By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – Reasonable people can disagree on policy goals. That is the very foundation of our system of governance. It is why we need to have free and open elections to elect representative bodies and why we need to have vigorous and open public discussions and debates.
One thing that is underappreciated is that a fair and open process creates trust, whereas an unfair process, where those in the minority perceive the deck being stacked against them, creates distrust.
Last weekend I made the point that the city’s Housing Element Committee needs to be more inclusive of both sides of the room. There are two main advantages for a more equitable body of people serving on the committee.
First, by allowing for a wider range of viewpoints, problems can be better anticipated and shortcomings with the plan better mitigated.
The second is that by creating a more procedurally fair body, you engender trust.
Let me present just one example of this. One idea that has come out of the Housing Element process is the idea of pre-approvals. I have pitched this idea on a number of occasions. It is 
permissible under the current rules of Measure J. Basically it would allow properties to be designated as exempt for future Measure J votes.
In order to do this, the proposal itself requires a vote of the public. This would allow the city to list a number of properties that could be considered by the public, the public votes for them, and if the public approves the vote, the city would then engage in the normal planning process.
The advantage: first, it would allow the city to plan more holistically rather than project by project. Second, it would create more certainty for the developers who could then design the best possible project rather than necessarily one that could receive voter approval. Third, it allows the city to plan how much housing it can accommodate over the next planning period, and proceed accordingly.
But, as Eileen Samitz noted, there are concerns here as well.
She said, “Another very concerning issue is the concept proposed of the City having an ‘initiative’ to exempt the Wildhorse Farm and the property inside of the Mace Curve Signature.
“While the pitch for this was for ‘streamlining’ more development, the reality is that this is clearly an ‘end run’ around Measure J/R/D.”
She continued, “So, Davis citizens need to understand that if they support an initiative like this they would have no say on what got built on these properties. It would basically be a ‘blank check’ for the developers of those properties to build anything without the public having any meaningful input.”
Among her concerns: “For instance, it could mean more mega-dorms or more McMansions on these parcels, neither of which help to provide housing for our average workforce or families.
“Further, seven story buildings may be approved next to one story buildings and other types of incompatible development because it would be completely open-ended development that could allow crappy projects.”
She added, “The whole point of Measure J (now Measure D) is for the public to have some meaningful input and the leverage to get well-planned projects when either ag land or open space is being developed.”
None of these are unrealistic concerns. But they are concerns that can be addressed in the process.
By having people like Eileen Samitz and others who share her views, some of these problems can be anticipated and even addressed.
One of the reasons I like the pre-approval process is that, far from being an end-run around Measure J—you can’t end-run Measure J—it is actually something that requires no changes to the current laws.
Instead, whatever you decide to do must meet voter approval. So if the plan is too vague or akin to a blank check, the voters, as we have seen, will simply vote no.
But it doesn’t have to be a blank check. With a Measure J process, you have baseline features. In a pre-approval you don’t have the specificity you would have in a final Measure J vote, but you can lay out parameters.
For example, you would want to set a maximum number of units. You would want to set a maximum density and FAR. That would avoid concerns about seven-story buildings and “mega-dorms.” You could include sustainability baselines as well. You could limit the size of the units or the number of bedrooms. Anything you can stick into a project baseline feature, you can do in the pre-approval.
Would Eileen support the city creating a pre-approval on the area under the Mace Curve, which sets a maximum number of units, stipulates nothing over three stories (for example) and would preclude student housing (just to use an example)? I can’t speak for her, but it is certainly possible. She is far more likely to if she is engaged from the start, rather than feeling like the city is making an end-run around process.
Having spoke to planning folks, such a process would have to include some sort of EIR as well. So there would be a full public process—the only thing we would not have is a final design and plan. That would come after the pre-approval.
Maybe that is something the voters would approve. Perhaps not.
My point here is having the full discussion up front, hearing both sides (or more than two if there are any) of an issue, and attempting to address and mitigate concerns is a better way forward.
There may be some issues where two sides are diametrically opposed, and that’s fine. That’s why we have elections and votes. But there may also be areas of common ground that allow us to move forward in a less confrontational manner, because we worked together up front and gave everyone a stake in the process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Doesn’t Measure D in its current form create more certainty that the developers will have to design the best possible project in order to get the voters to pass it? IMO what’s being attempted here is an end around Measure D.
The voters have to approve it either way. There is no end around.
Under the current Measure D process the voters get to see much more of the final product plans before they make a decision with their vote. Do you not agree?
Yes. On the other hand, this allows the city to plan holistically. They can map out which areas to consider for housing rather than go project by project. Opponents can focus on the overall picture rather than fighting each time a project gets on the ballot. It’s a tradeoff.
“They” can do that currently. That is to purpose of a General Plan. Unfortunately we have a grossly out of date General Plan, as well as a City Planning ethos that each application needs to be handled a Planned Development irrespective of its Land Use designation in the General Plan.
What you are proposing is simply another piecemeal, half-a$$ed bandaid for a City that has no clearly articulated Vision of where it wants to go (what kind of community it wants to be, and how it will pay for the costs/expenses that being that kind of community incurs). A past Chair of the Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) once described Davis as “a community that has promised itself a very rich and broad suite of services, but with a wallet that is unable to pay for all those services.”
Bob Leland’s January 2020 presentation to the FBC showed a 20-year unfunded shortfall (“Gap” on his slide) of $258 million. That 20-year total is just under $13 million per year, which is the price tag for the promised services that the City is unable to pay for.
Since January 2020 two unfunded big ticket “promises” have been added to the $258 million … the reconstruction of the Mace Mess, estimated to be at least $3 million … and the new Ladder Truck annual operating expenses of between $645,000 and $1.26 million each year (adding between $13 million and $25 million to the $258 million).
Is the City’s Vision for itself to continue to be “a community that has promised itself a very rich and broad suite of services, but with a wallet that is unable to pay for all those services”? What is the City’s Vision?
Now, we get to the crux… “control”… and who has it:
Some of these are mutually exclusive… elected representatives means they were elected by a majority (not a minority) of their electors… voters, when they act, act as a majority, not a minority…
The process, as it exists, and seemingly as proposed, is so JeRkeD, it is comical, and somewhat tragic… it assumes that any proposal can be all things to all people, and results in the ultimate “spanking machine”… or, for the BANANAS, a ‘god-send’…
It asserts that there is no such thing as property rights, except to the extent that it satisfies both the majority (votes/representatives) and the minority (for ‘fairness’ and to instill ‘trust’)…
Hope someone has a ‘philosopher’s stone’… to turn lead into gold, and perhaps, back again…
You are asking lay people to predict and vote on criteria that will disallow them from objecting in the future, instead of letting them vote according to the actual plan they can see in the future.
A different way to deal with development decision:
Suppose a city controls 100 units of land and the voters vote on how many % they want it developed, and the result is 25%. Then 25% of that land can be developed.
The next time the same vote comes around, the vote is still about the same 100 units of land, but 25 of them are already marked as developed. To develop further, the vote result needs to be higher than 25%.
The difference between this and the ordinary way of voting is that it is not winner-takes-all. (A simple majority does not have total control of a public resource against the minority.) And it avoids “death by a thousand papercuts” (A minority is repeatedly award a minority and exclusive control that could eventually accumulate to a majority control.)
Bingo! That’s the plan.
Our whole government is built around representative democracy in which we elect our representatives with preapproval to pursue specific policies, whether they are corporate tax cuts, restricting immigration or appointing pro-life, pro-gun judges. We don’t have full electoral votes on specific issues because voters cannot be well informed about all of those issues without becoming full time policy experts. Giving preapproval for potential projects that meet a clear set of criteria is no different when we delegate this responsibility to elected representatives. If the majority of citizens thought stopping growth in Davis was the most important issue, then they would elect Council members who represent that viewpoint. Those candidates have not fared well for some time. Direct democracy on everything isn’t the answer unless your sole objective is to gum up everything that we might do. (Which is the political philosophy of those who believe that we have no community obligations except to themselves.)
An excellent argument on why to get rid of Measure JRD, and we all know how that went.
Actually, thank you for getting to the crux of the matter, Edgar… I’d reword it slightly…
Arguably violates 5th amendment to US Constitution, as to an implied ‘taking’, and likely other law… zoning, under the process of law, is valid… in my view, the JeRkeD process skates on the very edge of constitutionality… irrespective of good public policy…
Next perhaps we should require a vote on what crops/plantings one should be allowed on another’s land… what cultivation methods are used, what the quality of the produce is… similar thing, constitutionally…
End around or straight up the middle. Who cares? Nothing ever gets built under Measures J, R and now D. So who is going to pay for such an election and the truncated planning process you suggest?For no growth its been a total success. Twenty plus years and counting. Yet you still want to believe that this process can somehow work. What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over and getting a different result.
Two projects so far have been approved by the voters.
Two projects in twenty plus years, and so far, neither has started construction.
Not only that, but the city has acknowledged they don’t have enough land to meet the RHNA requirements.
From the Draft Housing Element – ” “The City does not currently contain enough vacant land appropriately zoned for the development of the housing necessary to meet the City’s estimated housing needs for the period between 2021 and 2029″
Even Eileen acknowledged this – “the City does not even have enough land for traditional housing”
We don’t have enough land primarily BECAUSE Measure JRD prevents us from reasonably converting peripheral land to urban use. The gig is up. Even Eileen tacitly acknowledges it. Keith is kidding himself perhaps, but the record proves the fallacy of his point.
Every city along the coast and in the mountains (which aren’t expanding their boundaries) have to deal with the same type of requirements. (The majority of the populated areas in California.)
For Davis, the real question is whether or not the megadorms will “count” toward RHNA requirements. The city approved those without checking into that, despite being warned. It is apparently not settled.
As someone said recently in another context: “… still not one shovel has hit the ground.”
Craig,
A major problem of what you are not explaining is that the City squandered the use of five significant parcels by approving for luxury, exclusionary student housing which does nothing to help the need for housing for our workforce and families. Instead, this just facilitated UCD’s negligence to provide the need for the housing needed by 71% of their students that they are forcing off campus. UCD’s lack of on campus housing is the primary cause of the housing pressures and costs in Davis.
Why is this not a concern of YIMBY’s? The statement made by one committee member was that “the City of Davis needs to fix UCD’s lack of student housing problem.” Unfortunately, this was then backed up by enough others to reject the recommendation for more on-campus housing for students, faculty and staff. It was just shocking.
So, while UCD has over 5,300 acres with a 900-acre core campus and causing massive impacts on the availability of housing and elevating the costs, as well as impacting the environment with massive commuting circulation and parking impacts that would not be happening with on-campus housing. However, YIMBY’s selectively choose to not discuss this, but instead try to blame Davis, which has had an exemplary history of providing 35% affordable housing historically and have always fulfilled RHNA fair share requirements. So, why are YIMBY’s not asking UCD to stop causing the problem?
So . . . the voters are to vote on a ‘no particular project’, so that a project that may not be approved by the voters, could be approved. Oh, so that’s why logic is considered white supremacy . . . someone may use logic against a completely illogical stance such as this.
Let’s apply this to Davis School Board elections: the voters vote in advance of the actual selection process that the candidate selected must have certain characteristics: perhaps they should be progressive, a person of color, a woman, and LGBTQ. As long as they meet these criteria, any candidate can be selected for the Davis school board.
No chance of having a bad school board member – no chance of getting a bad development 😐
Alan, I know. That sentence was unbelievable to me. The people against the early vote should use this type of reasoning in their opposition campaign.
I understood some of this to already-be the presumed requirements for many elected positions (and boards of public companies, according to a recently-enacted California law).
That law came about because the cozy club of white men were unwilling to step outside of their closed circle of friends to bring in outside voices.
Preapproval with a clear set of baseline requirements is a good path. The fights over individual projects has almost always been about meeting these type of requirements rather than about project specifics. In addition, the Council still needs to approve the specific projects.
I don’t think this is about allowing for “the best possible project rather than necessarily one that could receive voter approval” although Nishi I was probably better than Nishi II. It is about providing better developer certainty which will bring more proposals, and we can be more certain that those proposals meet our community desires at the outset. Right now developers have to guess at what the community wants and they have to risk a large amount to get individual project approval. The current method is simply a mechanism by no growthers to make the transaction costs of development so high that we get almost no proposals. Instead
I don’t see how meeting the requirements of Measure D approval is an “end run”. That a different approach leads to better comprehensive decision making is one way that the electoral process evolves. We have many other examples of how these processes have evolved. The authors of the state’s initiative process in 1911 could not imagine how it is being used now to fight over specific labor agreements (admittedly not a good path). Yet I don’t hear claims that this evolution has been an “end run”. Those who are complaining that this is an end run are just the small number of project opponents who recognize that they personally might lose control of the current process. It’s all about selfishness.
You are correct about needing to guess what the community wants, but the big issue is that developers have to risk a large amount simply to get a project to the point of being considered, let alone get it approved. That is why we see so few proposals. The up front financial costs are simply too great to justify bringing a proposal forward so the projects end up in jurisdictions where there are fewer uncontrolled risks.
One thing that is underappreciated is that a fair and open process creates trust, whereas an unfair process, where those in the minority perceive the deck being stacked against them, creates distrust.
Although I understand the point that you are trying to make, I disagree that there is an underappreciation of the impact on trust of a fair and open process.
The vigorous public dialogue on policing and public safety has had fairness both at its core and also front and center. Similarly, the widespread deployment and use of body cameras has happened because of the broad public outcry for a more open process. Similarly, the current dialogue about the Chauvin trial, and the unanswered question of what length sentence he will receive has also shone a spotlight on open process.
What does that mean?
Alan,
At its core = a consistent belief that fairness needs to be an important part of the public dialogue on policing and public safety.
Front and center = not just having that belief, but also putting that belief as an active part of each and every public dialogue on policing and public safety.
Another way to say is is “at its core” is talking the talk, while “front and center” is walking the talk.
I think this explanation is making it worse. 🙂
Is there some way to say “talking the walk”? Or, walking the talk?
And, was it actually worth spending a comment for me to ask this? (What the heck – end of the day, anyway.)
And going back to your original comment, how about that Chauvin, anyway? Is he walking the walk?
This is the stupidest dead horse of all time but David keeps beating it. Explain to me one thing David, who on the City Council is going to support putting such a proposal on the ballot?
If the CC was too afraid to engage with the public in an honest discussion of reform during reauthorization of Measure R why would they spend any political capital on this nonsense? Anticipate lawsuits if such a proposal were to go forward.
I don’t understand how it is a dead horse. The Housing Element Committee proposed it and put it in their draft Housing Element report. This proposal did not come from David Greenwald.
You don’t understand why its a dead horse? Laugh out loud. I mean because a committee of unelected community members suggests it means its in play. Since when? I guess since CC members ceased having political ambition.
You haven’t even thought about the litigation that would be filed if they tried it. Don’t forget litigation is now a feature instead of a bug of Measure D
My point Ron Glick was simply that it is not simply me beating this. In terms of litigation filed, I think that would be extraordinarily risky on the part of the litigants, it could well result in Measure J itself being thrown out. Not that I would put it past anyone to litigate, but there are inherent risks.
The initiative process is separate from Measure D and is not unique to Davis.
But, I would think that owners of “non-selected” parcels would question the process (or complete lack thereof) in regard to the city’s “gift” to those selected. How would that impact their own (possible) plans, to put forth Measure D proposals (on “non-selected” parcels) in the future?
But in reality, I suspect that the city is not going to attempt to bypass Measure D, regardless. Seems like a recipe to incur wrath, and almost ensure a loss (both personally, and for the “selected” parcels). For the most part, this entire idea seems like a bunch of Vanguard/YIMBY noise.
The city already has a plan to deal with RHNA requirements, and has already sought input regarding that (online) – including a map showing the proposed locations. In fact, the Vanguard posted at least one article regarding that.
Davis has a history of being one of the most-compliant cities in the state of California, regarding RHNA requirements. Other cities around the state are challenging those requirements in the first place.
And yet, this “committee” wants to exceed the requirements, as a policy. If it looks, smells, and sounds like a YIMBY effort – it probably is. Especially since the same guy in question on that committee hosted a literal YIMBY seminar recently – again, as announced by the Vanguard.
And regarding one of the other guys on that committee (who is literally a developer), has anyone verified whether or not he owns one of the parcels that’s being recommended for a “bypass” of Measure D?
I’ve heard conflicting information regarding that (well-before this committee’s recommendation came out, and possibly even before it was formed), but have not seen anything definitive in writing. Some people (such as Don) say that Mariani nut company owns it, but another (who lives next to it, and claimed to have spoken to workers at the site who were dumping something there) have told me that it’s the developer in question – at least as I recall. (Again, some time ago.) For that matter, there’s been conflicting information regarding whether or not that parcel extends to the other side of Covell/Mace, or how far it does.
The same general question might apply regarding the other site, though I haven’t heard any claims at all regarding who owns that.
Now I’m not a lawyer but now you want to extrapolate from an article about an Oceanside lawsuit decision that doesn’t seem to apply since the land isn’t already zoned for development that somehow Measure D is going to get thrown out.
As for the CC trying to have an early vote on annexation believe it or not Ron O. and Ron G. are in agreement. The CC is not going there. Politically its not going to happen. Wouldn’t be prudent.
.
David, I think you have been drinking too much Kool Aid. In the first place a project like the one you are describing would still have to receive voter approval; however, the number of voters would change. There would be only be five (5) voters rather than 30,000 plus voters. In the second place, a property that passed the kind of Measure J vote you propose would then move into the same land-use planning category as The Cannery, and if you believe the developers of The Cannery designed the best possible project (or even tried to design the best possible project) then you are not only drinking Kool Aid, but also smoking whacky weed.
And, anyone who thinks 30,000 voters who just hear bullet points, ads, reads commentary, will make “informed”, responsible decisions, is drinking too much Kool-Aid (spiked kind) and/or snorting, shooting up, and/or smoking whacky weed…
But it is what it is… c’est tres dommage…
Matt
The important difference with the Cannery is that project came in with no preconditions other than was in the obsolete General Plan. The proposed process would specify the preconditions for the approved land and those preconditions must be nonnegotiable by staff, unlike what happened with the Cannery. That said, see my other comment about what this really done in terms of changing developer certainty, which could help solve our housing and economic development problems. Measure J/R/D as currently implemented only exacerbates these problems.
Generally I think that people who support Measure JRD would oppose anything that makes it easier for development proposals to come forward, and would oppose anything that precludes them from having an opportunity to vote directly on each project. They want to debate the details and have control over every aspect of each development.
I think it would be a great idea to annex and entitle land with a pre-determined set of requirements, but I think that it is extremely unlikely to occur. You’re asking the public to cede a power that they granted themselves by a whopping margin, and which they wish to retain. No council member is going to go along with this proposal because they know it is doomed to fail and would be of little benefit to their constituents other than a handful of developers. The people who would benefit from easier annexation and additional housing mostly don’t live or vote here.
Unfortunately, this is true. But I’ll keep trying. The state is now realizing that the wealthy, privileged enclaves like Davis have been walling out others and may take away this type of local control. We should be anticipating this possibility and giving clear criteria that protects our ability to control the type of development we have here.
Neither voters nor council are likely to make this change. The greatest likelihood, IMO, is for the state housing department to find the city’s housing element update non-compliant with respect to the likelihood of actual development on the sites that are being listed, and require that Davis somehow come into compliance. With the city borders subject to public vote, that will be a challenge. But that’s what’s actually finally happening with these housing element updates; letter here to San Diego from Chris Elemendor’s twitter feed: https://twitter.com/CSElmendorf/status/1395054807665287169/photo/1
How would the city of Davis respond to a similar directive from the state?
Here’s the Oceanside court ruling that could be used to invalidate Measure J/R/D under SB 330 passed in 2019:
https://commercialobserver.com/2021/05/san-diego-ruling-could-impact-california-housing-statewide/
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB330
Don,
Why isn’t Elemendor’s just as concerned about UCD’s negligence to provide adequate on-campus housing on its enormous campus which is primarily responsible for the housing impacts on Davis?
UCD is the largest UC with a 5,300 acre campus with a 900-acre core campus and has plenty of capacity including the still vacant Orchard Park site. Why is he not acknowledging this basic UCD causative problem?
I haven’t read the Oceanside court decision; but, from the article, it doesn’t appear it would affect Measure J/D. The case involved use of the initiative process to overturn a final decision that went through the city’s approval process. In Davis, Measure J/D is part of the approval process where it applies. So, the court ruling would not apply except to an initiative to overturn a Measure J/D final voter approval.
You are absolutely correct, Don… but that doesn’t “make it right“… one might even say it is a form of ‘fascism’… or ‘extortion’… all ‘dressed’ as ‘participative democracy’… very effective smoke screen, rhetorically…
What if the community decided to ‘take’ your property, and tell you exactly what to do with it… with a guise that precludes you being able to claim it is a ‘taking’?
None of this is simple… the only ones who believe it is, are “like minded”, if you get my drift…
Just a reminder: there is a limitation on comments per article—five comments per article per commenter per day.
David,
First, I appreciate this article and the effort for dialog about this issue. Further, I especially agree that the City’s planning process needs to be more fair, and allow a balance of input to planning the future of Davis including the slow-growth constituency in Davis. This unfortunately did not happen in the current process. As a result, most of the recommendations (8 out of 10) do not reflect a measured, slow-growth approach to planning for future housing in Davis. In fact, the recommendations are quite the contrary.
For example, one of the most disturbing outcomes was exclusion of the excellent recommendation made by two City Commissioners to simply strengthen language in the Housing Element calling for more on-campus housing for UCD students, faculty and staff. It was rejected by half of the committee and therefore failed to pass. The opposition was led by a leader of a Sacramento YIMBY group on the Housing Element Committee who is not even a Davis resident. This is just one example of why the lack of balanced, fair representation of community views resulted in these non-inclusive recommendations.
On the issue regarding the Measure J (note: now Measure D) exemption, it is certainly an “end-run” proposal. It would involve effectively pre-zoning two parcels, without public vetting of a final full description of the project that will ultimately be proposed or a development agreement to ensure that the project is actually delivered. While some generic baseline project features might be included, the reality is the public would not know what project ultimately come forward and all the leverage would be lost for the voters to get a project that they would want.
We go through this all the time, with the Council approving projects within the City (not subject to Measure J) where residents give input objecting to serious impacts of a projec, and their input ends up being ignored. University Commons (the University Mall site) is a prime example. The City claimed it did not want any more mega-dorms. The Planning Commission agreed, unanimously opposing any more mega-dorms beyond the more than the 3,500 student beds approved in the City. Yet, the City then went on to approve two more enormous mega-dorms, including the University Mall site which was one of the largest mega-dorms.
So, let’s be realistic about this, there is no way that the public, or City for that matter, would have the leverage needed to get better projects without a final Measure J vote fully describing the projects. The other issue here is that this this Measure J “end-run” proposal likely puts the costs of the election on the public, not the future developers or the landowners since the City would be sponsoring this initiative. In effect, this would be a public subsidy to a small group of private parties. Recently, Ramos tried to tamper with Measure J process on the Mace site, but fortunately it was shut down by the previous Council.
We need to be honest about what is going on here. The recommendation to exempt these two parcels is by definition an “end run” around Measure J.
nbsp;
Worse than ignored, openly mocked with the pejorative “NIMBY” by certain students (see especially ‘campus democrats’), housing radicals, and YIEEBYs 😐