People I am running into are still talking about the proposed commission consolidations, and there is both real anger and real frustration with the process. People are often willing to accept outcomes that they do not like if they perceive there to be a fair process.
But in this case, a subcommittee without public noticing or public hearing requirements came forward, not with an informational item, but with an action item to change drastically the way we run our commissions.
There are some legitimate concerns driving a very sweeping proposal. Concerns about staff time, resources, and money are legitimate. However, I believe there are other ways to deal with those issues than simply consolidating the commissions.
Commissions are, in fact, invaluable to the city. There is a natural tension between council and commissions because, despite all efforts, commissions are still independent bodies that largely think and function on their own. Oftentimes, commission members are fairly isolated from the council and council decisions.
Senior Housing
One example where the commission process worked well was following the emergence of a group call CHA. CHA, as most who read this site regularly know, is a group that was formed by the Covell Village developers with the purpose of fostering grassroots support to raise the issue of senior housing and ultimately create the support to approve the development of a large senior-only housing facility on the Covell Village site.
CHA has made several efforts to push this process forward, including getting approval for a committee that would look into the issue of senior housing – it would have been a stacked committee with membership from CHA, but that idea was ultimately scrapped.
Instead, we saw the Senior Citizen and Social Services Commissions working to develop senior housing guidelines for housing that serves seniors and persons with disabilities.
What emerged was not a document that would support a large senior-only housing development at Covell Village.
Instead, the commissions expressed support for “a variety of housing options that allow individuals to remain in their own homes, more commonly referred to as “aging-in-place.” Furthermore, the commissions placed importance on providing housing that can address the specific needs of seniors and persons with disabilities within the city’s general housing stock, while also recognizing the need for some specialized housing options.”
One of the points the Senior Citizens commission made in November of 2009 is that the implementation of a Universal Design requirement would “obviate the need for much of the proposed age-restricted senior housing. Such an ordinance would be in keeping with the preference of most seniors (89%, according to an AARP study) to age-in-place, in their own homes.”
CHA has repeatedly attempted to make the argument that “aging-in-place” means staying in the same town, not the same home.
The key needs for housing would include accessibility and visitability, which includes universal design features that would provide full access to housing for people with disabilities, whether aged or with disabilities; access to public transportation; affordability; and a variety of housing options.
While CHA has succeeded in getting the senior housing issue moved onto the forefront, they have not been successful in convincing the majority of seniors or other residents that an age-restricted large peripheral development is needed.
Senior housing is, of course, one example where commissions have been able to act both as a brake and to provide guidance to the council on hot-buttoned issues.
Wood Burning
Another example of commission product is the work that the Natural Resources Commission has done on wood burning. This has been a hot-buttoned issue for a long time, because there are two tensions. One is the people who are opposed to restrictions on wood burning because of their utilization of their fireplaces during the winter, either for heating or for aesthetics.
On the other hand are environmentalists and health advocates, concerned with the environmental and health impacts of wood burning.
In between is the fact that there are very real state and federal guidelines for the emissions of smoke-borne particulate matter in the air, and the tendency for it to concentrate in the Valley during winter months.
The council has had a few hearings that were contentious, but a lot of the hard background work has been done by the Natural Resources Commission. The Council is scheduled to take this issue up at the next meeting on October 5.
The NRC has again come forth with a proposal that attempts to put more teeth in the ordinance. The problem at this point, at least, is that the public really is not educated on this issue, they are not behind any sort of ban, and frankly the science is not settled on what needs to be done. However, again, there are still state and federal guidelines that we must meet.
Tom Cahill is an expert on air pollution and has served as an adviser to the city.
He argues that the current ordinance should be rejected in its current form.
Writes Dr. Cahill, “[the ordinance] has the unhappy distinction of being simultaneously too lenient and too stringent.”
“It’s too lenient in that it does not address a real issue we all agree upon – nearest-neighbor smoke in stagnant conditions,” he continues. “It’s too stringent in attempting to reduce citywide aerosol mass values by essentially shutting down all fireplaces and most Environmental Protection Agency-approved stoves all winter, to reduce mass concentrations that are regional in nature and not amenable to anything the city can do.”
Dr. Cahill argues that overall, the voluntary program worked. He writes, “This last winter saw a successful burn/no burn voluntary program from the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, based on the 77 percent reduction below the federal standard the city requested.”
However, complaint data also shows a problem as well. “These data also showed that many of the complaints were nearest-neighbor problems that must be addressed,” he writes. “I recommend that the council ask the Natural Resources Commission to address the real issue almost all of us agree upon – nearest-neighbor smoke emissions from persistent burners in stagnant (circa 1 mph) wind conditions. We should reinstitute the call-in line for smoke complaints, and evaluate those that may need urgent resolution as a public nuisance.”
As Dr. Cahill acknowledges, “this is tricky business , and as commissioners admit, ‘the published literature on wood smoke-related health effects is sparse.'”
However, he goes on to criticize the commission for ignoring “the Sacramento Valley wood smoke inventories that show Davis is a very minor source, and bypassed extensive literature on wood smoke, in favor of unpublished input from advocates.”
“Thus, the science upon which the proposed ordinance it is based is badly flawed, and risks putting Davis in a feel-good, bad-science box that will dilute our credibility on more important matters such as carbon control,” Dr. Cahill writes.
The bottom line is that this is a tricky issue, as Dr. Cahill is likely the first to acknowledge. The council cannot get bogged down in the fine details of the research and the ordinance. The commission likely saved, rather than cost staff time and they have devoted a huge amount of time trying to work to refine this.
And yet, the proposed commission revisions would combine the NRC with the Open Space and Tree Commissions. This would make it far more difficult that future commissions could attempt to deal with such time-comsuming, specific, and complicated matters. One suggestion was to put such work into subcommittees, but once you do that you lose the cost-saving aspect of it. It simply makes no sense.
The bottom line here is that these commissions are producing good work. Although we may not agree with everything they do and they may not get it all correct, there is a lot of work behind the scenes done by these volunteer bodies. If the council had to address the issues at each meeting, they would become bogged down with the minutiae. If staff had to do it, they too would be overwhelmed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “Senior housing is, of course, one example where commissions have been able to act both as a brake and to provide guidance to the council on hot-buttoned issues.”
The Senior Citizens Commission particularly provided guidance to City Staff on this issue. When City Staff was directed to develop a Senior Housing Strategy, Bob Wolcott came to our commission to get important feedback on the subject of senior housing. From there, more public input and city staff participation occurred, that included Katherine Hess and Danielle Foster. CHA and the Covell Village developers were there in force to give their views, as well as commissioners.
Ultimately almost all our commission’s views were incorporated into the Senior Housing Strategy, whereas CHA’s were not. City staff did an outstanding job on this project, in making sure to listen and incorporate what they considered valid information that would result in “smart growth”, taking into account all Davis citizen needs, including those other than seniors. The process was outstanding, with lots of opportunity for public input from all sides. Bob Wolcott was a stellar facilitator for the entire process.
The proponents of Covell Village Redux didn’t much like the process (and said so), and my understanding is there was severe pushback behind the scenes against the Senior Housing Strategy, but City Staff took courage in hand and stood their ground on principle. Our commission was asked to support City Staff’s position, which we readily and gladly agreed to do. Since the pushback was so intense, however, City Staff urged the Senior Commission to push forth its Senior Housing Guidelines as a stand alone document. Danielle Foster was a stellar advocate in assisting us with getting the Guidelines unanimously approved by the City Council.
The point I am trying to make here is that out commission provided tremendous assistance and expertise to City Staff in wending its way through the thorny issue of senior housing. I very much doubt City Staff considered it a waste of taxpayer’s money or their time to consult with our commission. In fact, taking this issue to our commission saved all the time and expense that a stand alone committee on the subject would have cost, which was the original idea proposed by the City Council.
dmg: “The bottom line here is that these commissions are producing good work. Although we may not agree with everything they do and they may not get it all correct, there is a lot of work behind the scenes done by these volunteer bodies. If the council had to address the issues at each meeting, they would become bogged down with the minutiae. If staff had to do it, they too would be overwhelmed.
This is exactly the crux of the issue. Any amount of time and money spent on commissions leverages a tremendous amount of professional expertise and other assets/dollars/jobs coming into the city. As has been pointed out by some commenters on this blog:
1) The Tree Commission brings in thousands of dollars in grant money that the city would not otherwise receive if it did not have a stand alone Tree Commission.
2) If an owner of an historical building wants to make a change, it has to apply to a state agency if there is no stand alone city Historical Resources Management Commission.
3) Because of the work of the Human Relations Commission, we were able to greatly improve strained relations between the Davis Police Dept. and Davis citizens.
4) Because of the Senior Citizens Commission, we will have a new assisted living facility that will provide a dementia wing for the frail elderly with Alzhieimer’s Disease, and bring in 100 new jobs to Davis.
I have no doubt each commission can point to their own successes in provided outstanding service to the community that otherwise would not have occurred without their particular commission. These commissions are in existence for very good reason. Volunteer commissioners sacrifice their time free of charge to make their city a much better place to live, and citizens are reaping the benefit of these commissioners’ collective efforts.
That is not to say commissions get it right every time; nor is it saying commissions have a final say – they serve at the pleasure of the City Council who has the ultimate say on every issue – the City Council members are the final arbitors. However, commissions have a responsibility to act independently of the City Council, and give as objective an opinion as possible within the confines of their mission. They act as a check and balance on the absolute power of the City Council, to try and make sure the City Council gets a chance to hear all sides of an issue. As was said by Mayor Ruth Asmundson, the commissions act as the “eyes and ears of the City Council”, to learn what citizens really think about things.
I will repeat a suggestion made by Don Shor, that we have one more commission, a Youth Commission that would represent the interests of our students and young people, who don’t have a voice on the City Council. At a recent CC meeting, one UCD student representative complained about students being left out of the governance process in Davis, even though UCD students represent a sizeable portion of the population. Recently the after school homework program had to scramble to gather monetary support from the city to survive, because youth have no representation on the City Council. Something to think about…
There was a Youth Substance Abuse Commision through at least the early 1990’s. Lea Rosenberg was chair around then. I don’t know when or why it went away.
There was a nice editorial in the Davis Enterprise in support of keeping the Human Relations Commission…