By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – By Davis standards, it was an easy night. The staff recommendations for DiSC were supported on a 7-0 by the Planning Commission, *just* 41 public commenters called in, and the meeting wrapped up seven minutes short of midnight. The project now heads for the City Council in February and inevitably to a citizens’ vote in June.
A number of commissioners expressed strong support for the concept of the project.
“I will admit to a prejudice right off the bat,” Commissioner Michelle Weiss stated. “I’m very much in favor of the city’s vision for the notion of sustainable economic development. We’re a highly amenitized city that doesn’t want to pay for anything.”
Attorney Matt Keasling, responding to questions, noted that employers could subsidize housing to attract employees to come to DiSC.
“(A) lot of the companies that locate at the center may choose to, say, rent out a block of 10 units so that they can use that to attract employees to come. That’s a common practice throughout larger metropolitan areas, but we’re not going to mandate that,” he 
explained.
He added, “I think you will see that naturally occur because of the market and how constrained the Davis housing market is already,” he said. “But again our objective would be to let that play out.”
Responding to criticism however, Keasling pointed out, “I think there’s a misnomer out there that the only way those are beneficial environmentally is if DiSC employees live in them, but there are a whole slew of people that work in Davis right now that do not live in Davis. And if they buy a house or move to these homes, that is a VMT improvement as well.”
Georgina Valencia noted, “Communities don’t decide to do developments because they make money for them. They decide to do developments because there is a community benefit involved.”
She said, “From my point of view, I think there is a real benefit.” Housing is a real need she said. And one of the concerns that people brought up during public comments, was how do we achieve our RHNA numbers? That is a real issue for our city, and this is one of the projects that will help us get to the place that we need to get to.”
Valencia added, “That is not only market rate housing, but affordable housing.”
Another community benefit will be jobs, she said.
“Generally high paying jobs you’re talking about—research and lab type positions,” she said. “I see those as a real community benefit.”
Emily Shandy said, “I believe that this project has benefits to offer to our community. I struggle though with how this project interfaces with our existing community, particularly around transportation, and particularly around transportation other than driving their own vehicles.”
She added, “I’m struggling to really have a clear understanding of what the transportation improvements around this project are going to look like because they’re contradictory to each other, the way that they’re currently laid out, we cannot increase capacity enough to accommodate all of the vehicle traffic currently projected to be generated by this project.”
Darryl Rutherford expressed overall support for the project, but expressed disappointment that the undercrossing for bicycling was removed.
“The DiSC project is transformational,” Commissioner Greg Rowe stated. “We need more high wage job opportunities. We need more green industry. We need more life science.”
He said, quoting Mayor Steinberg in Sacramento, “We’ve talked for a decade now about diversifying our economy. This is the single biggest opportunity we have to not only continue, but to elevate that direction. And it’s a multi-billion dollar investment.”
“I’m in favor of the project, but I do have some concerns,” Rowe said. “I think one of the things to realize, especially for those commenters who bring up the VMT thing is the secret document makes it very clear. The traffic on I-80 is going get worse with or without the project, just looking at the regional projections from SACOG from MTC.”
David Robertson said, “My biggest concern about this project is the amount of studies and further evaluations that have to come down the road. I’m not convinced that what I’ve heard tonight is in fact what’s going to happen.”
He added, “I have a very low confidence level that this project as built will in any way look like what I heard tonight.”
“Do we need it? I think we do,” he said. “Do we need it right now? I don’t think we do.”
He said, “I hope that when this goes to the council, that they will at every turn possible, put more objective enforceable standards in place so that this project bears some resemblance to what is leaving this commission tonight.”
Chair Cheryl Essex pointed out that some commenters pointed out that several proposed baseline features from the NRC were not included.
Matt Keasling noted that there were two different types of concerns.
He said, “The first was concern that things had been removed from the baseline features that had been there previously, and then secondarily concerned that things that had been requested to be added to baseline features were not added.”
He responded, “We made a decision to remove certain level of detail from baseline features and that it was very intentional.”
There is a belief that if things are not in the baseline features, it’s not going to happen. He felt like some of the baseline features were too specific and got too fine in terms of the level of detail.
“We had serious concerns that that level of detail was resulting in very long and over-encumbering baseline features that were confusing people,” Keasling explained.
What they need to do is have enough specificity to say “if you say, we’re going to build an innovation center, you’re going to build an innovation center and not then get subsequently annexed into the city and immediately request to change the general plan designation to a hundred percent residential, right?”
He said, “It ensures that that cannot happen and the council does not have the ability to grant a general plan amendment or a rezone that is inconsistent with what you told the voters you were going to build.”
At the same time, he noted that “we’re still the longest set of baseline features that have ever been presented to this city.”
He added that “the commitments were not removed, they’re still here. They’re still in the DAQ with respect to the NRC recommendations for things to add to the baseline features.”
Michelle Weiss, among others, expressed strong support for “[s]omething more substantial in here around bike and pedestrian safety,” she said, “Specifically around on the undercrossing.”
She said, “We’d like to either have that be in the baseline features” or, she said, spelled out somewhere. “It says that the developer will give the land for the crossing, but not build it, but something like the city and the developer will work together to actually build the darn thing.”
Emily Shandy added, “I would be very interested to see not only the undercrossing be put back in the baseline features, but that east-west connection in addition to the inside of the curve.”
Michelle Weiss also pushed for affordable housing to be built in phase one and phase two, “not just the for sale affordable.”
The commission supported staff recommendations and then added the several additional recommendations which included: bike and ped undercrossing in the baselines features, among other changes.
The motion passed 7-0 and the project will now go to the council in February.
Even though there were some comments on transportation, I didn’t see any comments about the Mace Mess, which is probably the most pressing dilemma.
After all, the Mace Mess is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
I was quite surprised when the developer team said with much conviction that Baseline Features, per se, were not necessary to enforce the creation of certain designs and programs at DISC 2022, as these would be required by CEQA. Then why have baseline features as a solution for any of these things – including in other projects – in all the discussion for years up until now? Is it state law that CEQA is just as enforceable and otherwise as solid as Baseline Features?
I have some additional comments.
CEQA documents are disclosure documents, not legal documents in the manner you imply, Todd… they are not binding “contracts”… Development Agreements are… those often turn ‘mitigation measures’ into binding commitments.
Bill, thanks… so it seems that CEQA documents are clearly not as strong and clear as Baseline Features*, which means that the developer was bullsh*tting? It’s like an honor system, we have to trust them to do the right thing?
*Developer was not mentioning Development Agreements here, only Baseline Features
I generally think it’s better for the developer to put things in the baseline. That said, an innovation park is not the same as building a house and the developer does have a point about not wanting to be completely tied down.
That said, I wonder to what extent people are relying on baseline features as false assurance. We have never had a developer build a Measure J project out, we have never tested baseline features in court, we have never had to enforce them.
Just saying, at some point you do actually have to trust people to do what they say. There are courts of course, but who knows how a court will rule.
I’m glad the bike tunnel is coming up as the thing everyone is focusing on. While it doesn’t mitigate all issues, it brings to the fore investing in the style of alternative infrastructure that has made Davis a pleasant and viable place to bike – not having to deal with auto arterials at many locations and just breezing under.
To reference TE’s article: While I like the idea of bicycle freeways in theory, I don’t believe the developers are responsible to initiate eminent domain to right the wrong of non-Netherlands-designed American auto-centric cities. However, the bike tunnel under Mace would tie in DISC with the Davis bike system and allow cycling students to get under Mace to schools without intersecting the significant auto traffic of Mace.
Bottom line: it’s enough to change my vote from NO to YES.
The grade separated crossing of Mace is very important, and very consistent with Mace Ranch Park development… undercrossings of Fifth, Alhambra, Loyola were provided, as part of the project, and provisions for the undercrossing of Covell and the overcrossing of I-80 were made… including contributions for the financing of the latter…
Including a grade separated crossing of Mace is pivotal on how I will vote on the JeRkeD measure.
What is this “bike system”? The circuitous greenbelt paths? There’s no direct greenbelt path to Target and its neighbors, the closest place – aside from Ikeda’s, if it stays (???) – for shopping (and not much else). What good is a “bike system” if it only supports one – though very important – segment of the population? Consider also that Davis has a school choice system, so perhaps Korematsu and even Harper are not the best match for kids living at DISC – the closest – as the bird flies – elementary is Pioneer, and good luck with getting the giant eagles from LOTR to help with that! The next closest is what, Birch Lane? OK, not bad, but Holmes is quite a bit further. I’d really like to know how kids from the east side of Mace Ranch and the east side of Mace get to school, and where, if not proximate to their home. There are no buses for younger elementary school students in our world-famously sustainable Davis. What if DaVinci Junior is the best fit? Clearly all the three high schools are relatively far, and these kids will have driver’s licenses.
The greenbelt path system is under-built for its full intended purpose. There’s really no solution to this except for separated cycleways on arterials, sometimes with extra provision for going fast… because this is not a small town.
The development team also said that they would study Mace and build whatever’s necessary. What is a new bike-ped bridge over 80 is deemed necessary then? It’s necessary now. Do you expect them to build it? Adding improvements to the intersections with Alhambra and 2nd are fine, but that’s not a lot – if that – especially as they plan to widen Mace north of there.
Todd, I agree with much of what you say — but DISC is not responsible to fix this. I have many criticisms of the Davis bike system, but this is relative. Relative to Roseville, we are great, relative to the Netherlands, we sück. I’m not gonna lose a chance to get this bike tunnel built, by trying to argue that Davis should eminent-take hundreds of houses and plow a bike freeway across town.
Woah, I never suggested eminent domaining houses. Most everything needed can come from space used for parking, traffic lanes, some medians and of course existing but inadequate bike lanes. Both myself and Bike Davis have proposed similar for all of Russell – in the “Reimagine…” project – but so far one of its main goals is keep the motor vehicle throughput.
OK, Todd, no you didn’t mention eminent domain. But I’m at a loss as to what you are proposing. Re-imagine Russel seems to have lots of good features for bicycles – not sure you complaint here. And you state the green belts make it too circuitous to cross town efficiently and everything should connect in 15 minutes – and you state 2nd Street and 5th Street are too dangerous because of cars. So what routes and what changes are you proposing to get bikes efficiently from Mace area to downtown? Is there a plan, a link? I’m not trying to be an arse, I really want to know what you are proposing, what you think is a good way to get bicycle traffic east/west across town.
OK. First we go through the 2016 Street Standards and improve it proscribe exactly what types of streets get Class IV infrastructure and if that’s adequate to optimize fast e-bikes. And templates for roundabouts and many other things. Various parties then prioritize different sections and within that process we determine what can go even wider and even if – just one example – the Old 40 path is redundant if there’s something much better than now on 2nd St. So name the major and minor arteries, choose your priorities. From the east, 2nd, 5th/Alhambra, 8th, Loyola and Covell are all candidates, at least for narrowing so that they can be shared. Covell has shared Class I’s and Class II bike lanes: Neither are optimized for anything.
That’s the thing: If we want streets to allow fast speeds for motor vehicles and frequent high volumes of traffic including buses, we need to create separation along these routes. If we don’t have enough space, need to preserve parking etc, then we do lots of things to narrow and create a slow design speed.
But DISC is still too far away from Downtown and its conceptual love bunny, UC Davis main campus. This distance is weaponized by I-80, i.e. its distance even with improvements is less competitive than it would be elsewhere, where the bike infrastructure doesn’t have a parallel route where people can drive 85 mph, travel with 3 to 6 friends, stay cool or warm or dry as necessary… I know that I repeat it often, but that has no competition and the developers know it.
What would change this? Expensive parking everywhere including private lots? Not enough…. we need to think about diverting I-80 to the south of Davis, like a half-ring road, with a toll. Suddenly everything from Mace to Downtown becomes viable for light rail and high speed bike routes.
I-80 is Davis’s biggest enemy. It’s why we absolutely cannot build anything further east along it, except for a re-located PG&E yard….
Todd, I know you know what you are envisioning, but if I can’t see it, I’m not sure anyone else can either.
You mention 2nd, 5th, 8th. 2nd is getting a wider separation stripe and narrower lanes, step by step. 5th finally got L Street to Pole Line upgraded for bikes, something I’ve been calling for for decades. A better connection to the canal path to Target from 5th in the WB direction would be nice, like a crossing with lights or #gasp!# a tunnel — EB it’s not bad. To the west, the Russel Vision seems good to me – you don’t seem to think so — why? 8th is pretty decent though yes to the east the connections to the greenbelts get pretty choppy – it would be great to have a marked route as it gets confusing.
You mention Bike Davis – is there a vision, a plan, a link we can see?
But overall, it’s being improved all the time. I disagree that it’s too far. It’s far and that’s just what it is.
And what is this about I-80 being the great evil? Yes, it is the fastest way. Are you proposing removing I-80? Ain’t gonna happen. We can work for better bike routes, a bike tunnel under Mace, maybe even a better I-80 bike crossing at Mace, encourage cycling, improve the capitol corridor to hourly service 16 trains a day. The car will still dominate — and electric cars will only prolong auto dominance and poor land use. But at least with better rail and bike infrastructure, everyone will have the CHOICE to not use their car — and that’s about the best we are going to get in this lifetime.
Arteries with speed limits/speed designs of 30mph or higher must require physically-separated Class IV cycleways, not only buffered lanes with paint.
While moving the I-80 has a lot of benefits, I realize that almost no one yet has the courage, almost no one yet wants to reap the huge benefits of development in this area along a new and beautiful calm boulevard.
So since we have the I-80, we can’t have development along it and outside the City borders, and closer to the egress points to it at the City’s periphery.
I don’t see what this “solves” regarding I-80. Should it (and all freeways) be moved “away” from cities?
And, do you really think that moving it would discourage use – even to/from Davis? Seems to me that it would just lengthen the commute and/or distance to/from destinations.
Freeways themselves are what enable sprawl. Move them, and sprawl will follow. And what’s to be gained from that?
It’s not all about Davis.
Ultimately, if governments choose to not reign-in sprawl, it will continue to occur along freeways in particular. And that’s been the consistent pattern, so far. With each community adding their “piece” to the result. (As if they’re each operating in isolation.)
And yet, Mr. Rowe apparently (with some reservations) wants Davis to add its “contribution” to this. Just like every other 2-bit city along the route.
That’s exactly how it happens, folks. Though in most cities, they don’t even have “reservations” about it.
But hey, we’re concerned about global warming, loss of farmland and sprawl, right? But not until the worldwide government addresses it, apparently. At least, not until some of the “truly irresponsible” cities addresses it, right? (You know – the Natomases, Rancho Cordovas, Elk Groves, etc.).
Translation: “We had serious concerns that we would actually have to provide the items described in the baseline features.”
How is it that such incorrect statements are made, unchallenged?
Not only does DiSC have nothing to do with meeting current RHNA requirements, it will likely INCREASE RHNA requirements for future rounds. RHNA requirements are partly based upon the number of jobs in a given community.
How short-sighted are people, anyway? You don’t think this development will virtually ensure that other sprawl will occur as a result, as well? And what will the traffic and fiscal impacts be from THAT?
You really believe that the increased RHNA requirements won’t (also) encourage more dense proposals, in neighborhoods that don’t want that?
Again, short-sightedness, without considering resulting impacts.
And from the same person:
Again, the only reason that the city is pursuing developments like this is because they’re hoping that someone else pays the bills, despite all evidence that this never actually occurs.
Maybe the first question that should be asked is, “how did this occur, and what will prevent it in the future”? But instead, the development activists just jump immediately to “more development” as the answer to everything (without even asking the questions in the first place). Even when it creates housing shortages – supposedly the primary thing they’re concerned about.
At what point does the entire argument lose every bit of credibility?
Meanwhile, go ahead and order that fire truck, the social workers, the salary increases, etc.
Valencia also stated, “Projects don’t make money, really.”
If we get 12,000 cars per day on Mace Blvd but “Projects don’t make money, really”, then it seems like the “community benefit” is really a Developer benefit.
I noticed the ad at the top of this blog for a new development called Palomino Place proposed for Wildhorse Ranch. How many more cars will that add to the extra estimated 12,000 cars per day to the Mace Mess if both projects are approved?
Baseline Features of a Measure J/R project represent the only sure way to hold developers accountable for what they promise their project will be. Since the Baseline Features are part of the enacting ordinance up for voter approval on a J/R vote, only the voters can amend those features, through another vote.
That is EXACTLY why developers, after making all sorts of detailed, pie-in-the-sky claims to garner City approvals and voter support, try to make their legally-binding list of Baseline Features as brief and non-specific as possible.
The use of Development Agreements is a smokescreen, first used by an infamous City Council to allay concerns about the first big Ramos (Ramco) project in Davis: Mace Ranch. Davis citizens were told that the lengthy, detailed development agreement would protect the city’s interests in how the project would be developed, including a maximum of 100 housing units per year (might be off slightly; remembering back to early to mid 1990s), phasing of the retail development to provide taxes for the City, the (long-missing) park and the promised school – which turned out to be- not a school – but a school SITE.)
But, as soon as the project was approved by the electorate (believe it was a non-binding, advisory vote), Ramco (Frank Ramos, president and father of DISC-developer, Dan) petitioned the City Council to amend the Development Agreement. And in one fell swoop, a majority vote of the city council amended the development agreement to front-load the project with 350 (might have been 250) housing units, and showed that the promised “protections” of the Agreement were essentially worthless.
(At last glance, I believe the Mace Ranch Development Agreement had been amended 21 times by various city councils. And in every instance I recall, the amendments were to build more housing, build-out the housing more quickly than agreed upon OR to delay the promised amenities AND the income-generating retail and commercial.)
Since then a different council rezoned a 125-acre parcel of commercial property that was already within the city limits, by turning the former Hunt-Wesson Plant on Covell Blvd., into The Cannery. And, even though that housing development did not require a J/R vote, a development agreement was used to allay citizen concerns about the project. Not surprisingly, the promised amenities and income-generating features have been missing or lagging behind housing development. (Ironically, the Cannery developers’ Project Manager had so impressed the City that they hired him as an administrator. Now, Assistant City Manger, Ash Feeney is headed to Citrus Heights.)
Some people use a variety of unflattering terms to describe all developers, but I generally make a distinction between “good,” local developers, who share a sense of community and “bad,” mega-developers (or dirt brokers), who seem driven only by money.
And I consider Ramco the latter. They bought up large swaths of prime ag land (and habitat) to DISC over (as happened with the burrowing owls and their owlets in their nests on what is now Mace Ranch back in the ’90s) to build anything to maximize their profits.
So people can have healthy debates ad infinitum about traffic, CO2, phasing of project components, sustainability and economic development. BUT, if a project component, essential detail or phasing plan is not in the text of the ordinance or in its Baseline Features, it might as well not exist; it is not binding.
RE, I so wish you would post more often: so much reality you speak!
This is also what the Trackside appellate court decision said. City planning documents can say, “All buildings downtown will be brown”, and the public believes that all buildings will now be brown. A developer says they want a pink building. The council says “Pink is Brown”. The appellate court has confirmed that the City can gaslight our senses, and now we must go along with their decision that the description of color is up to the City, and our belief in what brown looks like is worthless.
That used to be what I believed, until I met the Trackside partners. Locals (sort of). Then a developer built an even taller building 200′ from my residence and said, ‘We want to be transparent and mitigate whatever we can within reason’. Treated us as humans, with respect, never lied to us, did the promised mitigations; one change we requested even saved them a boat load of money. Out of towners, just decent people, and #gasp!# developers.
So no, Davis residency has nothing to with developer decency.
Your “facts” Rick E, are partially true, and a lot false, or misleading.
Correct… EIR’s mitigation measures, and DA’s, unless part of an ordinance, supported/included in, a JeRkeD vote, are subject to amendment without a “vote of the people”. Even then, there are questions… not ‘absolute’ as you imply/assert.
Neither Mace Ranch Park nor Cannery were subject to a “JeRked” vote. Any ordinance, not specifically ratified by a JeRkeD vote, is subject to change without another JeRkeD vote, and even then, there are nuances. Ordinances approved, are subject to modification (by repeal/modification) as one CC cannot bind a future Council… Civics 101.
The dominance of a JeRkeD vote over modifications/amendments to an ordinance has not been ‘tested’ in the Courts, to my knowledge… at least not successfully.
No way there has there been,
That is factually incorrect, several levels… yet a kernel of truth as to ‘front-end-loading’, as that was the only viable way to finance the ‘developer Mello-Roos’… also kernel of truth where some of the commercial areas were not viable, and in most of the cases the land use was ‘shifted’, but in some (area around Fifth/Alhambra) it did result in Res displacing retail/commercial.
So, you have spoken some truth, and a bunch of disceptations or misunderstandings. I won’t judge which of the two.
But, as Alan M said, welcome back… please focus on getting your facts right.
I only said the first half of the last sentence . . .
Yep… noted and correct… I should have parsed it better…
Well, this is another reason I choose not to comment on The Vanguard. Correction of one falsehood leads to another! This is what Bill M wrote in response to my original post:
I said nothing false or misleading in my statements. Bill M initially stated that a development agreement is a legal, binding document. And I merely explained that a DA is not truly binding, because it can be amended by a simple, majority vote of the city council. That is TRUE – period.
I used Ramco’s, Mace Ranch project to illustrate the false security of development agreements, because (1) it was the first development agreement used for a Davis development and (2) because critical “selling points” of the project were quickly over-turned by the City Council after an advisory vote of the electorate. That is TRUE – period.
Of course there was no J/R/D vote on Mace Ranch, and I never claimed there had been. “Measure J” didn’t even exist then! In fact, though, the deceptive use of development agreements, which was the thrust of my original post, was a major driving force for the creation of the document which became known as “Measure J.”
And here is one paragraph about amendments to the Mace Ranch development agreement that I posted:
And here is how Bill Marshall “quoted” me, purposely changing my original wording and essentially calling me a liar:
And, then, he had the gall to make this statement about my original paragraph:
But after making that accusation, BM did not show in any way that what I wrote was incorrect – because he couldn’t! I was actively involved in the Mace Ranch issue – at many levels – read the Development Agreement carefully (think I still have a copy) and am very careful to write as accurately and truthfully as possible.
My only purpose in posting on this thread was to warn people NOT to repeat the mistake of relying upon a development agreement to hold a developer accountable. I hope that has been helpful to Vanguard readers.
As for BM’s condescending comments to me that “you have spoken some truth, and a bunch of…” and “please focus on getting your facts right,” I don’t take advice from people who know less than me – and I won’t play in their sandbox.
I appreciate the clear and concise message about baseline features and development agreements.
“When You Wish Upon a Star….” Seriously, Alan, thank you for your kind words. I do think about posting more often, but am trying to learn ukulele and bring happiness to myself and to others. And arguing, debating and philosophizing, day-after-day, year-after-year, about the same three or four topics simply isn’t conducive to happiness.
Having said that, I do enjoy your insightful/citeful comments and humorous injections. And I greatly admire the courage and persistence of Keith Olson and Ron Oertel for expressing their views in the face of unrelenting ridicule and criticism.
My reason for commenting on this particular thread was the misleading suggestion that a development agreement would somehow be a binding mechanism to protect the community and hold Ramco accountable if DISC were approved by the voters. That is simply not true.
Many long-time residents might know that, but I was concerned that some younger or newer Davis residents might be lulled into a false sense of security by what might be listed in a development agreement for DISC. To reiterate, when people vote on DISC, they will be voting on whether or not to adopt a specific City ordinance.
And no matter what else is implied, suggested, promised or portrayed, ONLY the text of the ordinance and the accompanying Baseline Features will be voted up or down by the electorate. And that ordinance and those Baseline Features can be amended ONLY by a future vote of the electorate.
Finally, AM, you’re right; I shouldn’t have distinguished between “good” and “bad” developers on the basis of local or out-of-town. In fact, I can’t stand the way labels are used/misused, but made the mistake of breaking my own rule. Your close-to-home examples of nice and not-so-nice developers were excellent and I fully agree with your conclusion.
“….makes no difference who you are.”
Thanks. And appreciate the history you provided regarding the development agreements for Mace Ranch, The Cannery, etc., (in your earlier comment).
Definitely understand the reason that you don’t post more often on here. (There is another Davis blog, which is less “argumentative”.) Though truth be told, I’m seeing that David and others are increasingly holding-back from debates and arguments, on here.
I thought you said you were trying to bring happiness to yourself and others (sorry, couldn’t resist).
Truer words . . . perhaps I need to heed them #doh!#
You should see the ones that get deleted!
Thanks Rick E for the shoutout.
I also like and appreciate your comments here on the Vanguard. I wish you would post more.
Don’t let Bill Marshall’s comment dissuade you. I often just ignore and don’t reply to him, I don’t like to feed into it.
Thanks, Keith O. And you’re right to ignore and not feed into it. I’m just a slow learner! And Alan M actually used two words above that I’ve now posted (with a Post-It), as reminders, at the bottom of my computer monitor: clear and concise. And now that the Vanguard has clarified its role as the counter-narrative, please, keep posting your counter-counter-narrative!
No need for DISC, plenty of empty office space in town and remote work is the strong trend. If voters approve it, 3 members of city council could always modify plan and just build houses down the road. It is okay for a town that wants to stay small to curtail growth. Live in Sacramento if you want normal California suburb life.