant drawback that Davis voters are simply not going to approve a project unless they know all of the details and have assurances that the agreements will be enforceable and followed.
Obviously staff sees significant drawbacks with the two alternative proposals and thus it seems unlikely the council would consider and approve them.
More insidious is Katherine Hess’ proposal following the Chamber of Commerce Guidelines. The problem with the proposal is that you are turning the determination of “significant changes” into a subjective judgment call. From the standpoint of slow growthers in this community, that puts a great deal of discretion in the hands of city staff who helps direct the Planning Commission as well as the council. From the standpoint of the council and even developers, you are giving the voters a significant reason to question whether development agreements will be adhered to.
This is not a hypothetical problem. We have the very recent example of an MOU agreed to by the neighbors of the Simmons/ Chiles Ranch project and the developers. The city along with the developers acted in concert to significantly change that agreement after the fact. The neighbors had no Measure J vote to protect them and they were helpless in the face of Council support for additional units, changes in the density, and changes in the buffer. This episode demonstrates that even in the face of written agreement, there are no assurances for the neighbors or the public that a given project will be as proposed and promised. Measure J at least gives us a measure of control in this manner and all of these proposals are aimed at giving that control to the discretion of policymakers after the fact, that is the opposite of the intention of Measure J framers.
In short, we stand by our previous statements, Measure J needs to be placed before the voters as it is currently written–period, no exceptions.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We need to make it clear to the City Council that these “technical edits” are unacceptable. Measure J works as is and this is a clear attempt to subvert the purpose of Measure J.
The people of Davis have spoken loud and clear and those elected officials who do not get the message they should be replaced.
Its funny, I get the feeling over and over that the city staff are always on the wrong side of going elsewhere is a good idea.
Could you imagine bake sales and donations to keep the planning staff employed?
And there should NOT be two options for J on the ballot. One as written, yes or no for ten (or more) yrs.
Don’t cloud the decision.
The second alternative may be a method for the voters to weigh in at an earlier stage. A voter approval for a change in the General Plan can be interpreted as PRELIMINARY approval of a proposed project,given the general description outline, with a Measure J vote to follow under the current process. The critical factor would be that the approved General Plan amendment would be voided if the Measure J measure subsequently failed. Harriet Steiner’s legal description and terms of the measure J baseline features “obligations”,namely “significant changes” and this determination to be made at the time of “full build-out”,needs to be explored and clarified.
Davisite:
Kevin, and no one else, is proposing both an early vote and then a Measure J vote under the current process. They are proposing only the preliminary vote. The citizens would have no significant say after that, except to speak at public hearings, and we know what that results in. In essence, this is an attempt to completely subvert the intent of Measure J. It is an attempt to save developers time and money and to force the citizens to vote on a vague concept of a project prior to the entitlement process, an EIR, a fiscal analysis or a development agreement. This process would give the voters no information on the project to help determine its impacts, and the project could end up being something completely different than the “vague concept” intially brought before them.
Measure J was written by a group of Davis citizens with the aid of attorneys from one of the best land use and environmental law firms in the country. There is a good reason it is written as it is. It was written to try to help curb the continued sprawl onto ag land and open space and to give the residents of our community the right to have a say in the future of our community. Measure J works exactly as intended.
Get down to the meeting Tuesday night or contact the council members via email in advance and tell them you want no changes to J other than the small technical changes to reflect the changed status of the Nishi and Covell properties and the change in the sunset. The council already voted to put J on the ballot as it is written. Hold them to that promise.
Sorry. The first sentence of the above doesn’t make sense. I meant to say that neither Kevin nor anyone else is proposing a preliminary vote then another vote after the project is fleshed out. They are proposing only the preliminary vote.
Why is K Hess proposing this? Job security perhaps? As growth slows, has planning dept shrunk? Me thinks not.
[quote]The problem with the proposal is that you are turning the determination of “significant changes” into a subjective judgment call. [/quote] I think Katherine’s proposal makes sense. I’m completely confused as to why you are so paranoid about this idea. It is not a totally “subjective call.”
All of the baseline features — “the number of permitted dwellings or units or the intensity of commercial/industrial development … the required provision of open space, recreational amenities, design features and public facilities, as specified in the exhibits and plans approved by the voters” — would have to remain the same.
But if some small problem arises later on and a minor adjustment that does not change a baseline feature is requested, it makes absolutely no sense to go back to the voters for a whole new election if they already approved the project in a Measure J vote.
Aside from people who would, because of their ideology, reject any and all projects on agricultural land — which is every project under Measure J — I can’t think of any instance in which a rational person would vote against a project for fear that the Planning Commission would later interpret a major change as minor.
Please give me one rational example where this paranoia makes any sense? [quote]This is not a hypothetical problem. We have the very recent example of an MOU agreed to by the neighbors of the Simmons/ Chiles Ranch project and the developers. The city along with the developers acted in concert to significantly change that agreement after the fact. The neighbors had no Measure J vote to protect them and they were helpless in the face of Council support for additional units, changes in the density, and changes in the buffer. [/quote] This has NOTHING to do with Measure J, as is or modified. The problem at Chiles Ranch was the fact that staff is charged by the City Council to follow the General Plan. Many of the most outspoken “progressives” are advocates for following the General Plan to the tee. The agreement between the neighbors and the developers of Chiles Ranch did not do that. So if you have a problem with what staff did in that case, then launch your attack our General Plan, which quantifies the density requirements that staff followed.
“But if some small problem arises later on and a minor adjustment that does not change a baseline feature is requested, it makes absolutely no sense to go back to the voters for a whole new election if they already approved the project in a Measure J vote.”
The problem is that someone gets to determine which ones are permissible and which ones are not.
A reasonable quid pro quo for giving the city the power to tweak a project would be a requirement that the CEQA review [u]and[/u] development agreement be finalized (i.e. signed contingent on entitlements) [u]prior[/u] to any action by the City Council to place a project on the ballot. Under this scenario, proposals would be subjected to much more detailed scrutiny by the electorate (at a time when the city’s negotiating power is still maximized) … and problems that might need to be fixed later would potentially be minimized.
In my assessment, it is much more important to get projects completely negotiated up-front [u]before[/u] council action than to worry about the potential that staff will try to undermine a decision of the voters. They are more likely to engage in this type of behavior if there is a lack of transparency and specificity.
RicH:
I guess I should call myself “Paranoid Phil.”
THe voters just rejected a Measure J vote by 75%. The logical thing to do would be to stop peripheral growth in the near future, but our City Staff and Ms. Hess have a different idea.
Consider:
1. We have a City Council majority beholden to developers.
2. Many City staff also seem pro-development.
3. The paranoid opposition (many of whom do not like to be referred to as “progressives”) have little money to hire an attorney. Justice is expensive in this country and even if we are correct legally a knock-down drag out fight in the courts always favors those with deep pockets.
Measure J works fine. Many of the folks proposing these changes don’t like measure J and would like to see it eliminated.
Consider me Paranoid. I’d rather be safe than sorry.
[quote]The problem is that someone gets to determine which ones are permissible and which ones are not. [/quote] What solution do you prefer? An entirely new Measure J vote for a minor change? If you think it’s feasible to put together a development plan on paper and years down the road you will never have to make any minor changes to your plan, you are not living in the real world.
[quote]A reasonable quid pro quo for giving the city the power to tweak a project would be a requirement that the CEQA review and development agreement be finalized (i.e. signed contingent on entitlements) prior to any action by the City Council to place a project on the ballot.[/quote]Gadfly, that is how the process works now and how it would work in the future.
[quote]Measure J works fine. Many of the folks proposing these changes don’t like measure J and would like to see it eliminated. Consider me Paranoid. I’d rather be safe than sorry. [/quote] It’s fine to be safe. But you and David and the others are not making any sense at all. Your paranoia has led you to the bass ackwards conclusion in this case.
If there is a concern about subjectivity and ambiguity, perhaps it would be simpler just to remove the word “significantly” from Measure J.
Rich. You are incorrect. The WHR development agreement was not completed at the time the council voted to put the proposal on the ballot. This fact opened the door to a heated debate about the veracity of the developers’ claims.
A more reasonable process would be for the city council to take action on the development agreement no less than 30 days prior to their action to place a project on the ballot.
[quote]Rich. You are incorrect. The WHR development agreement was not completed at the time the council voted to put the proposal on the ballot. [/quote]That is 100% immaterial. When we voted on Measure P, the development agreement was complete and was approved by the City Council (and then rejected by the voters). If the proposal by Ms. Hess is accepted by the council, your concern in this regard won’t change at all.
But back to the point of this blog by David Greenwald … Not one of you has made any sensible argument why you oppose what Katherine has proposed. It’s as if you really don’t understand the proposal. And if you do, it’s as if you have no common sense for how the real world works. You can change my mind if you would at least give a concrete example of how the Planning Commission accepting a minor change — defined as one which does not go against the baseline agreement — will be harmful. And if your position is that no changes of any kind should ever be made, regardless of new circumstances, I suggest you either have no common sense or you should propose positively how the City should deal with such changes as they arise. Are you saying you want a new vote by the citizenry for a minor change?
Rich: Nope. What is immaterial is the is the fact that the council approved the development agreement after the battle lines were already drawn.
With regard to the point of the post by DG, my argument speaks to the issue of mitigating the distrust he discusses, while your argument apparently seeks to dismiss the whole issue as a paranoid waste of time.
BTW I completely understand Katherine’s proposal and know full well how the real world works.
[quote]What is immaterial is the is the fact that the council approved the development agreement after the battle lines were already drawn.
[/quote] Tell me how that is material to the discussion at hand. [quote]my argument speaks to the issue of mitigating the distrust he discusses[/quote] How are you mitigating distrust? [quote]your argument apparently seeks to dismiss the whole issue as a paranoid waste of time. [/quote] It is paranoia. You and the others have yet to put forth any logical argument to dissuade that conclusion.
David Greenwald said “The second alternative is that they would process only the General Plan Amendment for voter approval.”
This “second alternative” would be only the FIRST STEP and could measure voter approval for the proposed project, given the general outlines, i.e. size, location, housing density and type. If this was approved by the voters, there WOULD THEN BE a measure J vote as a second step after the FULL measure J process, as carried out for Measure X, was completed. In the context of the discussion as to the feasibility of measuring voter support for a project early on, before proceeding to a Measure J vote, I assumed that David’s “second alternative” was as I described.
“Any request for a modification pursuant to this section shall be heard and determined by the Planning Commission after a noticed public hearing. The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, whose decision shall be final.”
As it stands right now, I assume such decisions regarding whether something is “significant” are made either by staff or by the city council.
Rich, please stop calling people paranoid or accusing them of having no common sense.
Rifkin: if you would at least give a concrete example of how the Planning Commission accepting a minor change — defined as one which does not go against the baseline agreement — will be harmful.
Covell Village’s variations in engineering calculations for infrastructure that – on paper – were in ‘factors’ measured in hundredths (.xx). Used to determine the load on the City’s sewer systems, those calcs create a moving target specifically designed to prevent triggering an immediate upgrade (at the time estimated @ $100 million). Absent Measure J language, and given the timeline of the project, those calculations may very well have been considered ‘minor change’.
“What solution do you prefer? An entirely new Measure J vote for a minor change? If you think it’s feasible to put together a development plan on paper and years down the road you will never have to make any minor changes to your plan, you are not living in the real world.”
The Measure J process with time and resources to fully inform citizen commissions,have in-depth Council public debate/discussion and public comment as a forum for citizen input should give the developer,Council and city staff the information they need to assess what has to be detailed in the measure J baseline agreement which, if altered, would trigger another measure J vote. What is more disturbing is Harriet Steiner’s legal interpretation that these base line features would only be evaluated at project full build-out. With the project completed, what good would it be to offer the voters the opportunity to decide that they do not want this fully built-out project?
It does seem to me that much of this would be unnecessary if the plan Rich has proposed in previous threads were adopted whereby commissions would review these proposals much earlier in the process. I just wonder, with each of the various Measure J proposals floating around, just how many times commissions would have to re-review a project, how many would end up being subjected to two Measure J votes, and how any of these proposals would benefit the public.
It does seem to me that much of this would be unnecessary if the plan Rich has proposed in previous threads were adopted whereby commissions would review these proposals much earlier in the process. I just wonder, with each of the various Measure J proposals floating around, just how many times commissions would have to re-review a project, how many would end up being subjected to two Measure J votes, and how any of these proposals would benefit the public.
[quote]The WHR development agreement was not completed at the time the council voted to put the proposal on the ballot. This fact opened the door to a heated debate about the veracity of the developers’ claims.
A more reasonable process would be for the city council to take action on the development agreement no less than 30 days prior to their action to place a project on the ballot. — Gadfly[/quote]
I agree with Gadfly on this one, and have been arguing the point myself for some time.
The development agreement was not completed before Measure P was placed on the ballot, and the council had no authority to require that Parlin Development take responsibility for building the affordable housing themselves as they had promised they would do. This resulted in a rather tense and unpleasant interlude which did not help foster public confidence in the project.
PHIL: “Consider me Paranoid.”
DON: “stop calling people paranoid”
RICH: “whatever.”
The “concrete” example by NEUTRAL: [i]Covell Village’s variations in engineering calculations for infrastructure that – on paper – were in ‘factors’ measured in hundredths (.xx).[/i]
Okay.
[i]Used to determine the load on the City’s sewer systems, those calcs create a moving target specifically designed to prevent triggering an immediate upgrade (at the time estimated @ $100 million).[/i]
Okay.
[i]Absent Measure J language, and given the timeline of the project, those calculations may very well have been considered ‘minor change’. [/i]
Holy non sequitir!
NOTHING in the Hess proposal changes what you contend MIGHT have happened had Measure X passed. As you know, Measure X was considered by the voters under the status quo terms of Measure J. CV Partners could not have legally made a change which violated the baseline terms of their agreement. And under the Hess proposal they still cannot. Her suggested language only affects the process for incorporating minor changes.
I’m still paranoid. I haven’t seen a single argument to persaude me that this proposal is anything other than a smokescreen.
[quote]I’m still paranoid.[/quote] I appreciate your honesty. And yes, I see that guy following you, too.[quote]I haven’t seen a single argument to persaude me that this proposal is anything other than a smokescreen. [/quote] Seems like there is some tetrahydrocannabinol in that smoke.
Even if it’s not a smokescreen, I just don’t see the point. Given the lopsided nature of the last vote, why change J? To whose benefit is it to make any changes?
If it ain’t broke, etc.
Even if it’s not a smokescreen, I just don’t see the point. Given the lopsided nature of the last vote, why change J? To whose benefit is it to make any changes?
If it ain’t broke, etc. That’s what this is going to come down to.
[quote]I just don’t see the point. [/quote] The point seems clear to me:
1. Whenever you have a complex development project which is built out over a number of years with figuratively hundreds of moving parts, some circumstances will inevitably arise which require a minor change here and there; and
2. Because minor changes are inevitable, it makes sense to have in place a process where the Planning Commission and the City Council have the authority to grant those minor changes. (They are defined in the proposal as changes which do not affect the baseline agreement.)
Under the current language of Measure J, it is unclear what process would have occurred when one of these inevitable circumstances arose. It’s unclear because no project has ever been approved by the public. Yet had, for example, Covell Village passed and the developer discovered a problem which was not too big but went against the language in the development agreement, but not against the baseline strictures, staff likely would have been in a pickle. Say they granted the approval for the change to the developer, saying it was minor. But then all of the progressive yahoos* get their panties in a bunch and complain to the City Council that the staff had no authority to agree to that change. And the yahoos would be right — under J, staff has no such authority. So then staff relents and the issue is moved over to the Planning Commission, to see if they can resolved the matter. But then the yahoos scream bloody murder — “ahhhhhhhh! bloooody murderrrrr!” — and say the Planning Commission has no such authority under J. And again, the yahoos would be right. So then staff suggests the City Council take a look at the problem, which just about everyone agrees is small potatoes. But the yahoos once again pass hot gas on the idea that the DEVELOPER-DOMINATED-CITY-COUNCIL should look at the issue, because, they are right again, Measure J never gave them such authority. And so, for a minor change that everyone understands does not affect the project’s baseline features, the only option is yet another expensive, time-consuming ans wasteful Measure J vote of all the citizens.
And theoretically, this could happen in a very tight housing market. Granted, we have not seen a tight housing market for a few years — other than our tight apartment rental market. But say 5-6 years from now the housing market is very tight, prices are very high and a project has been approved by the council and passed by the citizens in a Meausre J vote. Then, as the development is under way, it is realized that the builder cannot procede cost-effectively, because some market circumstance changed — say the price of a commodity listed in the development agreement tripled overnight. And so despite the fact that there are hundreds of families in need of a house, we have to wait many more months, spend loads of money on an election, and hope that the citizens who show up will again vote yes. All of that could be solved by this minor change in J. If that does not make perfect sense, then I am a monkey’s uncle:
*I use yahoo in its most positive sense. Please don’t call the PC police on me.
[img]http://blackspadeprinting.com/images/1235413050268724142790.jpg[/img]
Measure J already allows for project changes without a re-vote if they do not “significantly” alter the baseline project features, etc. It seems to me that, in the absence of an approved project, any effort to specifically define a process to adjudicate what meets the bar of significance is little more than a contentious intellectual exercise.
This raises an obvious question as to why the Chamber of Commerce would elect to weigh in on a technical issue. As with the Sierra Club endorsement of WHR, I would be very interested in knowing who was involved and what the process was that led up to the letter from Brooks to Hess.
Why would the Board feel the need to “collaborate” with Hess to “clarify” a technical issue that (1) has not been a problem for the last 10 years and (2) by their own reckoning “would not change the function or intent of Measure J”?
[i]”Measure J already allows for project changes without a re-vote if they do not “significantly” alter the baseline project features, etc.” [/i]
It does not say “significantly” (so that should not be in quotes), but essentially that’s correct. However, what the measure lacks is any provision to say [u]who[/u] has the authority to decide if one of these modifications is “consistent with the overall approved development project or land use designation and entitlements including the baseline project features and required provision of open space.” (See the exact language from Measure J below.)
On its face, I would say staff or the developer* decides. But since it is not explicit, then the usual yahoos could argue (in a lawsuit) that staff or the developer cannot make that decision. (See my full argument above.)
So it makes good sense to me to decide that it should not be staff, but rather should be the decision of the Planning Commission and the City Council.
*Ironically, many of the people shouting this idea down seem to distrust staff and developers at least as much if not more than they distrust the Planning Commission or the City Council. [quote]C. Once the voters have approved a land use map designation or land use entitlement for a property, additional voter approval shall not be required for:
(1) Subsequent entitlement requests that are consistent with the overall
approved development project or land use designation and entitlements including the baseline project features and required provision of open space, recreational amenities, design features and public facilities, as specified in the exhibits and plans approved by the voters.
(2) Any requested modification to a land use designation or development
project entitlement that does not increase the number of permitted dwellings or units or the intensity of commercial/industrial development and does not significantly modify or reduce the baseline project features and required provision of open space, recreational amenities, design
features and public facilities, as specified in the exhibits and plans approved by the voters. [/quote]
An unrelated Measure J issue … I have heard some on this board say Measure J needs to be changed to force a public vote if the council wants to approve a development within the city on land which is currently a park. (The only place where this applies, AFAIK, is the stupid idea to convert the Civic Center Park north of City Hall into housing.) However, I read over all of Measure J and discovered that parks are already covered. Here is the appropriate language from Measure J as it exists: [quote] The requirement for voter approval set forth in this Article shall not apply to any of the following:
…
(b) Land to be used for public parks; except:
(1) Should any such land be deemed not needed for public park purposes, [u]any proposal to convert such land to urban use shall be subject to the voter approval requirements of this Article[/u].[/quote]
[quote](2) Any requested modification to a land use designation or development
project entitlement that does not increase the number of permitted dwellings or units or the intensity of commercial/industrial development and does not significantly modify or reduce the baseline project features and required provision of open space, recreational amenities, design
features and public facilities, as specified in the exhibits and plans approved by the…[/quote]Rich, measure J does in fact refer to “significant” modifications. See above excerpt.
Fair enough, Sue. It’s not any kind of argument against the modification Katherine Hess has suggested.
This is starting to look like an example of wingnut* solidarity.
*I use wingnut in its most positive sense. Please don’t call the PC police on me.
Actually Rich, in your long paragraph in which you described how “yahoos” would respond to any “minor” change, you seem to suggest that the only real reason for this change is to deal with objections that such “yahoos” might have about process. In other words, the Chamber of Commerce has proposed a change that staff likes. In spite of your example of hundreds of families remaining homeless because of the tripling of the cost of some construction detail (the gold-plated faucets?), I don’t see how this proposal is beneficial to the public.
My general reaction to proposals is to assume the burden is on the proponents to show the public advantage. So as with city charter, choice voting, and Kevin Wolf’s proposal, I see little reason to support this. I understand why the staff supports it. I don’t understand why the Chamber proposed this, and I don’t see why the public should support it. In general I think the public feels Measure J is working just fine, and any attempts at modifying it will be considered unnecessary. They may well suspect the motives of those advocating the changes. Imagine that.
Jonathan Swift obviously intended “yahoo” as a pejorative. In the context you used it, I believe you did as well. I’m not sure what “positive sense” there is for it, other than as the name of the popular search engine/portal.
[quote]”you seem to suggest that the only real reason for this change is to deal with objections … about process.”[/quote] That is absolutely right. This is about process. In Measure J there is no process language [i]to say who has the authority to decide if one of these modifications is “consistent with the overall approved development project or land use designation and entitlements including the baseline project features and required provision of open space.”[/i] [quote]”I think the public feels Measure J is working just fine, and any attempts at modifying it will be considered unnecessary.”[/quote] That begs the question. No Measure J project has ever passed. So we have no idea who can legally make such a decision until we ford that river. However, your argument — that J is popular — misses the point altogether. [quote]”My general reaction to proposals is to assume the burden is on the proponents to show the public advantage.”[/quote] I did that. In fact, even if your forget about the theoretical families who might not be able to find houses to buy in Davis because of a pointless delay, the public would be harmed (for the expense and the time) having to hold a second vote to decide a minor question on a project they already approved.
So the burden goes back to you, Don. And because I respect you, I expect you have a good answer: Under Measure J as it currently stands, who has the authority “to decide if one of these modifications is “consistent with the overall approved development project or land use designation and entitlements including the baseline project features and required provision of open space”?
P.S. I have always had a soft side for yahoos, louts, philistines and yokels.
“Under Measure J as it currently stands, who has the authority “to decide…”
The City Council, IMO. Staff can recommend, the planning commission can review, but ultimately that is a council decision.
Even as proposed — “The determination of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, whose decision shall be final.”
So this proposal simply codifies the process, injecting the planning commission into the review of details.
If people disagree about whether it is a “minor” change, it will go to the council anyway. If citizens get sufficiently exercised about their decision, they can sue, recall, or press for another Measure J vote.
It would have to be a pretty egregious decision on the part of the council to prompt that, and my guess is that the margin of the two Measure J votes to date will have some tempering effect on even the most pro-development councilmember.
My inclination would be to wait until there is a Measure J project actually approved and see how the current process works, rather than modifying Measure J based on hypotheticals.
I also used “paranoid” in the most positive sense of the word. (It referred to me anyway.)
Perhaps skeptical would be a better word, but someone else used the word paranoid first.
There will always be contingencies which will need to be worked out. Oliver Williamson won the Nobel Prize in Economics this year for detailing how the contracting process actually works as opposed to how some economists (e.g., Demsetz) had previously looked at the process. In essence Williamson says that there will always be contingencies and no contract (or plan)can specify all possible contingencies. Williamson, in a classic article, also examines the “hold up” problem where a firm (an Oakland Cable TV company) won a bid with the City and then reneged leaving the City with a serious problem.
I do not see that Ms. Hess’ changes clarify the situation, but I am (insert either paranoid or skeptical) when folks who are clearly against Measure J start tinkering and folks who initiated this process (e.g., Eileen and No Friend… who I won’t out)are opposed to the changes.
This change won’t stop the possibility of litigation (which should favor a developer or the City anyway since they can hire more expensive lawyers) and I have not seen a good argument for these changes–all have been rebutted. As in High School debate, the status quo should prevail unless the opposition can present a reasonable argument (which has withstood scrutiny) to change the status quo. I don’t see such an argument–of course its all up to CC tonight and I have class.
[b]RIFKIN W/O BARN:[/b] [i]”Under Measure J as it currently stands, who has the authority “to decide…” [/i]
[b]SHOR W/REDWOOD BARN:[/b] [i]The City Council, IMO. Staff can recommend, the planning commission can review, but ultimately that is a council decision.[/i]
So when push comes to shove — in the best sense of pushing and shoving — what you are saying, Don, is that the Hess language (in your opinion) changes nothing. Thus, if you are right, no harm, no foul. And if I am right, we have clarification for a potential problem.
I agree with PHIL that “there will always be contingencies and no contract (or plan) can specify all possible contingencies.” But still contracts are always written with the intention of trying to clarify what happens when certain contingencies arise. That is exactly what the current Measure J tries to do in the applicable language I cited above. However, because it fails to explicitly say who has the authority to make that decision — it seems to me the most likely authority would be the developer, not the city council, unless it is clarified — it makes sense to clarify that contingency in advance.
If Hess is voted down and the language remains the same — seemingly because many Measure J-lovers view Measure J as faultless the way many Bible thumpers* view their text as faultless — the down-voters would have either handed that power over to the developer or caused a serious delay in process and a big unnecessary expense.
*I love Bible thumpers. No offense intended.
You can call me paranoid too, but I do not support opening J up for any changes. As mentioned previously, Measure J was written with the aid and advice of attorneys from one of the best land use and environmental law firms in the country. The language was carefully crafted to ensure that J worked as intended and that it was essentially challenge-proof. Measure J has worked exactly as intended.
The process Katherine Hess outlines for J is a process that already exists. If the city wants this process codified in some way, that can be done, but separately from Measure J. There is no need to begin inserting new language into J and consequently leaving the door open for other changes. For example, those suggested by Kevin Wolf would completely subvert the intent of J and gut the ordinance.
[quote]If the city wants this process codified in some way, that can be done, but separately from Measure J. There is no need to begin inserting new language into J and consequently leaving the door open for other changes. [/quote]Finally one of the yahoos — in the best sense of the term — has a rational explanation for this paranoia. I appreciate Pam’s honesty. It’s not that the language that Ms. Hess suggests is bad in any direct sense — even if David Greenwald in his blog post mistakenly thought it was scary — it’s that the yahoos apparently think that making a change, even a beneficial change, opens the door for other changes, and those other changes may not be so good. And in the case of all of the changes Kevin Wolf has suggested, I agree that those changes are not good.
Kevin Wolf at Davis Voice: “Measure J Draft Version 1.2”
[url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2009/12/measure-j-draft-version-1-2/[/url]
The following questioned occurred to me watching Mike Webb summarize the proposal for the council …
Would moving Measure J from the zoning ordinance to it’s own section of the municipal code make it easier to challenge it in court?
Mike’s explanation that it would make it “more accessible to the public” seems a little contrived.
any way these employees can be fired for their unethical actions. danielle foster included. they make upwards of 100k, plus money from developers.