During the course of the discussion of Measure J, there was a good deal of concern about whether the proposed changes by staff were really technical and non-substantive or whether they actually represented something that could undermine the basic integrity of the measure.
At issue were two sections proposed by staff to clarify provisions of Measure J.
The language added to the ordinance read:
“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.”
It was pointed out that the existing language of the ordinance restricted the scope of changes that could be achieved without an additional vote to:
“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.”
Therefore this was largely just clarifying the process at least in the minds of some.
However, the public was clearly concerned that this provision might allow subjective judgment to enter into the decision. Several members of the public spoke passionately that they did not wish to see the measure changed and did not entrust staff with the power to determine what was or was not a substantive change.
The council ultimately approved compromise language that took out the specific process, but enable that the council could create a policy to determine how non-substantive changes to a project would be approved. This motion passed 4-1, with Councilmember Lamar Heystek the only dissenter. In essence, he argued that the change was not needed. He was probably correct as council under the current provision probably already has the power.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald while agreeing with Councilmember Heystek, also recognized that they could get three votes to essentially put the measure on the ballot with no substantive changes and seized on the opportunity to do so recognizing that Mayor Pro Tem Saylor had already shown indications of being willing to make more substantive changes including the entertainment of competing measures. In the end, the council, unanimously approved the renewal of Measure J as Councilmember Heystek wisely asked that the various votes on amendments be separated in order for their to be a final vote.
Councilmember Heystek was able to eliminate additional language in 2B that seemed to invite “amendment” and “modification” in December of 2020.
The key language stricken was:
“The renewal may include amendments or modifications that the City Council determines to be appropriate. The City Council may also submit a measure to the voters for repeal of Measure J, if the City Council determines such measure to be appropriate.”
There was also some discussion of Kevin Wolf’s alternative proposal. Councilmember Stephen Souza defended Kevin Wolf, however, in the end did not support his alternative proposal in part because of the potential need for an EIR at multiple stages of the project. In addition, it became clear to most that the public would desire language certainty and that the advantage of such an early consideration would be eliminated as the voters demanded more in the baseline and development agreement.
Mark Braly, Chair of the Planning Commission spoke and also published a letter in the Davis Enterprise yesterday.
He argued:
“One of the reasons Measure J had a sunset date was to allow the community time to reflect on the experience we have had with it during this trial period. Two projects, one large and one small, have been defeated at the ballot box under Measure J.
Questions arise: Is Measure J a tool for good planning or simply for no growth? What are the prospects that any proposal would pass, no matter what it offers to the community or for people seeking housing? Given this track record, is it likely we will be presented with any proposals requiring Measure J votes in the future?
The latter would be fine, of course, for supporters of no growth, even though that is not now city policy and could not be under the city s obligations to provide its fair share housing as required by state law.”
He then goes on to suggest that there are options available and in part promotes Kevin Wolf’s alternative suggestion.
He writes:
“For those like me who support smart, limited and high-quality growth that enhances our city, there are troubling issues with simply extending Measure J.”
And while he is certainly entitled to the belief that there are troubling issues with simply extending Measure J, I would think that would and should be left to the voters to ultimately decide whether they wish to extend the current version of Measure J. In part, he would substitute the will and role of the voters, with the judgment of the few in determining that there is a better policy. Again, he’s entitled to hold that view, but others expressed the view that the voters themselves ought to decide.
Elaine Roberts Musser’s comment was particularly eloquent.
“Any attempts to change the language of Measure J will result in only one thing: Davis citizens are more likely to vote “no” on any proposed project. Why? Because voters know the “devil is in the details”.
If any specifics of a proposed project under Measure J are not ironed out ahead of a vote, or if particulars are left up to someone else to decide, voters will have no hesitation in voting a resounding “no” to half-baked proposals not spelling out all the niceties. Furthermore, voters will remember which City Council members voted to alter Measure J contrary to public sentiment.
Make no mistake – a vote to alter Measure J is a vote for NO GROWTH – citizens will not approve a project unless all the nitty gritty details are laid out in precise language
In regard to Kevin Wolfe’s revision of Measure J, he recently conceded in the Davis Vanguard blog the following salient points, AND I QUOTE:
1. A “final project will be … SIMILAR to”what was voted on”
2. A revision of Measure J ” … can be structured to provide … voters … ASSURANCES
they will get from the proposal project what they expect”
3. Mr. Wolfe “expect[ed] a lot of early Measure J votes will result in Davisites voting DOWN the proposed projects”.Proponents of a Measure J revision do not seem to understand:
Voters don’t want to vote on a SIMILAR project – they want to vote on THE project.
Voters don’t want mere ASSURANCES they will get from the proposed project what they expect – they want an ENFORCEABLE RIGHT to get what they expect.
Nor do voters want to vote TWICE every time a development is proposed.
Make no mistake, a vote to alter Measure J is a vote for more confusion and less transparency in the development process – since permitted vagueness as to the details of a proposal will allow developers to “bait and switch”, an open invitation to bad planning.
Make no mistake, a vote to alter Measure J is a vote of no confidence in the Davis citizenry – because it takes decision-making away from voters as if they cannot be trusted, and puts it back in the hands of the very ones who have made colossal blunders in the past – which necessitated the passage of Measure J in the first place.
A vote to alter Measure J is a vote for less efficiency, almost assuredly requiring the necessity and cost of two votes.
Let me repeat – a vote to alter Measure J is a vote for NO GROWTH, more confusion, a reduction in transparency and less efficiency.
There are no upsides to altering Measure J for anyone, least of all the citizens of Davis.”
The council of course approved the measure largely intact. In a way this is not a small victory. The original Measure J was hardly approved overwhelmingly, in fact it was approved with around 54% of the vote, a healthy margin, but not an overwhelming one. That vote came on cusp of growth rates in Davis over the previous decade that exceeded 2% per year and exceeded the growth rates planned at that time. This was a measure to bring control back to the voters.
And the voters have exercised that control twice, utilizing their discretion vote down two project overwhelmingly. This is not to suggest that we must always agree with the will of the majority, but we should always respect it. Measure J has worked exactly as intended, allowing the public rather than the elected council have the final say on when we should grow beyond current urban land use boundaries.
In the end the voters have decided twice that either the time was not right for new growth or that the project was not good enough to proceed. It may be the public at this time does not wish to continue to expand its boundaries. Public discussion should probably focus not on the process of Measure J but rather on the policy differences between those who believe we need additional growth and those who do not.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Let’s hope this ends this for the 10 yrs. It certainly appeared to generate more discussion and possibility of change last night than I thought probable. I thought it was a done deal from the last direction from CC, but no last minute staff additions, Ruth proposing later election, etc. Whew!
David:
thanks for your reporting and thanks to everyone who showed up to oppose changing Measure J; I had class.
I think we all can live with this result. However I am concerned about Mr Braly’s comments. The head of our Planning Commission has a poor understanding of urban planning and a disdain for the voters in Davis.
We also have at least two City Council members who have shown a propensity to vote in favor of more development. Since the voters rejected the last Measure J project by 75%, even Asmundson and Saylor have to pay some attention, but ultimatelt they need to go. Unfortunately Saylor may be going to the County where, according to Sue, he can do even more damage.
And please folks, enough with the ad hominem labels and name calling (e.g., NIMBY, yahoos, paranoid, etc). Perhaps you think the voters of Davis are dumb and Mark Braly is right, but mots of us want slow growth and want the citizens to have some say in what happens in our town.
Preserve Measure J.
I think Mark Braly has a good understanding of urban planning; evidenced by his long stint on the Davis Planning Commission – and I doubt that he has a disdain for Davis voters?
I believe his concerns about Measure J are valid and he was well within his rights to express them to the city council last evening.
If you want commenters to stop their name calling, I suggest you be the first one to do so.
2cowherd:
Expressing an opinion is not the same as an ad hominem attack–this is a blog–but David did state earlier that ad hominem arguments should stop.
Please look up what ad hominem means: e.g., An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument toward the person” or “argument against the person”) is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
I do not think that stating that Mr Braly has a poor understanding of urban planning is an ad hominem argument–you may not agree with it, but that is not the same things.
I second Phil’s comment regarding our Planning Commission Chair, who came to our NO on P booth at Farmer’s Market one Saturday and said “bunch of NIMBY’s” were opposing the Wildhorse Ranch; well, Mr. Braly, I guess you want to call 75% of the voters NIMBY’s then? So be it, but these same voters will vote overwhemingly to renew Measure J (in its current form) in June 2001, and let’s hope that just makes your job as Planning Commission Chair even more difficult in approving peripheral projects that make sense for future elections!
renew Measure J (in its current form) in June 2001
Back . . . to the future!
What is most important about last night’s City Council meeting was a show of force by citizens to leave Measure J alone. It would not have mattered one whit how eloquent any one speech was, if only a few people had showed up to support Measure J language being left “as is”. It became clear to most of the City Council last night that to oppose leaving Measure J “as is” would have been political suicide, since so many speaking during public comment were against tinkering with the language. It is extremely important for citizens to stay involved in the process, to let your elected leaders know how you feel on issues – even STRIDENTLY if necessary.
I do respect Mr. Braly’s and Mr. Wolfe’s right to express a contrary view, as is their privilege. But with that right, comes the necessity to accept criticism of that idea from fellow citizens. The Davis Vanguard blog gave me Kevin Wolfe’s own words from the comment section, that I could use to argue against his proposed revision and for leaving Measure J alone. I did not attack the person, but was critical of the concept of an early vote amendment to Measure J. The People’s Vanguard of Davis internet blog was another invaluable tool that citizens have been able to use to their advantage to ensure the people’s will is not ignored. It keeps us informed, allows for comments back and forth between opposing factions, and forces us to stand by our words.
A special thanks to all those who showed up last night in support of leaving Measure J “as is”, and to the City Council for listening to the people!
[quote]A special thanks to all those who showed up last night in support of leaving Measure J “as is”, and to the City Council for listening to the people!
[/quote]
How about a special thanks to all of those that actually showed up to participate and voice an opinion, regardless of one’s position on the subject. I’d like to see “the people” come before the “the issue”. It might give some needed perspective.
[quote]The original Measure J was hardly approved overwhelmingly, in fact it was approved with around 54% of the vote …[/quote] My guess is that the re-approval vote next year won’t be nearly so close. Perhaps 75-80% will vote yes. However, it’s amazing how different the housing climate is today from how it was 10 years ago when Measure J was first proposed and then approved.
As an act of the popular will, Measure J was reactionary. It was (mostly) a backlash against peripheral growth including Mace Ranch, Northstar, Shasta, Wild Horse and various tracts in South Davis, all of which had taken shape over the preceding years. The outcry was against sprawl, paving over farmland and the Vacavillization of Davis.
By contrast, the re-approval vote will come on the heels of almost no housing growth* and almost no population growth for 7-8 years. The vote next year will not be a reaction; it will be a continuation of the status quo.
The interesting question, then, is why did Measure J pass by only 7.3%, if there was [i]so much[/i] angst over sprawl, loss of open space and McMansions? My guess (and recollection) is: 1) the university was growing, the economy was strong, home prices were fairly stable and the angst was not universal; 2) a percentage of the voters, for questions like development, don’t believe in direct democracy, seeing perhaps the damage the initiative process has done to our state over the years; 3) a large minority was voting against J because J would change the status quo and they were satisfied or at least familiar with the status quo; and 4) a small percentage of the electorate wanted more growth in Davis for their own advantages from it.
If that fairly explains the 46.3% who voted No on J a decade ago, why will the No vote next year shrink to only 20-25%? Four reasons: 1) Because home prices are falling, the university is not growing, West Village is being developed, etc., etc., the anti-growth mood today is stronger than it was a decade ago; 2) whatever qualms people may have had against direct democracy, everyone in Davis is used to having a public vote up or down on peripheral growth, since we have now had this provision for 10 years. Measure J is what people are used to, and thus inertia alone promises support for the re-approval; and 3) there may be less trust for the City Council today than there was 10 years ago.
(I’m not sure about the third reason. However, having a huge budget deficit, regardless of whose fault that is, does not inspire confidence. As such, voters may be less willing now to trust in the wisdom of the City Council. Add to that the fact that the two J projects were overwhelmingly rejected by the voters suggests that possibly voters now** are less certain the development decisions of the council are wise.)
Of the 20-25% who will vote against the re-approval of J, most of them (as a general proposition) want more growth and sees J entirely as an obstacle to growth. Some want more growth because they make money off of growth. Some because they expect the university to grow soon enough and believe we need more housing for new faculty, staff and students. And some want more growth because they believe restricting housing options in Davis will result in the paving over of farmland elsewhere, so workers and students here will commute to Davis, rather than live here.
—————————-
*Yes, projects like Verona, Grande, Chiles Ranch and a few smaller have been green-lighted. But still very few new houses have sprouted up over the period.
**Contrast the votes on Covell Village (loss by 20%) and WHR (loss by 50%) with the easy approval of Wild Horse five years before J was given the thumbs up by the voters. Back in the mid-1990s, it’s not unlikely that on questions of development, the council’s wisdom was less out of tune with the voters’ wisdom.
[quote]And please folks, enough with the ad hominem labels and name calling (e.g., NIMBY, yahoos, paranoid, etc). [/quote] I love yahoos. I also enjoy a good yoo-hoo, now and then.
[img]http://leeloveshottrends.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/yoo-hoo-chocolate-drink.jpg[/img]
CORRECTION: [i]”why will the No vote next year shrink to only 20-25%? [s]Four[/s] [u]Three[/u] reasons: [/i]
“It is extremely important for citizens to stay involved in the process, to let your elected leaders know how you feel on issues – even STRIDENTLY if necessary”
I wholeheartedly agree with your comments, and unfortunately was unable to attend the meeting last night to give public comment, but followed it on the internet;
One of the most concerning aspects of last night’s meeting was Ruth Asmundson’s comments at the end of the vote, where she was essentially was chasting the public comments for being “caustic” (I did not see any such “caustic” remarks anywhere; there was an exchange between Eileen Samitz and Kevin Wolf, where Mr. Wolf was challenged on earlier claims he had made that he was “involved” in the Measure J process, which Eileen took objection to).
Why Ruth (and Saylor, who made similar comments in an earlier CC meeting this year on Chiles Ranch) continue to chastise the public for having passion and intensity in their comments is beyond me.
Development issues envoke such feelings in this town, and it is clear these issues get people to come to meetings and voice their opinions; maybe it is time for Ruth to step down, and for us to elect new CC members, who understand the public’s concerns (over developers) better!
Greg:
In my opinion the attitude of some City Council members, in particular Asmundson and Saylor, has been smug and dismissive towards what is clearly an issue that many folks in Davis (myself included) feel passionately about.
At some point Davis voters will connect the dots…and I completely agree with you that council members who repeatedly support issues that are anathema to most Davis voters need to be replaced.
Rich: You are giving Yoohoo free advertising…the Yoohoo picture is far larger than the paid advertisement below.
A change in the Council majority that will press city staff to show some “backbone” in its negotiations with developers probably would facilitate the passage of a future Measure J vote. As Sue Greenwald commented from the dais, the cost of building residential housing in Davis is no more than in Elk Grove; The profit margin for the developer is much greater in Davis,however. It was obvious from the replies of city staff. to Councilperson Greenwald’s queries about city staff/developer “negotiations” concerning how these profits would be shared between the developer and the city’s coffers, that our city staff is neither prepared nor focused on extracting the maximum fiscal benefit for the city in these negotiations.
davisite,
In order to have “a change in the Council majority” you have to have candidates who are willing to run. One of the casualties of the Measure P campaign was one of the potential “minority” candidates, Lamar Heystek. At this juncture, both the contested seats in June appear to be headed toward expanding the “majority” rather than flipping it.
[quote]One of the casualties of the Measure P campaign was one of the potential “minority” candidates, Lamar Heystek. [/quote] Did Lamar say he was leaving as a result of the Measure P campaign? If so, I missed that. I thought Lamar chose not to run again because of the time commitment for his family obligations.
[quote]One of the casualties of the Measure P campaign was one of the potential “minority” candidates, Lamar Heystek.[/quote]I don’t agree. No councilmember can make all of his/her supporters happy 100% of the time since the supporters have varying opinions on specific issues. However, Lamar has loyally carried the torch for the average citizen, as opposed to special interests, and for high-quality city planning which focuses on maintaining a strong downtown and maintaining our unique character and the good quality of life in Davis.
I have told Lamar that I have collected a (rapidly growing) list of over 50 people willing to work on a campaign for an electable candidate. I have also told him that, as an electable and trustworthy incumbent, he is first choice and would be supported by the vast majority of those on my list if he changes his mind.
Meanwhile, I have two ideas additional ideas for reliable, electable candidates who haven’t said absolutely “no”. Let me know if any of you have additional ideas. We have to get going.
Rich, I do not have specific iron-clad evidence, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read between the lines. Lamar was villified here in the Vanguard and elsewhere. It reminded me of an old client of mine who said to me, “You do 10 things right and then one thing wrong. That’s unacceptable. You are worse off now than you were when you started.”
If your supporters take that same attitude (as I believe they did with Lamar), then the time commitment just to get back to your starting point is daunting to say the least.
Sue is absolutely right when she says “No councilmember can make all of his/her supporters happy 100% of the time . . .” The problem is that it appears to take somewhat of a masochist to be willing to serve on the council in Davis. I sincerely hope that Sue’s “two ideas for reliable, electable candidates” actually say “Yes.” If we have no candidates, then we will certainly inherit a council minority.
Sue, you can add my name to your list if you don’t already have it there. I’ve told Lamar that personally in the past, but its worth repeating. You are absolutely right, “We have to get going.”
Matt: I disagree with your assessment of why Lamar withdrew from the Council race. For myself, I continued to strongly support him for Council in spite of what I considered his single bad decision in not supporting a June election day for Measure P which would have permitted a full Measure J process to proceed. I believe that most of his supporters felt the same way. I did not see any flood of “vilification” directed at him on this blog. I take at face value his explanation that he wants to devote his time and energies to his new wife, family and day-time career.
davisite, I can’t believe you don’t think he was vilified here. I’ll go back and bring forward some of the representative attacks. Perhaps reading them again will jog your memory. Nice thing about this blog . . . there’s a solid audit trail.
Matt: I guess it depends upon how one defines “vilification”. Accurately describing Lamar’s inconsistencies in his position to curtail the Measure J process for WHR with his political history of vigorously defending a full Measure J process for Covell Village is not, in my mind, “vilification”; it did prompt questions since this was quite out of political character for Lamar. I simply do not remember a significant number of poster comments that could be defined as “vilification”.
If things had stopped at simply pointing out the inconsistencies, that would have been fine, but attributing those inconsistencies to funding his (anticipated) reelection campaign in June was where commentary stopped and vilification began. Neoprogressive Watcher and Disgusted chose to cross that line with regularity, and even on one occasion Ol’ Timer did as well.
I personally don’t mind being called inconsistent. I don’t take to being called venal anywhere near as well. I can’t imagine Lamar felt any differently.