This week we had a chance to look at various positions taken by the three candidates for Yolo County Board of Supervisors on a variety of issues, many of them relating to the environment. As supervisors, of course, they won’t necessarily play a huge role in some of the land use issues, but it does give us a sense on where they are coming from.
For instance, other than perhaps negotiating a tax share agreement, the Board of Supervisors will not play much of a role in the Aggie Research Campus. However, it does give the public a sense for where they are coming down on key land use issues.
The most favorable to the project was probably Jim Provenza, who could not take a position. He noted that “issues related to taxes, annexation, and mitigation will come before the Board of Supervisors if the project is approved by the city council and the voters. It is important that I consider information from all sides before deciding.”
He added, “While I support economic development, I have concerns about the project and have raised these concerns to the developer and the city.”
In his answer he laid out concerns about farmland: the benefits of the project should outweigh the loss of farmland; mitigation should be real and require permanent protection of other farmland of equal or better quality in the county; and the land designated for permanent protection must be actually threatened with development. Also he mentioned traffic, housing, and tax sharing.
David Abramson expressed concerns about the environment but did not take an overt position on the project, writing, “Let’s look at all of the climate and community impacts. We are at a moment where the City of Davis has declared a climate emergency, and recognizes the need to offer a just transition towards a green economy. How does new development either help or hinder that goal?”
He argued: “I think any project of this size should be carbon-neutral and include the requisite affordable housing units built. We need to create supportive pathways for carbon-neutral, transit-
oriented, and equitable development.”
Finally, Linda Deos was decidedly against the project.
“I don’t support ARC at this time,” she writes. “I need to see more traffic studies and less parking spaces. I also don’t want the developers to get credit for open space by using City-owned land. My other concern is the type of housing that will be built. What the County needs built are smaller (affordable by design) multi-family units; not more single-family homes.”
I don’t read that quite as a definitive no from Ms. Deos, but it is close.
On Measure R itself, all three candidates were supportive of Measure J/R.
Jim Provenza specified: “I support Measure J/R in its current form. County land on the periphery of Davis is mostly farmland. A decision to develop it for other purposes should not be made lightly. Any loss must be fully mitigated. I trust the voters to decide.”
Again, except as voters, they will not play any sort of role on Measure R’s renewal.
Where they will play a larger role is on agricultural land preservation.
David Abramson noted, “Yolo County is unique in that sprawl is very much limited and development of cities are directed to infill within the cities. I am very grateful that Yolo County has protected farmland and development of natural lands, and I will continue to fight for open space preservation and infill development.”
Jim Provenza said he was responsible for Yolo County’s three to one mitigation for the loss of farmland, which he called “one of the toughest in the state.”
He added, “Unlike the City of Davis ordinance, it does not permit stacking of agricultural and habitat easements. Enforcement of this ordinance will help us to protect farmland in the future.”
Linda Deos in part responded, “I believe it is critical that we ensure that rural counties like Yolo that have committed to preserving farmland and avoiding sprawl, are fairly compensated by the state.”
It is interesting – a few years ago the big issue facing the county was whether there would be county-supported housing development. In 2007 especially the county was proposing creating study areas on the border of the city of Davis, but that generated huge pushback and ultimately the county backed down and the issue has largely disappeared.
For the most part, on land use issues, there do not seem to be huge differences between the candidates.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Nah, I read their responses somewhat differently: Provenza and Deos describe a lot of conditions and communications with the developers:
From Provenza:
Imagine: “My concerns about the project have been resolved with the developer and the City: The benefits of the project will outweigh the loss of farmland. There is real mitigation and permanent protection of farmland elsewhere has been guaranteed, all my other concerns have been addressed”
From Deos:
Imagine “Deos was provided with traffic studies that satisfied her about the impacts of the proposed development, and appreciates a reduction in planned parking spaces, and an increased number of multi-family buildings.”
But from Abramson, isn’t it a bit different? He says:
He argued:
While this could indeed get resolved in his opinion by some vastly different design, Abramson’s the only one of the three who puts the proposed project in context of the City’s official emergency declaration on climate and the larger… really, the global economy, as well as high standards related to carbon neutrality and less dependence on cars (by design)* and equity, which should really always be “Equity”, i.e. the starting point for Everything.
Abramson is probably asking us if these goals are possible to achieve with a peripheral project that’s FOD** – freeway-oriented development. FOD means not only 1) Extremely-close highway access and a zippy ride outside of congested hours from a very large area, but also 2) thousands and thousands of parking spaces at the destination which from I’ve seen so far are going to be free of explicit, direct fees, 3) the extreme likelihood of “free” parking on the home side of the trip and 4) Lack of competition from alternatives (in this case, no guarantee of anything but a two-step train + shuttle, which may only be appealing to people from cities west of Davis, who will always drive if they can, and if it’s faster than the train).
* What should be more explicit from Abramson – and obviously from the various declaring-entities – is if “carbon neutrality” is inclusive of transportation impacts (e.g. DJUSD has made a climate declaration but has rejected suggestions to renew bus surfaces for elementary schoolers not served by Unitrans, doesn’t support lowering the entry threshold of bike share and doesn’t intend to make the holy school drop-off/pick-up a less-protected religious activity).
** Something similar to FOD can also explain why shopping centers in Davis have a very low bicycle modal share despite available bicycle parking and reasonable bicycle access to most: The parking is free of direct fees, a tiny minority of bikes in Davis can actually carry more than one shopping bag easily…).
1) FOD doesn’t have to be peripheral as shown by many examples in Davis and more so in larger cities.
2) In the last footnote it should be “CAR parking is free of direct fees…”.
Your analysis regarding the differences between the candidates seems accurate.
It would be nice if one of them simply said, “no – I don’t support it”.
Why would that be “nice” Ron?
Or, as Provenza pointed up, even “appropriate”… maybe that some in the US Senate have gone on record saying how they’ll vote in their deliberations, before the matter even coming before the body, is very inappropriate… but probably honest.
But not “nice”.
I understand your point – as candidates for supervisor.
I was looking at it from a more “personal” point of view – e.g., “I don’t personally support it, but would work to ensure the best outcome regarding whatever the voters decide. And, here’s the concerns I would have, as supervisor . . .”
And frankly, some of those concerns would not be able to be addressed by that point. So, I’m not sure why they’re even mentioned.
Isn’t it a whole lot easier to just say “I don’t personally support the proposal”?
And actually, Linda Deos literally stated the following (from above):
Are there any “concerns” from Matt or Bill, regarding that statement? Or, did you not notice it?
And frankly, it sounds (from the comments cited above) like Abramson *might* support an entirely different proposal than any of the alternatives in the EIR.
Seems to me that this is pretty close to, “no, I don’t support the proposal, but I might support an entirely different one”. (But, his response is a little unclear.)
For context, I’m wondering what “question” was asked, which resulted in these statements. I’m not seeing it in the article. And, whether or not Matt or Bill think the question itself was “appropriate”.
Perhaps Bill in particular might want to reconsider his comment. It’s not an “impeachment trial”.
Noticed it. Can’t/won’t speak for Matt…
To which Ron responded,
No, I do not consider it necessary to reconsider my comment… particularly when you “quote” a text I never posted.
Matt can speak for himself… I have great respect for his thoughts and words, even when we disagree, even strongly at several points, on several matters. Perhaps why we have become friends… we have respect for each other. Cool concept…
Oh, as to,
Wonder away… your privilege… “Wonder Bread” was all the rage 60+ years ago… ” built strong bodies 12 ways”…
Am noting, though, if you wonder what question was asked, your asking if Matt or Bill if the question was “appropriate” seems a bit silly, at best.
It’s so much easier when your quote is on the same page as your denial.
Normally, one would not write an article which has responses to “unlisted” questions. Don’t you agree?