Lucas Frerichs, currently the Chair of the City of Davis Planning Commission. has long been active in Davis city and community involvement. Now he becomes the fifth known candidate for the Davis City Council, as he joins Brett Lee in challenging the three incumbents Sue Greenwald, Stephen Souza and Dan Wolk for three available seats on the city council.
“I have served our community for more than 12 years in volunteer leadership capacities,” said Mr. Frerichs in a Sunday evening press release. “Now is the time for new vision, experience, and direction for the City of Davis. We stand at the threshold of a new era in city-state financing, investment in city infrastructure, sustainable budgeting, environmental planning and community caring. I want to lead us into that era prepared and ahead of the game.”
Mr. Frerichs’s press release cites current service on both the Planning Commission (2008-current-Chair/2012) as well as the Innovation Park Task Force (2011-current). Previously he served on the Social Services Commission for four years (2004-2008-Chair/2008), as well on the city’s General Plan Housing Element Update Steering Committee for two years (2007-08).
He also notes an “extensive community service” record, which also includes membership on the Board of Directors of the Yolo Basin Foundation, Davis Media Access, Saving California Communities, California Center for Cooperative Development, Acme Theatre Company and serving as the elected Treasurer of the Yolo County Democratic Party.
“Davis is one of the most livable and environmentally aware communities in California,” said Mr. Frerichs, “but we can do better. I know I can play a role in ensuring that we preserve what is best about Davis and lead us into the future with new, cutting edge practical policies.”
“Davis has a quality of life which is sought after by other cities throughout the nation, and many key attributes such as the vibrant downtown, US Bicycling Hall of Fame, a world-class Farmers Market, a nationally recognized Food Co-op, protected open space, and countless recreational opportunities for all ages, make this an unparalleled place to live and work. Moreover, Davis is an excellent community in which to raise a family,” he added.
Mr. Frerichs said, “Additionally, I will work in a collaborative way to strengthen the city’s ties with the university. There are many common goals that both institutions share and by working together, we can ensure they become a reality.”
In his professional life, Mr. Frerichs, 32, is a Senior Policy Consultant for the California State Assembly, and works on natural resources issues, including water, agriculture, recycling and renewable energy policy.
Mr. Frerichs served on the Board of Directors of the Davis Food Co-op, one of the city’s largest private employers, for nine years, from 1999-2008. He served as Board President from 2003-2005 and helped guide the Co-op, the downtown’s anchor grocery store, through the approval and financing of a $4 million re-model and expansion.
A long-time affordable housing advocate, Frerichs served on the Board of Directors of the Yolo Mutual Housing Association from 2000-2008. As Board Chairman from 2005 to 2008, Mr. Frerichs led the effort to build over 200 units of much-needed permanently affordable housing throughout Davis and Yolo County.
“My service and experience on both the Davis Food Co-op and the Yolo Mutual Housing Association board of directors has given me useful tools to guide Davis into a new era,” Mr. Frerichs said, “including hands-on budgeting, and employee contract negotiation skills, as well as project management experience. These skills, together with years of city commission experience, shape the core of the vision I have for the city.”
Lucas Frerich, and his wife Stacie Frerichs, along with several friends which include former Mayor Mike Corbett, co-built an infill project in Central Davis in 2008. “The Davis community has regularly engaged in a discussion about creating housing through infill projects. My wife and I have put words into action, and we’re making our best attempt to live the principles we strongly believe.”
The Vanguard spoke to Lucas Frerichs on Sunday evening with regard to three burning issues – the surface water project, the budget and land use.
“I support the surface water project,” Mr. Frerichs told the Vanguard. “I think it’s important to have a diverse set of options for water.”
“I think it’s foolish to not think about Yolo County’s future,” he said. “We definitely need to explore and move forward with the surface water project. The question still remains how we do that, though.”
“One thing that is troubling to me as we move forward is how much of a publicly owned utility that it ends up being,” Mr. Frerichs added. “Something akin to SMUD for electricity or East Bay Municipal Utility District for water in the East Bay, those are both two long histories of public utilities that have done things very well by their membership that publicly owns them.”
“That’s a model I’m more interested in, rather than just the DBOF – the Design-Build-Operate-Finance model that is being pursued,” he said.
He also said he is very concerned about the potential rate hikes.
“We are in very rough economic times and it’s not easy for everybody to just have major rate hikes be imposed upon them,” he said, but added that people need to be mindful of conservation.
“One of my absolute top priorities is making sure that we have a sustainable budget,” Mr. Frerich responded to a question from the Vanguard regarding his view of the current budget process.
“There are long-term structural issues that exist,” he said. “I think we need to ensure our city’s long-term sustainability.”
He also added that we need additional revenue in this city, he said noting that “local governments are funded by and large through sales tax dollars” and he was concerned about “sales tax leakage in this community to other cities,” although he argued that “we don’t necessarily have to go the route of additional big box to achieve keeping those sales tax dollars intact.”
He cited the Border’s book site as a “great example of how the city lost an opportunity – we could have pushed the owner of the shopping center, Mark Friedman, and been more forceful and worked with him on trying to have a different tenant in that former retail space, rather than Whole Foods, which would have generated additional sales tax.”
The Vanguard also pushed Lucas Frerichs on whether he would have supported the council’s previous budget, which would have taken $2.5 million from employee compensation and shifted it to pay for priorities such as road maintenance and unfunded needs and liabilities.
“I’m generally supportive of that notion,” he said. “When that decision was made, we were in the middle of contracts with some of the various labor groups and public employees’ unions and I think that there needs to be an attitude of wanting to sit down at the table and really discuss and collaborate on some of these things rather than just entering negotiations in an adversarial way.”
“That’s certainly not to say that public employees groups will end up with everything that they’re asking for,” he quickly added.
On land use, he argued “I definitely think we should be focusing our growth inward – especially infill sites – I think there are a lot of opportunities for additional infill and densification and there are a lot of lofts around the city where that can happen.”
“I think the city needs to be much more innovative in terms of some of these types of programs… I think the city needs to pursue a pre-approved second unit program,” he said citing a model from the City of Santa Cruz.
He also spoke specifically to the Cannery property issue. He noted that he had served on the Housing Element Steering Committee back in 2007 to 2008 which examined the appropriateness of development for a number of sites in and around Davis.
He noted that the group rarely agreed on many things, but one thing it did agree on “was that the Cannery site was more appropriate for housing than industrial.”
He also said that “we did push that that site be separately planned from the site to the east [namely Covell Village].”
As mentioned, Mr. Frerichs joins what is becoming a crowded race, with five candidates including three incumbents for three seats. The election will be held in June and the filing period opens this week and closes around March 19.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Steve Souza: meet your replacement. He is well known, liked by many, and like you, Brett, and Dan, is all for the surface water project.
Tons of people are going to vote only for Sue Greenwald, who was the lone NO vote on September 6 against the fraudulent rates.
Mr. Frerichs’ credentials are impressive…
What was his infill project? Vwhat is his position on non-infill growth?
“I think it’s foolish to not think about Yolo County’s future,”
Is “Yolo County’s future” to be increasing residential sprawl or a strong viable agriculture? Allocation of water resources will largely determine this future. Candidate Wolk,Lee and Freirichs’ public positions to-date are long on safe general platitudes that attempt to straddle both sides of the fence on important upcoming policy issues and short on clear answers. Without a clear public record to assess, this is troubling if we are to be able to assess what their political direction will be if they gain a seat on our Council.
I don’t know where Mike Harrington gets his information, but his claim that Brett Lee supports the surface water project is patently untrue.
Brett has said that we do need surface water- but that he is not for the project as currently proposed. He wrote an article for the Enterprise laying out the basis for an alternate proposal.
AND – as far as Sue being a champion for the “no” contingent, she has stated on this blog that she did not support the referendum. She votes “no” on the surface water project but has a chance to undo the majority decision but doesn’t take it?
Of the 3 incumbents and 2 challengers, only Brett Lee has gone on record supporting the referendum. As for the other CC candidates, my sense is they do support the surface water project as currently proposed. I would like to hear from them if I am wrong.
2cowherd: Don’t take my word for it. Read Brett’s 3-4 pieces in the DE and Blog. He concludes Davis needs the river water. I was shocked to see those articles, written and published with no input from anyone I know. I pulled my endorsement, and was very sorry to do it because I like Brett in many ways. But in the end, how is he going to vote up there on the dais? From the articles, just like Dan, Steve and Lucas. And if he wants to be on the CC, there is a team here, and from the perspective of many, he unilaterally hauled off and published those articles. Where was his campaign manager in all of this?
Lucas has a long record of public service to his credit. Since he is a member of the Peripheral Innovation Park Task Force, he probably should answer whether he believes Measure R should be modified (some might say weakened…).
The following is from some of the minutes of the Task Force:
[i]”Consider redo of Measure R requirements, (originally designed to limit housing
projects) to eliminate applicability to projects with job generation focus; exempt
tech related innovation park – for projects creating some established minimum job
creation threshold, and possibly maximum building and land areas that could be
phased in
Consider establishing magnitude of size of area exempted in Measure R to allow
projects to apply directly
Provide direction to staff re: how to structure, e.g. up to _____acres and ____ sq.
ft. of development for purposes of (job creation) exempt from Measure R”[/i]
I think it would be important to know if he supports these possible modifications. Obviously the other candidates should answer that question as well, but Lucas is directly involved in the discussions.
As usual, good points Don!
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”2cowherd: Don’t take my word for it. Read Brett’s 3-4 pieces in the DE and Blog. He concludes Davis needs the river water. I was shocked to see those articles, written and published with no input from anyone I know. I pulled my endorsement, and was very sorry to do it because I like Brett in many ways. But in the end, how is he going to vote up there on the dais? From the articles, just like Dan, Steve and Lucas. And if he wants to be on the CC, there is a team here, and from the perspective of many, he unilaterally hauled off and published those articles. Where was his campaign manager in all of this?”[/i]
Mike, candidate Greenwald has also very publicly and often said she is in favor of surface water. Her question is one of timing because of the debt burden overlap created by simultaneously doing both the water and wastewater projects. Brett Lee’s position has every appearance of being similar to Sue’s . . . fiscal responsibility.
That is a far cry from your position, which appears to be “all emotion, all the time.”
You can see the candidate in action by viewing some past Davis Planning Commission videos here: http://cityofdavis.org/media/ , although seems to have videos back only to Dec 2011. Does anyone know where one might get access to videos of earlier meetings?
[i]On land use, he argued “I definitely think we should be focusing our growth inward – especially infill sites – I think there are a lot of opportunities for additional infill and densification and there are a lot of lofts around the city where that can happen.”[/i]
Speaking of infill, the new “affordable” housing project at Drummond Avenue and Cowell Boulevard (right next to I-80) has now been framed up. I drove by it yesterday.
[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZkxPKFDqVec/TzllXuk7IWI/AAAAAAAAAiY/Cmtck3fWlpA/s400/cowell+and+drummond.bmp[/img]
SODA… I believe that the “infill project” is Shepherd’s Close… east side of B Street, opposite Shepherds Lane…
[quote]Mike Harrington re: Brett Lee: And if he wants to be on the CC, there is a team here, and from the perspective of many, he unilaterally hauled off and published those articles. Where was his campaign manager in all of this?[/quote]
I like the fact that Brett Lee is speaking his own mind. I would hope that a campaign manager manages the campaign and not the candidate. The fact that Brett isn’t (in Mike Harrington’s view) following a “team” line or stepping to the orders of handlers improves my view of him.
I like Lucas Frerichs and hope that he also calls his own shots and speaks his own mind.
Here’s his web page:
[url]http://www.lucasforcitycouncil.org/[/url]
Lucas is too limited in his approach to growth if you ask me, but, he is still better than one of the sitting members of the council who has clearly been sitting for too long. Lucas has also been around for long enough that he isn’t some out of the blue newcomer. What I like about the candidate selection is that there are lots of younger people running. I think it is time that there are younger voices representing the community. I sure hope that young people realize the ways the old in this town are keeping you down and vote for generational change.
Thx Rich for the aerial of the New Harmony project status in South Davis. I drive by it daily and it appears to be more massive daily. What do you think and wonder what Lucas and the PC members think.
I believe it is an affordable project so wonder how the rules on this one will be made/followed.
SODA-South Davis
[i]”What do you think and wonder what Lucas and the PC members think?”[/i]
I hope that Neighborhood Partners is not a part of it.
[quote]Candidate Wolk,Lee and Freirichs’ public positions to-date are long on safe general platitudes that attempt to straddle both sides of the fence on important upcoming policy issues and short on clear answers. Without a clear public record to assess, this is troubling if we are to be able to assess what their political direction will be if they gain a seat on our Council.[/quote]
Exactly. if you were a candidate would you come up with unpopular positions?
Matt: all emotion ? Like, uh, the fraudulent rates we stopped? Not one staff member has been disciplined yet
Matt: with all the data you collect , you just never seem to connect the dots
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: all emotion ? Like, uh, the fraudulent rates we stopped? Not one staff member has been disciplined yet.”[/i]
Disciplined for what Michael? Disciplined for putting the following information in the September 6, 2011 Staff Report. Note especially the bolded sentences at the end. Where is the fraud?
—————————————————-
[b]STAFF REPORT[/b]
DATE: September 6, 2011
TO: City Council
FROM: Robert A. Clarke, Interim Public Works Director Jacques DeBra, Utilities Manager
SUBJECT: Utility Rates Approval
[u][b]Recommendation[/b][/u]
1. Hold a Public Hearing
2. Conduct final count of protests and determine if there is a majority protest for one or more of the proposed utilities
3. If there is no majority protest, take the following actions to establish rates effective December 1, 2011:
_ _ a. Approve Resolution Establishing Customer Rates for Sanitation Services (one year rate), consistent with the rates published in the Proposition 218 Notice of Public Hearing
_ _ b. Approve Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 6 to the Agreement with Davis Waste Removal Company, Inc. for Waste RemovalServices
_ _ c. Introduce Ordinance Amending Chapter 33.04.050 (a) and (b) of the Municipal Code Relating to Sewer Rates (five year rates), consistent with the rates published in the Proposition 218 Notice of Public Hearing
_ _ d. Introduce Ordinance Amending Chapter 39 of the Municipal Code Related to Water Rates and to Increase the Base Rates and Metered Rates (five year rates), at the revised recommended level below those published in the Proposition 218 Notice of Public Hearing
[u][b]Fiscal Impact – Summary[/b][/u]
Five year water and sewer rates, and one year sanitation rates, are proposed to generate revenues required to replace and upgrade utility infrastructure and continue providing garbage disposal service and recycling programs to ratepayers. Utility rate changes would be effective December 1, 2011 and overall customer utility rate impacts are summarized herein.
[i]Water Utility[/i]
Current water utility rates yield annual revenues of $10.5 million supporting operations and maintenance, capital investments and existing debt. The proposed water rates are projected to result in annual revenues up to $20 million by Year 5. This level of annual revenues is primarily required to fund increased debt service costs for the proposed Surface Water Project and related capital improvements, as well as increased costs of operations of the City’s wells (due to wellhead treatment) and regional water facilities.
Overall revenues requirements are projected to increase by 100% over the five-year period, with the average single-family residential customer experiencing an increase in their monthly cost of water from $34.75 to $77.18 in Year 5. [b]These estimated monthly water bill impacts assume an overall 20% reduction in single family residential water consumption over the five-year period. Customers with below average water use now will experience lower-than-average monthly water bill impacts, while customers with above average water use would see higher than average monthly water bill impacts. The individual water bill impact will vary depending on a customer’s current water use and their future conservation efforts during the five year period.[/b]
[i]Fraud
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant’s actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.[/i]
So Michael, given the black and white of the Staff Report above, (1) what false statement of material fact did Staff make? (2) what untrue statement should Staff have had knowledge of? (3) what evidence is there of any intent on Staff’s part to deceive when the clearly put the bolded words from the Staff Report into black and white in perpetuity? (4) how did you rely on the bolded statement in the Staff Report? (5) what injury did Staff’s disclosure in the Staff Report cause you, or any other Davis resident?
Five simple questions. I look forward to five simple answers.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: with all the data you collect , you just never seem to connect the dots.”[/i]
That is because the dots are only connected in your emotion-driven imagination.
[quote]”Thx Rich for the aerial of the New Harmony project status in South Davis. I drive by it daily and it appears to be more massive daily. What do you think and wonder what Lucas and the PC members think. I believe it is an affordable project so wonder how the rules on this one will be made/followed.”[/quote]Agree, SODA. I’ve become so disillusioned with the last 25 years of “affordable housing” schemes, how they’ve determined eligibility, how the city abdicates after deciding to dump in tax money, how a few people got windfall profits, but I digress….
Is this new development a condo apartment operation by chance, since everybody has been pushing apartments over single-family dwellings? Maybe this will solve the need for worker housing in Davis? Where can we see the plans, promotion materials, eligibility requirements, etc.?
SODA said: Thx Rich for the aerial of the New Harmony project status in South Davis. I drive by it daily and it appears to be more massive daily. What do you think and wonder what Lucas and the PC members think.
I believe it is an affordable project so wonder how the rules on this one will be made/followed.
SODA-South Davis
Hi SODA-
As was mentioned in the story about my council run, I was on the Board of DIrectors of the YMHA (affordable housing non-profit), which with my assistance, merged with Sacramento Mutual Housing Association in 2008. Their website is here : [url]http://www.mutualhousing.com/[/url]
During the time I was on the Board (from 2000-08) we built 4 projects in Davis, for a total of 200 units of affordable housing (apartments).
The New Harmony sight (which I voted with the Planning Commission majority to approve in the end of 2008), is just being built now, due to the downturn in the economy.
These are rental apartments only, and I’m not entirely sure of the income make up (usually, affordable housing is built with income restrictions as a % of county AMI (Area Median Income).
The figures from the past few years had a AMI for Yolo County (family of four) at about $60,000 per year.
So, oftentimes, income in these developments will range from 30% of AMI (very low income) up to 120% of AMI (slightly above avg income).
You can find additional project data here for New Harmony:
[url]http://www.mutualhousing.com/communities/new_developments.htm[/url]
Happy to discuss further…
In cooperation-
Lucas
@ Barbara King-
I’ve sent an email to city staff to see why there are so few PC meetings available via video archive.
@ Rifkin-
Neighborhood Partners is not a part of the New Harmony project.