by Kevin Wolf –
I chaired Sheryl Freeman’s city council campaigns in 1996 and also in 1998 when she won. I was involved with most of the major issues she addressed while she was on the council. We both were sick of the type of growth that occurred in the 1990s in Davis. Sheryl advanced a proposal that had an earlier vote on Measure J, but the citizen committee that drafted the final Measure J language had three votes on the council to adopt theirs as they had written it. Sheryl ended up joining council members Wagstaff, Partansky and Forbes in support of that version and both of us put time into the subsequent campaign for Measure J. We believed the final language had problems but was better than the status quo, and it would be reconsidered in ten years.
I think the most valid argument against an early vote on Measure J is that the city council might change a project following the vote. If that happened, neighbors and others might end up opposing a project they supported in an early Measure J vote. One of the purposes of putting this proposal out for comments is to look at how the measure could rewritten to address these valid concerns and yet still solve the problem of how much time and effort it currently takes to prepare a project for a Measure J vote.
A lot of good ideas are being raised. Rich Rifkin isn’t the only one who raised the idea that any project being brought to a vote must go through a better commission review process. A new Measure J could be written to really strengthen the quality of citizen input that goes into the process. For example, I would love to see the city require the developer to pay for a city wide survey that gave the council and commissions feedback on what Davisites thought would be most important “goals” the proposed project should achieve, or do some other process that updates the goal prioritizing process we did on the Housing Element Committee for new projects.
Another idea is that a new Measure J spells out specifically what parameters must be met in a final council action for each of the key areas that would be involved in the project entitlements and developer agreement. This should include the following (with examples) and more:
- Setback easements from neighboring properties.
- Minimum traffic ratings at key intersections and neighboring streets
- Minimum and maximum housing density levels and land set aside for open space
- Project map with parks, multi-family, single family, commercial, retail, etc shown
- Financial restrictions – e.g. Net positive impact on city finances
- Flood restrictions – e.g. the final project is not at risk in a 100 year flood
- Water use – e.g. uses 70% of the water per person of existing housing in town
- Net energy use/production requirement
- And more
Each relevant city commission could help craft the restriction with public debate, using Rich Rifkin’s proposal that jointly held meetings of the commissions are held to save everyone the time to hear the presentations and make public comments. At the end of the pre-application process, the project developers can decide if they want to bring the project to a vote with all the restrictions placed on it. Just like the existing Measure J, a early vote Measure J should require a second vote if the council violates any restriction or requirement in their final writing of the entitlements and developer agreement.
If a proposed project passes in an early vote, the project developers bring a final map with street layouts and widths, housing design and final number of units of different types to fit within the density and other restrictions. The developer, staff and consultants would work on final traffic engineering and modeling to meet the required traffic ratings. Based on the final design, an EIR can be done on the project. These final parts of the project are the most expensive for the developer, for staff and for citizen activists. Let’s only invest our resources in this if we know that the citizens of Davis approve of a project being built on the site.
As I understand it, the main argument of many against an “early vote” Measure J is that it would make it more likely that a project will move forward. Measure J as it now stands keeps some developers without the deep pockets of Parlin Homes or Covell Partners from even advancing their ideas. They won’t take the risk of investing millions of dollars in the application process before they find out if their project will go forward.
I suspect that 30-40% of Davisites would like to see “no growth” occur over the next ten years and the same percentage thinks that growth is needed to help our schools, or because UCD and our job base keeps growing which results in more and more people buying homes on prime ag land in Woodland and surrounding cities and commuting to Davis, or for other reasons. I think the other 20-30% of Davisites will support or oppose a project based on how it impacts them personally in areas such as traffic or home value, or based on how the project fits into their vision for the town.
The vast majority of us still want to have the right to vote on a project. I think though that the majority of voters in town will support a version of Measure J that moves the election on the project to occur earlier in the process yet still provide everyone with assurances as to what the final project will look like if it is ultimately approved by the city council.
A last issue I want to address is the concern some have about my relationship to John Whitcomb or any other developers in town. I have never received any money, compensation or personal benefit from them for any work I have done in Davis over the last 30 years. None of the non-profits I support have received anything from them because I know them. My motivation to help the Covell Village project, which is the only major development project I have supported is the same reason I went after Rodney Robinson for siphoning off money for himself from the Wildhorse Opposition Association and betraying us volunteers who wanted the right to have our signature gathering count and Davisites could vote on the zoning of the Wildhorse project. It was the right thing to do. This is the same reason I worked out a compromise to get gravel miners out of Cache Creek.
I volunteer to help in elections and other efforts like the Housing Element Committee because I believe that my time and effort can make a positive difference in helping Davis become a model for other cities. I think Measure J as written hasn’t been copied by other cities because its requirement that a project be finalized before it comes to a public election is counter productive. An “early vote” Measure J has a much better chance of being copied by other cities. It would also help evince the type of project we actually might want to see coming forward, more like Village Homes, rather than just creating momentum, pressure and conflict over projects we don’t want.
An “early vote” Measure J should save us all a lot of time and effort, and I believe, could lead to better projects in the end, if we voted for them.
It would help if suggestions for changes in wording were made at The Davis Voice where a new draft that attempts to incorporate these comments will come out weekly, with the next one due the Monday after Thanksgiving.
Kevin Wolf is a Davis Resident and a Former Chair of the Davis General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee.
I am concerned about the following passage:
“a early vote Measure J should require a second vote if the council violates any restriction or requirement in their final writing of the entitlements and developer agreement.”
This seems to imply that the City Council can overide a measure J vote by a simple majority vote. This could have a calamitous result with a CC that is pro-growth (such as our current one). It would not matter what is said before the measure J vote since it could be overturned by a simple majority of the city council. Frankly, this guts Measure J.
Mr. Wolfe says that more specifics could be added, but that also adds to the costs he wants us to save. This plan sounds like quite a bit of work anyway (except for an EIR, which is costly, but also necessary for an evaluation of the project by voters). The key difference in Mr. Wolfe’s proposal is that a City Council can override the voters decision. We have seen this movie before and it ends badly for us. The temptation for CC’s to cave in to developers, even those who ran campaigns saying they would adopt slow growth policies, is quite high and financing campaigns, even for CC is expensive.
As far as other City’s adopting Measure J, I doubt that many Davis voters would consider that an issue one way or another–I don’t see it as an argument to defeat our current version.
Measure J works fine as it is. The purpose of Measure J is to keep our City Council in check. This proposal guts that key component of Measure J. I was tempted earlier to call this proposal “Measure J Lite” but upon further reflection its sounds more like “The UnMeasure J.”
From what I understand is that the Wildhorse signature gathering was tested in Court and failed; and the proceeds from the money from Rodney Robinson’s lawsuit was resolved.
I was following you with an open mind until you brought that up and presented it to this audience – most of whom wouldn’t know the details. It was unnecessary to your argument and it’s only purpose was to denigrate another.
“Instead Cannery, Wildhorse Ranch and Covell have taken up huge amounts of our time and resources, and little time has been spent on PG&E, Nishi, second units and the other higher priority “green” projects prioritized by the Housing Element Committee.”
Would the Cannery, Nishi, or PG&E even be subject to Measure J votes, and why are those being brought up in arguments then?
“I think though that the majority of voters in town will support a version of Measure J that moves the election on the project to occur earlier in the process yet still provide everyone with assurances as to what the final project will look like if it is ultimately approved by the city council.”
Didn’t a clear-cut “majority” of voters reject both Measure X (60%) and Measure P (75%)? So what “majority” are now referring to that supports changing the current Measure J process? These weren’t razor-thin victories in either election; if they were, I could understand that more voters might be in favor of changing the Measure J process in its current form; have you read Dunning’s column lately? he’s clearly feeling that Measure J (in its current form) will be resoundingly renewed by Davis voters; so is this effort to revamp Measure J more of your own personal crusade, or do you honestly believe this is wanted by the majority of Davis voters? I agree with Phil, this “Measure J Lite” move smacks more of “Un-Measure J”.
“Measure J as it now stands keeps some developers without the deep pockets of Parlin Homes or Covell Partners from even advancing their ideas.”
WHO CARES about what developers can or can’t do; this is Davis, and with the current Measure J process, at least citizens here have the chance to be able to have some leverage with developers, and not just allow them to buy off our Planning Commission, City Staff, and City Council (like in Woodlnad, Elk Grove, West Sacramento, etc)!
You clearly stated that you have had no “financial compensations” from Whitcomb in the past, and that you supported Covell Village because it was “right thing” to do. Well, we all know that Covell Village II (with its Sun City model for Davis) is coming down the pipeline, I’m hearing a proposal is set to be made to City Council as ealry as Jnauary. Is the fact that you are now pushing for an “early Measure J” referendum in any way connected to the latest Covell Village push, or is the timing purely coincidental? Let’s let the readers decide.
If there is an effort to significantly alter Measure J as you propose, we will mobilize all the volunteers and supporters from the No on P campaign to ensure it is defeated!
Nishi would be a Measure J vote. Next to Covell Village, I think that is the single worst place to put a development. It has the illusion of being a good place nestled in on the backside of campus near downtown, but the access point is the west end of Olive Dr onto Richards–one access point for a thousand vehicles. There have been proposals to make it have University Access only, but that’s going to be awkward at best and it still paves over farmland.
I don’t remember Kevin Wolf being active in the measure J campaign but I do remember him claiming to be associated with Friends of the River during the measure x campaign while he was getting paid to front a yes on x group. Didn’t Friends of the River need to disclaim Kevin Wolf? Please correct me if I am wrong.
Kevin Wolfe’s involvement in Davis progressive politics has, at best, been marked by volatility and by changing sides in midstream. He changed sides to support gravel pit mining (along Cache creek?), his WHOA decision to abandon the ongoing WHOA lawsuit against the Wildhorse developers,when the citizen initiative was unsuccessful, was the genesis of Rodney Robinson deciding to take it upon himself(with WHOA’s lawyer) to continue with this legal action. Rodney’s rationale that the subsequent financial settlement was therefore not WHOA’s was questionable but not totally unreasonable. Previous postings have described Kevin Wolfe’s attitude and activities at the time of the election to pass Measure J as strongly anti-Measure J rather than the moderate tone he describes here. Putting two competing Measure J measures on the same ballot is designed to defeat Measure J.
“None of the non-profits I support have received anything from them because I know them.”
This is an interesting denial statement. Not that his “non-profits” have received any support but rather that it was not because he “knows them”.
I think that Kevin’s alternate Measure J proposal smacks of less scrutiny of development projects – the last thing that voters need. When developers have to meet with neighbors of a project and listen to their concerns, the project is improved. I think this is what happened with WHR. The Wildhorse East folks can correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t all the neighborhood/developer meetings create a better project then was initially proposed?
“Please correct me if I am wrong.”
I do not recall that it was ever demonstrated that Kevin Wolfe was being paid by the Yes on X campaign but you are correct that he did misrepresent himself as speaking for Friends of the River in Yes on X campaign literature and Friends of the River did publicly deny that he was authorized to speak for them.
Here are the two letters to the Davis Enterprise Editor dated July 1, 2005 on from the Friends of the River and the other an apology from Corbett.
[quote]Group’s endorsement implied
A mailing arrived at the homes of most, if not all, Davis residents this week that included a quote from Kevin Wolf in support of the Covell Village development project and identified him as representing Friends of the River — thus implying an organizational endorsement of the project.
That is not the case.
Friends of the River has not endorsed the Covell Village project. We have no organizational position on the issue, nor do we intend to. This was an unauthorized use of our name and at no point were we contacted by the authors of the mailing either before or since the mailing went out.
Kevin Wolf is a former employee of Friends of the River and currently does occasional consulting work with the organization. According to Kevin , he was also not consulted about being identified as a representative of Friends of the River .
The developers of Covell Village have a responsibility to make a formal retraction and clarify that Friends of the River has not endorsed the project.
Peter T. Ferenbach
Executive director, Friends of the River , Sacramento[/quote]
[quote]We apologize for our mistake
In a recent brochure, we accidentally identified Covell Village supporter Kevin Wolf with a title saying ” Friends of the River .” Unfortunately, he was read the final copy over the phone and had no idea that we made this mistake in his identity. He thought he was going to have a label “environmental activist and local business owner.”
Friends of the River has no connection to this project, and Kevin does not represent that organization. We truly regret our error and apologize for the problems we caused him, the state’s best river protection organization, and anyone in Davis who was misled by our mistake.
Mike Corbett [/quote]
I suspect that 30-40% of Davisites would like to see “no growth” occur over the next ten years and the same percentage thinks that growth is needed to help our schools, or because UCD and our job base keeps growing which results in more and more people buying homes on prime ag land in Woodland and surrounding cities and commuting to Davis, or for other reasons. I think the other 20-30% of Davisites will support or oppose a project based on how it impacts them personally in areas such as traffic or home value, or based on how the project fits into their vision for the town.The vast majority of us still want to have the right to vote on a project. I think though that the majority of voters in town will support a version of Measure J that moves the election on the project to occur earlier in the process yet still provide everyone with assurances as to what the final project will look like if it is ultimately approved by the city council.”
How will we know what the final version of the project is if we vote early in the process? The devil is in the details. I suspect NO LESS THAN 75% of this town wants to pass Measure J “as is”, and are not enthusiastic about any attempt to change, weaken or gut it. I would also guess that any City Council member who votes against Measure J “as is” will have no future in Davis politics.
[i]Would the Cannery, Nishi, or PG&E even be subject to Measure J votes, and why are those being brought up in arguments then?[/i]
The Nishi property is explicitly included in Measure J. As for the other two, why not throw them in? If 2,000 homes are enough, why not?
[i]Didn’t a clear-cut “majority” of voters reject both Measure X (60%) and Measure P (75%)? So what “majority” are now referring to that supports changing the current Measure J process?[/i]
Here you may well have a stronger empirical case than Kevin Wolf. A majority of Davis voters might well prefer to know exactly what is in each proposal, before they kick it into the dust.
Kevin says that many voters may be concerned about things like that “UCD and our job base keeps growing which results in more and more people buying homes on prime ag land in Woodland and surrounding cities and commuting to Davis”. Yes, I’m concerned, and yes, Kevin may well be concerned. But I don’t see evidence of political symmetry. Those who are concerned about this seem to be grossly outnumbered in the voting booth.
If the problem is the amount of time and resources spent in the planning process, fix the planning process. The timing of a Measure J vote has nothing to do with it.
Kevin, I’m curious about your rationale for this change:
Current wording of Measure J:
C. Once the voters have approved a land use map designation or land use entitlement for a property, additional voter approval shall not be required for:
(2) Any requested modification to a land use designation or development project entitlement that does not increase the number of permitted dwellings or units
Your version:
C. Once the voters have approved the pre-application a land use map designation or land use entitlement for a property, additional voter approval shall not be required for:
(2) Any requested modification to a land use designation or development project entitlement that does not significantly increase or decrease the number of permitted dwellings or units
Personally I oppose measure J because it has become a no growth tool but let us have an honest debate, a straight up or down, on one proposal put on the ballot by the city council.
It is so evident that Kevin’s goal is to make it easier for developers of peripheral parcels to move their projects forward. The time and money savings he refers to are those of the developer, not the citizens. Davis voters are not concerned with the time needed to fully vet all the information on a project. On the contrary, Davis voters WANT to have all the information about a project, including fiscal analyses and costs to the city/tax payers, environmental impacts, housing sizes and costs, traffic impacts, sustainability features, impacts on our waste water treatment plant and ground water supplies, etc. BEFORE voting on the project. What Kevin proposes is a vote on a vague concept with some baseline features (how those can be visualized without a detailed project plus impacts is yet to be seen) followed by the entire entitlement process, development agreement and EIR and then a final vote by the COUNCIL ALONE on the final project and its impacts.
This is basically why we wrote Measure J in the first place. The council majorities are beholden to the ones who brought them to the dance, and they want their support in future elections, so they give lip service to the process and vote for their favorite developer’s proposal.
As I stated previously, Kevin Wolf had nothing whatever to do with drafting Measure J and very little to do with the campaign. A small group of us drafted Measure J with the assistance of our city attorney, the counsel of an attorney from Shute Mahaly and Weinberger and two of our council members, not including Sheryl Freeman, although she did ultimately vote to put it on the ballot. We based it on Ventura County’s measure to allow a citizen vote on conversion of ag land to urban uses. Since that time, many jurisdictions have adopted similar ordinances, and they are all amazingly similar. Why is that? Because that is what works. All of these ordinances were adopted to give the citizens the right to have a say in how their communities grow. They were adopted to take the ultimate decisions on development issues on ag land and open space away from the electeds with special interest funding, and to give it to the voters. To develop an informed decision and vote, the citizens must first have all the information about the project.
I was a Yes on P supporter, but I was one of the drafters of Measure J and am a very strong supporter of J and proponent of putting J on the ballot as is and ALONE. I will be joining the fight against any attempts to water down or gut Measure J or to confuse the voters with an “alternative”.
Greg K
I don’t think one should conflate folks who want slow housing growth with folks who want no growth of any kind in Davis.
Just for the record I favor job growth in Davis, especially green jobs. I also favor helping UCD grow, though West Village accomplisheds that goal quite well (and with UC cutbacks I would not count on growth in the UCs).
Building more houses does not grow jobs in Davis (except for temporary construction jobs most of which would go to people who do not live in Davis). It is certainlt debatable whether having more people in Davis will make it a better place to live (I doubt it.)
I speak for myself only, but I know many other slow-growthers who would like to see more jobs in Davis, especially green-collar jobs, so lets be careful here.
[i]I don’t think one should conflate folks who want slow housing growth with folks who want no growth of any kind in Davis.[/i]
I agree that it’s not quite that simple and that most people don’t want no growth at all. What is true that support for growth in Davis has no organization at the present time; it is therefore just lip service. That is part of what Measure J accomplishes. It is a mechanism to automatically organize opposition to growth. For instance, suppose that every voter tipped his hat to one Measure J project out of four. As long as they spread out their support, all of the votes would fail.
[i]I also favor helping UCD grow, though West Village accomplishes that goal quite well[/i]
I don’t see any quantitative basis for saying that West Village “accomplishes” the goal of allowing UC Davis to grow. Sure, it helps. What study or planning document ever said that it was enough? The main relevant planning document delivered to UCOP from UC Davis promised that it would have been done years ago.
Then too, look at which was more organized in the city, justification for West Village or opposition to it. Remember the shoving match and the lawsuit.
[i]It is certainly debatable whether having more people in Davis will make it a better place to live (I doubt it.)[/i]
I doubt it too. Growth makes Davis very slightly less nice to live in, for the enfranchised voters who already live here. It would still be a much better place to live for the people who move in.
Hi all
I will try to respond to each commenter’s issues one at time. I won’t get through them all so I will come back later.
Phil,
1. Measure J presently requires that if any changes occur to any of the restrictions on the property that were voted on by the public, the new changes have to be voted on in an election as well. An Early Vote Measure J would do the same.
2. Whether the city brings forward a project like converting the C Street park or the Susan B Anthony school offices to housing as the Housing Element Committee supported, or whether it advances a project developer’s proposal, a certain amount of public hearings are needed, just like N Street Cohousing had to do to get its preliminary permit to convert the block to a Planned Development. Lets strengthen what those requirements are and have them voted on before additional, time consuming work and costs of an EIR etc are done.
3. We disagree on the purpose of Measure J. You say you support it as a way “to keep our City Council in check”. I think it should be part of the set of tools we citizens use to advance our vision for the town.
Ryan
I am always glad to talk about Rodney Robinson’s and Jerry Glazer’s immoral and unethical activities surrounding the Wildhorse Project because I fear people only hear some of the story, especially if they talk to the Wildhorse Opposition Association members who didn’t want to go after “their” friend for ripping off their organization. Read the information at http://members.dcn.org/whoa/ including our deposition of Robinson. Truly the saddest part of whole tragedy is that Robinson and Glazer stopping the northern Cal court of appeals from being able to vote on whether our referendum of the zoning of the Wildhorse Project could be voted on. Lots of experts think that the Appeals Court would have voted on the side of democracy. This ruling would have allowed other cities and towns and counties to referend a zoning without having to do the near impossible task of also running a referendum on the underlying General Plan. A lot of other bad projects would have been stopped throughout the state if Robinson and Glazer hadn’t taken $140,000 from the developers to drop the case. And of course they did this without asking the WHOA steering for permission. And the kept the share of the $140K that should have gone to WHOA.
Greg
1. Nishi and Covell Village are included in the existing Measure J. I would add the Hunt’s Cannery site as well. I like Jim Frame’s idea (see http://www.davisvoice.com/2009/11/measure-j-draft-version-1-01/) that city parks sites such as the Little League Fields and the C Street Park site are included. I think we should also include converting shopping centers to housing as well.
2. Just because many of us voted against Measures X and P doesn’t mean that the majority of Davisites won’t support an effort to improve Measure J to meet its same goals but to make it so that our time and resources are used more efficiently in the process.
3. I have talked to the developer of the Nishi Project (of which John Whitcomb is a partner). They can’t take the risk of moving that project through the existing Measure J process given how costly it would be. With an early vote option, they could. I think this voted rated so highly with our committee because its traffic would go through campus and wouldn’t enter from or exit onto Richards. We could put 600 plus units of housing and a business park there on 40 acres of land with the units a 7-10 minute walk from the train station and the core of the campus. Compare this to the 600 units on the Hunt’s Cannery property on 100 acres of land.
4. I agree with the majority on the Housing Element Committee that the Covell Village site and the Cannery site should be developed together in an integrated plan. Senior housing in town does have a lot of potential benefits for our city finances as seniors move from their near empty, family sized homes into smaller units with shared facilities. The resale of their homes brings their property taxes to reset at the sale price, which can often bring 3-5 times more income than they presently pay. And more families moving into those older houses helps our schools.
5. I think you will be surprised at the number of opponents to Measure P who think that the Measure P results argue for an earlier vote on Measure J requirements.
Bye for now. I will get back to the other comments soon.
Kevin
Greg: “I don’t see any quantitative basis for saying that West Village “accomplishes” the goal of allowing UC Davis to grow.”
IMO West Village covers some (not all) of the rental housing deficiency created by the last decade of enrollment growth. A year or so ago I crunched the numbers, based on projected and prior decade enrollment increases, and concluded that Davis needs about 2000 more housing units for students and other renters within the next 5 – 10 years. Otherwise, the rental vacancy rate would drop even further, rental housing costs for students and non-student renters would continue to go up (as they have done, even with the drastic drop in housing prices).
If UCD holds enrollment steady or even drops a bit for a couple of years, West Village might lead to a slight increase in the vacancy rate. But it is far from what is considered healthy for a competitive rental market, so that just freezes the present expensive rental market.
The most pressing need in Davis is more rental housing. It’s good that UCD is providing some. It’s too bad they’re using the remainder of that space for housing where they will discriminate in their sales.
But it’s worth repeating that no developer has come forward with a proposal that would include significant rental housing. Expensive townhouses and senior-specific housing would make Davis more “elitist.” Changing how Measure J is implemented does nothing for the lower-income renters here if all the voters get to consider are expensive homes.
At this point, I’m unconvinced an early popular vote will do what Kevin thinks it will: save us from a costly election for a project doomed to fail. I don’t see his idea as an improvement on Measure J. In fact, I think his idea makes it more unlikely a project will get through, because as Pam Nieberg (now using her own name) says, “Davis voters WANT to have all the information about a project … BEFORE voting on the project.” As such, any early vote will automatically be rejected.
The irony is that the folks who are so obsessed with the idea that Kevin is an agent for Tandem Properties can’t see the forest for the trees. Pam writes: “It is so evident that Kevin’s goal is to make it easier for developers of peripheral parcels to move their projects forward.”
Yet the reality is exactly the opposite: If every pre-vote would be rejected, as Pam’s logic suggests it would, then Kevin’s proposal is anti-developer.
My feeling is we should just renew Measure J as is. If we want to avoid another very costly, but ultimately losing election for a peripheral development, we should amend the process of how each project goes through the city and winds up in the hands of the city council. The process should involve all the affected commissions from the start, not at the end. It’s in the interest of developers and the people to build a concensus on a project. A concensus would save us from wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on unnecessary votes.
Insofar as the council believes the ordination of properties for development deigned by the Housing Committee is correct, then city staff needs to be directed by the council to follow that guideline.
Ultimately, however, no peripheral housing project in Davis is going to get much popular support as long as the residents believe the housing supply is sufficient. I doubt that view is apt to change for another 5 years or more.
Kevin:
Re what happened in the WHOA law suit. Rodney did ask the WHOA steering committee about continuing with the suit. No one was interested. You were not on the steering committee, so you would not have known that. Rodney and Jerry continued on their own behalf and ultimately settled. I believe that your actions toward Rodney after that were politically motivated and had nothing to do with any “moral” obligations.
Rich:
I do believe that it is Kevin’s INTENT to make it easier for developers to move their projects forward. I did not say that that was what would happen if he prevailed.
David: good call asking Wolf to respond. The topic drift on this one is stunning.
[i]It’s good that UCD is providing some. It’s too bad they’re using the remainder of that space for housing where they will discriminate in their sales.[/i]
UC is getting jerked around from all sides by blame and expectations. One day the legislature hands UC its biggest funding cut ever, the next day some of the legislators blame it for raising fees. In Davis, one day the voters say that that the city has built plenty; if the university wants more housing that it’s own responsibility. Another day there’s a lawsuit when UCD does exactly that, or others object that the housing is discriminatory.
With all of that going on, it is completely defensible for the university to reserve housing for its employees. It’s the one remaining way to sweeten faculty job offers. The salaries are below the national curve and the real estate prices are above the national curve, and UC Davis can’t fix either one directly. Besides, employers have the right to use their land in this way in general.
[i]But it’s worth repeating that no developer has come forward with a proposal that would include significant rental housing.[/i]
With the realities of growth politics in Davis, can you really blame them? More than half of the growth in Yolo County lately has been in West Sacramento, and they did build some apartments and condos there. A lot of these developers probably couldn’t care less about Davis; they probably gave up on it a long time ago.
If measure J is renewed there will not be another vote for peripheral growth for 10 years. Even if someone would be fool hardy and try they will be voted down at huge expense. A vote for measure J is a vote against any peripheral annexation for growth.
Kevin:
I still think that if you try to tinker with the current Measure J, it will be DOA (dead on arrival!) Conduct your own polling, and ask the following question of voters:
“Do you support Measure J in its current form”?
If you get more than a 40% NO, I’d be shocked!
[b]KW:[/b] [i]”I have talked to the developer of the Nishi Project (of which John Whitcomb is a partner). … its traffic would go through campus and wouldn’t enter from or exit onto Richards. We could put 600 plus units of housing and a business park there on 40 acres of land with the units a 7-10 minute walk from the train station and the core of the campus.” [/i]
How do you overcome the fact that there is a major, highly trafficked railroad line which divides Nishi from the campus?
If all you envision are dorms, then the foot and bike traffic they generate could largely be accommodated by the pedestrian tunnel which connects behind Border’s with the UCD Arboretum. There is an at-grade crossing over the tracks where Arboretum Drive becomes Arboretum Terrace. However, it makes no sense to encourage regular auto traffic over that opening.
And that, it seems to me, is exactly what you would do if you built a business park on the Nishi Property.
The only solution, then, would be for the developer to construct a tunnel under the tracks for car and truck traffic to pass in and out of Nishi. If that were done, I would think the entire Nishi Property should be sold to UC Davis and made part of the campus, given that its only vehicular access point would be the existing campus.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/SwsiE3nKWrI/AAAAAAAAAPo/ulcEVWzIq_0/s1600/nishi.bmp[/img]
David
I am surprised you would rate the Nishi site “the single worst place to put a development.” You are way off from the near consensus of our housing element committee. I guess you don’t have the same goals of:
•Protecting as much ag land by having the highest densities and using the lowest quality ag land for housing.
•Having housing near the campus and the downtown to reduce traffic, pollution, use of oil and to promote walking and shopping in the downtown.
I guess you think that the traffic that housing would create would over come the above benefits. Many on the Housing Element Committee agreed with you so the compromise was for a project on Nishi that would only allow cars to enter and exit from the campus. According the owners of the Nishi land, the campus is willing to allow the building of a pass over the railroad track where the new extension of B Street will go south toward the freeway and bypass the Mondavi complex. No vehicles except emergency and mass transit could exit or enter via Olive Drive.
Regarding paving over farmland, all development except second units, conversion of existing urban buildings such as PG&E or shopping centers, or the conversion of parks will result in the loss of ag land to housing. The question should be how much ag land and what quality of soil is lost per unit. In Woodland about five units are built per acre. Wildhorse ranch, which you supported, would about double that. The Cannery project would convert about 30 acres of former buildings and about 70 acres of habitat and farmable land to 600 units, about six units per acre. Nishi could get 15-20+ units per acre and the land is not the best farmland. It is an awkward size and shape and is time consuming to bring tractors to the site. And because there is a rail crossing to allow machinery access to the site, the trains have to blow their whistles as they go through town.
With this clarification about traffic and ag land trade off, do you still think it is the “single worse place”?
Got to go. I will check back tonight.
Kevin
[quote]According the owners of the Nishi land, the campus is willing to allow the building of a pass over the railroad track where the new extension of B Street will go south toward the freeway and bypass the Mondavi complex. [/quote] B Street ends at 1st Street for a good reason. You must have meant A Street, which already connects up with Arboretum Drive? Surely you don’t want what amounts to a highway squeezed in between Aggie Villa and the preschool over what is now a greenbelt and would likely ruin the east end of the Arboretum itself.
Whether it is an overpass or an underpass, it seems to me the much more sensible connection would be on the other end of Nishi near the Mondavi Center. (See the dashed line on the map below.)
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/Sws46ZRAtbI/AAAAAAAAAPw/r2POFj4i4N0/s1600/GallagherHall.jpg[/img]
Rich Rifkin says: “Davis voters WANT to have all the information about a project … BEFORE voting on the project.” As such, any early vote will automatically be rejected…..”
I trust that THIS concept is not lost on Bill Emlen and the current Council majority,i.e., if you fail to fully comply with the letter and spirit of the current Measure J process with ample time and resources to fully inform the voters, the project will be rejected on this basis, without any further consideration. Unfortunately, the proponents of Measure P failed to recognize the power of this concept.
Kevin:
Rich has really made my point for me. I do think the traffic issues and logistical issues of the highway and railroad tracks largely negate the advantages. I would like to see a high density on-campus housing, but I see it actually on the campus rather than on Nishi. I think the logistical and technical problems are too much to overcome without enough upside.
Kevin Wolfe… can you confirm or deny that you “vacation” at Whitcombe’s Montana hunting lodge??
Kevin:
The message from today’s blogs is clear:
Leave Measure J alone!
If Whitcomb is unsure of whether or not to build on Nishi (or Covell Village II), that’s his problem! He has plenty of money to hire pollsters and see what can mood voters are in for approving any new housing projects.
The more you push revamping of Measure J, the more you are acting as a true “lone Wolf”!
[i]I would like to see a high density on-campus housing, but I see it actually on the campus rather than on Nishi.[/i]
The student housing planned for West Village is almost as high density as what you took to be a model dorm at Cal Poly. The only sin is that it isn’t planted in the core campus. But Cal Poly didn’t do that either; they put their new dorm on undeveloped land at the edge of the hills.
It isn’t reasonable to want all new dorms to be on the core campus at UC Davis. There is not all that much room left for any purpose. Campus planners very reasonably want to save room for more academic buildings, and more support buildings such as counseling.
I think Nishi is an ideal site for rental housing that opens out onto the campus and could provide much-needed housing. Obviously it would be chiefly for students, and the access problems are daunting. But if the owners are correct that the campus is amenable to help provide access, and if consideration is given to suggestions such as Rich’s about egress toward Mondavi, I think it is feasible.
Mr. Toad,
It is always a bit weird responding to an anonymous writer. What substance do you stand on when you say you “don’t remember me being active in the measure J campaign”? What role did you play? You can see that Sheryl and I donated money to the campaign at http://www.dcn.org/government/elections/s00/finance/yes-j.html. What evidence do you have that I didn’t help?
You also stated “but I do remember him claiming to be associated with Friends of the River during the measure x campaign while he was getting paid to front a yes on x group. Didn’t Friends of the River need to disclaim Kevin Wolf? Please correct me if I am wrong.”
Mike Corbett made a mistake and put my old job title and association with F.O.R. when he added my quote to the brochure. By that time I hadn’t worked for F.O.R. for eight years. He apologized and I clarified that I was self-employed. People make mistakes in campaigns like the Measure P campaign claiming Bill Kopper was a supporter.
Then you added to that sentence, as if it were fact, the accusation that I was being “paid to front a yes on x group.” Please come out from hiding Mr. Toad and let us know who is making this false accusation. And provide some evidence or substance when you say I am lying that I have never been paid to work for or against any initiative or election in Davis or anywhere else. It isn’t very brave making accusations anonymously.
Davisite 2
OK, lets clarify the Cache Creek gravel mining issue because it seems that many of the commenters here have a hard time arguing the idea as much as they want to besmirch the bearer of the idea.
I was an early supporter and helped start Friends of Cache Creek. I was involved in the trying to get the gravel mining out of the creek for years but the vested rights the miners had were near impossible to remove or buy out. Bob Milbrodt and some others started talking about running an initiative. I jumped in and helped in that effort. Without my taking almost three weeks off of work to spend full time organizing the initiative drive, we likely wouldn’t have gotten it on the ballot.
In the post election meeting that Sunny Shine and Julie Partansky helped organize, Bob told the group that I had argued from the first meeting that our initiative could be used to force the county and the gravel miners to negotiate a much better deal for the creek, but it would be near impossible to win an initiative in a county wide election with almost no funds and facing such powerful opponents as Teichert and the four other major mining corporations. I published a letter to the Enterprise during the signature gathering effort urging people to sign so we could negotiate.
So with Sheryl Freeman’s help, Supervisor Helen Thomson’s involvement and others, we did get the county to redo almost all of the mining ordinance that they were on the verge of approving. It is considered the best mining gravel mining ordinance in the state. To make the deal, Sheryl and I had to pledge to take a leadership role against the initiative we helped put on the ballot. I am proud of what we accomplished but have had to live with these accusations since. It is not easy going against powerful interests and winning true benefits. Just running and initiative or referendum that loses might make everyone feel righteous but it didn’t do any real, on the ground good.
Next Davisite 2, what you say about me, Rodney Robinson and WHOA makes me wonder if you aren’t Rodney writing under a pseudonym. What you said is about as wrong as it can be said. Will what I wrote to Ryan in my first response to commenters help you see things differently or do you care to read what Rodney actually said under deposition (http://members.dcn.org/whoa/)? Be careful what people tell you because it may not be the truth. And try to work up the courage to tell us who you really are.
Wow. There are lots of accusations to deal with. I will come back for another round of responses soon.
Kevin
Senior Housing Jan Bridge Kevin Wolf Covell Village Davis Voice Stephen Souza Campaign Manager Sydney Vergis Kemble Pope
Kevin:
Why are you proposing to change Measure J? It has widespread citizen support.
Neither you or the majority of the current CC seem wiling to acknowledge this.
Measure J makes it possible for the VOTERS to decide on proposed developments.
Even better, J should be expanded to include all proposed developments in Davis.
Following on Don Shor on Nishi-UCD access, there is a wide swath of open land between the new hotel and existing student housing which is now a lawn and student gardens. That swath seems suited to an access point. And, a new major road will cross that swath heading into the downtown not too long in the future. So, there could be a nice junction toward the west campus and into the downtown. Done right, it could have that “wow” factor and easily survive a measure J test. Not least of merits, there are not many powerful neighbors who can rise up and cry “no.”
This is all that I have time to comment on tonight. I will try to continue to address each comment tomorrow after work.
2cowherd
I appreciate your concern that this Early Vote on Measure J may lead to “less scrutiny of development projects.” I think we can add conditions to the ordinance to remove your concerns and give you and voters a clear understanding of what the project will look like and be like without having to go the expense and time of finalizing the EIR for the project.
One thing I will say about neighbors is that neighbors of proposed projects, in general don’t like the higher density levels that came out of the Housing Element Committee. Most Davisites support higher densities to reduce that amount of ag land that is converted to housing but want lower densities in their neighborhoods. I think the main reason is that low densities often result in higher home values for neighbors and higher densities don’t. I think that neighbors should be listened to but their more narrow concerns should not override the goals of our city overall.
E. Robert Musser
“How will we know what the final version of the project is if we vote early in the process? The devil is in the details.”
It depends on what it is that we vote upon in an election early in the process. I think that we can include enough specifics and process requirements that the final project will be very similar to what was voted on. You may not know the width of the homes or the exact number of condos versus single family houses on a site but these details aren’t what cause most people to vote against the proposal.
Greg K.
I am glad to see you also are concerned with the rising student population and jobs in town causing more to commute to town and campus. I think the vast majority of Davisites will sacrifice some money or convenience to help reduce the threat of global warming and the soon to be felt impacts of Peak Oil. The argument that its ok for people who work and go to school in Davis to commute from houses build on prime ag land around Woodland doesn’t hold for most of us. Maybe I am wrong and more people will vote their fear that any change in Measure J will increase the chance that a project will be built in their area of town and there are more NIMBYs in town than I think. I hope we will have a chance to see.
Neutral
“If the problem is the amount of time and resources spent in the planning process, fix the planning process. The timing of a Measure J vote has nothing to do with it.”
Have you been involved in an EIR process – commenting in the scoping sessions, the draft and then the final documents? Do you know what’s involved in modeling and analyzing the final traffic expectations? If we didn’t have to go through the process, we would save a lot of staff and citizen time. These things can come after an Early Vote on Measure J. As long as an Early Vote on Measure J spells out what the traffic conditions must at a minimum be, we don’t have to do that study if the public votes the project down in an early vote.
Don S.
Oops. I wrote that wrong. I meant to have C(2) become a requirement where additional voter approval should be required for:
(2) Any requested modification to a land use designation or development project entitlement that increases or “decreases” the number of permitted dwellings or units.
It is clear that a major goal of Measure J and of the Housing Element Committee is to save agricultural land. So lets say Measure P passed and then the developer and the city council reduced the number of units to only 100 from 200, as could be allowed under the existing Measure J. Maybe some people, like the Sierra Club supported the project because it was a higher density project. Lowering the density could violate the wishes of the voters.
In the comments on the first draft language (see http://www.davisvoice.com/2009/11/measure-j-draft-version-1-01/), there is a suggestion that “significantly” be defined as 5%. I like that. So lets say Wildhorse Ranch passed with 200 units. The city council could lower that to 190 units or raise it to 210 units in the final plan without having to come back for a vote. Unfortunately, the present language of Measure J is flawed here if the goal is to prevent the council for wasting prime ag land.
Ah my last comment was too long so I had to break it up. Here is the rest.
Pam
I admire your guts of lining up behind Wildhorse Ranch and being a leader in getting the Sierra Club to support it. You must have taken a load of nastiness for that decision.
My goal is not to make it easier for developers to get their projects built. My draft language for an Early Vote Measure J does make it cheaper for them to find out what the public vote is on their proposal because if they lose, like I think Covell and Wildhorse Ranch would have in an early vote, they wouldn’t have to waste all the money doing final traffic modeling, design and the EIR. We will save staff and citizen time and by default save developer time and money. This isn’t bad. When developers save money, they have more to “give” to a project.
Pam, you have been enough of a citizen activist to know what it takes to be thoroughly involved in an EIR so that it can be successfully challenged. Not having to do that work would clearly save activist and staff time.
It is your opinion that Davis voters want to know the street width and exactly the size of all the single-family units and the other details that come about in the final work on a project. I don’t think this is what most voters really care about. I think they care about big picture issues such as how bad the traffic will be at major intersections and how will the city do economically from the project. We can get answers to those questions in an Early Vote and force the developer to meet them or give up their project. So no, I am not proposing a “a vote on a vague concept with some baseline features.” I think you will be pleased with how the second draft clarifies this.
In your second to the last paragraph you say that I had “nothing whatever to do with drafting Measure J and very little to do with the campaign.” Sheryl Freeman tried to get another version of Measure J through the council. She and I worked on her draft. I never I said I participated in the citizen committee whose draft was approved by the City Council.
Greg, Phil and Don
I like your discussion on jobs, campus growth, the West Village and the desire to have more jobs, especially “green” jobs in town, and rental vacancy rates and prices. The more we stop all growth the higher rents will become, the more people will squeeze into existing houses, the more cars will be parked in our neighborhoods, the more people will be commuting into town, clogging the Richards Underpass and making it inconvenient for us to get around.
I fear Greg’s analysis is right “For instance, suppose that every voter tipped his hat to one Measure J project out of four. As long as they spread out their support, all of the votes would fail.” I think that Measure J as written will make it highly unlikely that any project will be built in the next ten years, and a number of good projects like Nishi with road access only to the campus won’t be even come up for a vote. This may likely be the same result with an early vote but at least a huge amount of time over the next ten years will be saved not having to deal with the final EIR and other issues presently needing staff, council and citizen involvement before a vote occurs as the present Measure J requires.
If no growth does occur over the next ten years, Davis will change, but I don’t think a lot of us will like all of the results. More of our schools will likely close for lack of students. Our population will get older but many of them will continue to live in their big homes with low property tax rates. And more students and lower income people will crowd into rental units to make the rent affordable or will end up driving into town each day.
Enjoy the day.
Kevin
Regardless of whether or not Measure J gets renewed in an early-vote form or not, I encourage support for extending it to cover existing parks and and other city-owned open spaces within the city limits. I believe that the omission of this coverage was an oversight in the original measure simply due to the focus on peripheral development, and because no one dreamed that any of our parks would ever be subject to residential or commercial conversion.
Either flavor of a renewed Measure J can easily accommodate an existing parks provision without betraying the intent of the original ordinance.
[quote] Most Davisites support higher densities to reduce that amount of ag land that is converted to housing but want lower densities in their neighborhoods. [/quote] I doubt this is really true. I think most Davisites have cognitive disonance on this issue. I think it is instead true that [i]most [u]politically active[/u] Davisites support higher densities [/i].
One of the resonant arguments made against Measure P was that the townhouses were “crammed together.” Regardless of the agricultural set asides and the orchard buffer and so on, a lot of people found WHR’s high density a turn off.
If you ask: Do you prefer new homes in Davis to be built with much higher densities than the homes in your neighborhood? I bet a strong majority would say no.
Then if you ask: Do you want our land use policies in Davis to avoid sprawl onto farm lands? A strong majority would say yes.
Then ask: Should new homes include solar panels and other green features? The majority will say yes.
Then ask: Do you want new homes to be affordable to people who work in jobs in Davis which pay a median salary? A strong majority would say yes.
Yet if you put all those things together, they are impossible. Larger, low density lots result in expensive homes that eat up farm land.
Pnieberg (re: WHOA)
“Re what happened in the WHOA law suit. Rodney did ask the WHOA steering committee about continuing with the suit. No one was interested. You were not on the steering committee, so you would not have known that. Rodney and Jerry continued on their own behalf and ultimately settled. I believe that your actions toward Rodney after that were politically motivated and had nothing to do with any “moral” obligations.”
Pam, where do you get your information? From your friend Rodney? Look at page 236 in Rodney’s deposition at http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/whoa/. Are you saying Rodney lied under oath in his deposition?
“I have never discussed the settlement with anyone outside of this room and my attorneys. I’ve admitted that there was a settlement. That was common knowledge at the time of the settlement.”
The settlement and dropping the lawsuit are tied together. Are you saying that Julie Partansky, Paul Sief, Sharon McDonell and other WHOA steering committee members told Rodney that they weren’t interested in stopping the Wildhorse Project through the ongoing Court of Appeals process? Do you think this decision occurred in a meeting? If so, such meeting notes or witnesses would have helped exonerate Rodney and he would have brought that information forward. No such meeting occurred, or tell us who was there.
Maybe there wasn’t a meeting but Rodney asked the Steering Committee members one at a time. Can you tell me of anyone on the Steering Committee who will say they told Rodney it was ok to drop the suit and not let us vote on our referendum? Do you think that if any steering committee member told Rodney it was ok to do this that they also knew that just by letting the appeals case go forward, the Duffel family, owners of the project, wouldn’t be able to sell their project to the eventual developers because escrow on the sale was scheduled to close before the Appeals Court was going to make their decision. The Duffels were on the verge of bankruptcy and, we were told, would have had to give up on the project if they missed the escrow. If the court had given us the right to vote against the zoning change as most experts expected, the new buyers of Wildhorse might see their expensive project drop in value to the price of farmland because a lot of Davisites would have voted against the loss of farmland on this site.. So the Duffels offered Robinson and Glazer $140,000 to drop the case, which they did. Then Robinson and Glazer required that the developers have a confidentiality clause which they could use to tell the Steering Committee and volunteers like me that they couldn’t talk about the settlement. Clever but their deception was eventually forced out in the court process.
Pam, would you have supported dropping the Appeals Court case so the Duffel’s could close their sale by their escrow date? If so, you should remove yourself from the Sierra Club board of directors because that would be a betrayal of environmental activists in Davis and all over California to take away our chance to get a court case in support or running a referendum on a project’s zoning without having to also run another referendum on the underlying General Plan. Think of all the bad projects that citizen activist could have stopped if the courts had allowed a simple referendum up or down on the zoning change of a property.
One of the things that most surprised me about the WHOA case was the number of no-growth activists who condoned Rodney’s actions because he was on their side of the political spectrum and was a friend. It seems Pam that you want to continue with that whitewashing of Robinson and Glazer’s immoral and unethical behavior.
Kevin
Kevin,
I was also a member of the Housing Element Steering Committee and attended all of the meetings. You have made a number of assertions which are incorrect or grossly exaggerated at best.
For instance you state that the following language were “goals” of the Housing Element Steering Committee.
•Protecting as much ag land by having the highest densities and using the lowest quality ag land for housing.
•Having housing near the campus and the downtown to reduce traffic, pollution, use of oil and to promote walking and shopping in the downtown.
This was not language was approved by Housing Element Steering Committee Kevin. It has some trace elements of some things we discussed but “having the highest densities” for instance is language that you are asserting, not language that our committee adopted.
You assert that Nishi was a “near consensus”. The Nishi property was a contentious issue which was debated at length by the committee.
In fact some of the biggest concerns regarding Nishi documented were:
1) Poor vehicular traffic to Core Area.
2) Noise from I-80 and railroad.
3) Safety concerns with the railroad.
4) Prime ag land.
There was some agreement, however, was that the only way to even consider the site (and that did not mean advocating for the site) was if it had UCD access only. Even with that consideration, all the above issues still stood so it was by NO means an “almost consensus issue”. The Nishi site has numerous problems regarding development including access, noise, railroad, and safety issues just to name a few.
Beyond that with the input from the second public workshop on the GPHE resulted in at least 25 documented comments from the public specifically recommending changing Nishi’s ranking from a medium to low ranking!
After the workshop I was shocked and disappointed by your attempts at the GPHE Steering Committee meetings to invalidate public input comments that you did not agree with from the second public input GPHE workshop. Over 150 Davis citizens came and gave their input to that January 24, 2008 workshop. After the staff report came out summarizing the public comments from the workshop, you complained about the public input that you did not agree with. The report included a large number of public comments opposing the development of Covell Village and Nishi. You then tried to invalidate this public input at our GPHE Steering Committee meetings. You and I had a number of “spirited” discussions at these committee meetings about this issue where I strongly disagreed with you. I argued, along with others, that the public input needed to remain on the record. Fortunately, the public input from that workshop remains on the record.
We were all entitled to our opinions on the General Plan Update Housing Element Steering Committee. But, we need to respect the public input that was submitted to that process, Kevin, even though the public input did not agree with some of your opinions, such as your strong support and advocacy to develop Covell Village and Nishi.
Your new approach of changing the rules of Measure J to accommodate your land use desires is ambitious to say the least, but does not serve the best interests of Davis citizens. The public has a right to know all of the information on a project proposed to develop ag land or open space BEFORE it goes on the ballot so that they know what the EIR impacts and the financial impacts would be. The current version of Measure J provides that vital information, and your version does not.
Great job by Pam, Eileen, Mark et al (and NOT Kevin Wolf), in writing and passing a strong, original Measure J to preserve our small-town benefits for all Davis citizens. The passage of Measure J was a monumental success, led by a determined group of grass-roots volunteers, to preserve & protect our community.
Measure J was opposed vehemently by developers, but “ordinary” citizens prevailed. Now the developer interests are attempting to weaken Measure J by allowing developers to bypass citizen input, even to the point of having us vote on “conceptual” projects without so much as a city-based financial analysis or environmental impact report.
I say: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Measure J has served us well, just as the original authors intended, and we need to be sure that ONLY the original Measure J is approved by the Council next month for placement on the June, 2010 ballot.
Supporters of Measure J need three Council votes to place the original on the ballot for renewal “as is,” and to reject any proposal to include a competing or “alternative” version.
The objectives are clear: (1)Find three Council votes to place J on the June, 2010 ballot “As IS,” and (2)Find three Council votes to reject placement of any modified or competing “J” on the June ballot.
Kevin: Do you know what’s involved [in a full EIR] . . .
Yes.
But it is broke Rick because it doesn’t work unless you are trying to stop all peripheral growth then it is a great success.
Mr. Toad: If 75% of the people disagree with you, is it really still broke?
My guess is that 99% of those who are demanding more details before a vote are going to vote NO anyways. Why cant we do it earlier? We want to make projects as difficult as possible- which is OK- but can we at least admit it as a group to avoid the hypocracy?
“My guess is that 99% of those who are demanding more details before a vote are going to vote NO anyways.”
From this comment thread, at least five or six of the people who posted voted yes on the last election and there are only 49 over all comments. So it does not appear accurate to say that anything close to 99% of the people demanding more details are going to vote no anyways.
Looks to me like this is just another way through smoke and mirrors to try and sidestep the will of the people. Kind of like Obamacare, portray like it’s budget neutral when everyone knows it’s going to cost trillions and trillions that we don’t have and can’t afford.
If it is designed to regulate growth but results in completely shutting it down I would argue it is either bait and switch or doesn’t fulfill its purpose.
Toad: First, it’s not going to completely shut down growth, just peripheral growth. We have approved 500 units within the city in the past year. That’s not completely shutting down growth.
Second, you have to factor in the housing market.
Third, if the people don’t want growth and you don’t have a Measure J, then they are going to elect a no growth council. One way or another the public will get its way if that is their intent.
If Sue is correct you are going to get peripheral growth pushed through by the county or even worse leapfrog development beyond the periphery. Nobody is going to try to spend the money for a vote. So measure J takes the City of Davis out of the decision making process instead of controlling it.
sp
I don’t see three votes in the county to do that any time soon.
“I don’t see three votes in the county to do that any time soon.”
If Don Saylor gets to be Supervisor, he will have to use his maximum powers of obfuscation to support what almost brought Thomson and Yamata down in a Davis recall election. Don will be depending upon Davis voter support when he tries to move up to the Assembly. Davis voters DO NOT forget a political betrayal!
kevinjwolfe: “4. …Senior housing in town does have a lot of potential benefits for our city finances as seniors move from their near empty, family sized homes into smaller units with shared facilities. The resale of their homes brings their property taxes to reset at the sale price, which can often bring 3-5 times more income than they presently pay. And more families moving into those older houses helps our schools.”
So we sacrifice seniors in favor of those who are younger with families? Younger folks are somehow more important than seniors? Statistics show that 89% of seniors want to age in place right where they are in their current home. With a Universal Design Ordinance or retrofitting an older home, seniors can remain in their own home they have lived in for years, which is often a labor of love. It is where they have raised children, lived with a long-time spouse. A large home also allows seniors to have family members move in and help care for them, or provides space for a live-in caregiver. Seniors can rent out rooms to supplement their income as well. Reverse mortgages on their existing large home can give seniors a stream of income to survive the remainder of their lives. It sounds as if you want to take that option away from seniors for the “welfare” of the younger generation?
E Roberts Musser: “How will we know what the final version of the project is if we vote early in the process? The devil is in the details.”
kevinjwolfe: “It depends on what it is that we vote upon in an election early in the process. I think that we can include enough specifics and process requirements that the final project will be very similar to what was voted on. You may not know the width of the homes or the exact number of condos versus single family houses on a site but these details aren’t what cause most people to vote against the proposal.”
But the DEVIL IS IN THE SPECIFIC DETAILS. We need to know EXACTLY what is being proposed before we vote on it, not what is “similar” as you suggest. An EIR report may reveal drawbacks that citizens had not considered. That is what an EIR report is for, for heaven’s sake! In fact, in the Measure P process, it was clear even with Measure J “as is”, we did’t know everything, which bothered many people, and may be part of the reason it was voted down.
As some above have said, Measure J is not the problem, it is the process that needs to be fixed. More commission and public input at an early stage for instance. Your version of Measure J will almost certainly result in an intial “NO” vote, requiring a second vote if the developer wants to go any farther, which will result in more money being spent by the developer and city, not less. Your “new and improved” version of Measure J, IMHO, is a solution in search of a problem. The real issue is a very flawed process for proposing projects and properly vetting them prior to a Measure J vote. We saw this play out with respect to Measure P.
After an early vote, if it passes measure J and the EIR has problems or reveals issues that can not be mitigated then the project will not be approved. The EIR can also be challenged in court if it has flaws.
Mr. Toad:
Measure J was meant to control sprawl onto ag land and open space and to give the citizens a say in the future of their own community. There is no bait and switch involved. Measure J has worked exactly as it was intended. If it results in no peripheral growth for the time being, that is what the majority of the people who live here want. Or do you believe that a handful of developers and their elected representatives should be the only ones with a say in the future of our community?
pnieberg has hit on the real problem here:
Or do you believe that a handful of developers and their elected representatives should be the only ones with a say in the future of our community?
If we can’t trust our city council because it’s made up of the “(developers’) elected representatives,” our Measure J solves that matter. But, Prop. 13 served a similar purpose on the state level, and look at all the unintended consequences that it has brought us and our children.
If the majority of Davisites support the Measure J election results, why can’t the same majority elect council members we can trust to carry out our wishes re. growth issues? Can we fix our representative democracy before we end up needing elections for every contentious, significant issue we face?
Yeahmyam:
Are you saying that if the EIR reveals that there are issues that cannot be mitigated then the council will not approve it? That is unfortunately not the case. The council majorities who are in the pockets of developers, have always approved the peripheral sprawl developments, despite the fact that the EIRs may have revealed impacts that could not be mitigated to less than significant. EIRs can indeed be challenged, but citizen groups generally do not have that kind of money.
As I stated before, the whole reason we did a Measure J was that the councils did NOT take into consideration the impacts of projects on the community. They simply rubber stamped them into being for their favorite developer of the hour, regardless of significant objection from the community. We were then forced to do referenda to try to reverse the decision, taking up tremendous time and effort to qualify for the ballot. With Measure J, we automatically have the final say in any development on ag land or open space on our borders.
An early vote does not allow the community to study all aspects of a proposal including the EIR, development agreement, and fiscal analysis before making an informed decision about a project.
[quote]The council majorities who are in the pockets of developers, have [b]always approved the peripheral sprawl[/b] developments[/quote] Pam, other than Covell Village, how many peripheral sprawl developments has the DCC approved since 1995?
“…why can’t the same majority elect council members we can trust to carry out our wishes re. growth issues?”
Changing the way we elect our Council reps to a district type where campaign money is not controlling and candidate door to door canvassing is feasible would be a good beginning towards a Council that represents the wishes of the Davis voter.
Since it is difficult to verify Kevin Wolfe’s explanatory narratives of his actions/positions which ,on their face, appear to support John Whitcomb’s interests, fundamental credibility becomes a significant issue. In that light, I AGAIN would like to ask Kevin Wolfe to confirm or deny whether he “vacations” at John Whitcomb’s hunting lodge in Montana.
davisite2
I will address your concern about my relationship to John Whitcomb, and I suppose other developers in town. You seem to have trouble thinking that someone would work on projects like rewriting Measure J, supporting Covell VIllage or hoping that Nishi property gets built without recieving any personal compensation, whether it be from being paid or by taking vacations with someone. I wonder if this is a reflection of your own shadow side and you project onto me what may tempt you.
I suppose this is going to disappoint you but I have never taken vacations with any developers in town. I don’t hang out and socialize with them. I don’t get any benefits from them. I appreciate that they don’t tell lies about me or say some of the crazy things that have been said in this blog, but no, I don’t get any personal or business or any other benefits from being occsionally on the same side
I hope this helps consider the message now that you know the messenger is doing this all independently and because he thinks it is the right thing to do.
Kevin
[asked and answered. Give it a rest, davisite.]
davisite2
You are a bit too obtuse for me. I don’t know what “asked and answered” means. I hope you can find the courage to tell us who you are and stand by what you write. I suspect you would put a little more thought into what you say here.
Hi, Kevin,
I removed his followup question. It was more of the same. Thanks for addressing the questions on this thread, and I hope the discussion can stay on Measure J and related topics.
Don
Hi all,
I jumped in to address davisite2’s insinuations that I receive personal benefits from developers for the stances I take on issues in town. I am now going to return to going through the comments sequentially, but I am going to skip some that I will answer with others later and ones that are not directly addressed to me and this issue. Here goes.
Greg S. Re: “Do you support Measure J in its current form”?
You are probably right that the majority of Davisites would say yes to the above question if asked now. That is why, when doing a poll, one should ask more questions, including questions after providing information that would be imparted during the course of a campaign.
Would you support a Measure J that was improved so that not as much city staff and citizen time needs to be spent before the public votes on a proposed project? A lot of people I talk to change their mind from their initial support of Measure J in its current form to a version of the measure that attempts to improve it.
Rich Rifkin – connection from campus to Nishi.
You are right and I meant to say A Street’s extension to the south and not B Street. With a bike and car overpass above the train tracks, there would be no need for people to be exposed to having to cross the tracks. The ground level crossing would be removed. I suspect that protective walls or fences would be put up to help prevent intoxicated students from mistakenly partying on the tracks. As I understand it, the new overpass would work well and might connect to parking garages on one or both sides of the tracks. The cost of the new overpass is doable if the density is high enough.
So Rich and David G., if an overpass works out from the campus A Street location and your concerns about a dangerous railroad track are met, does this change your low rating of the project? Or do you have other issues with the site that would overcome the high rating it received from the Housing Element Committee. I think the number one reason this site was rated so highly by the committee was that most of the people living there would do a lot of walking and riding bikes compared to people living in sites along the northern and western peripheries of town.
David, one last thing you said “I think the logistical and technical problems are too much to overcome without enough upside.” These logistical and technical issues can be uncovered early through a pre-application process. If it is technically or economically too costly, I don’t think the developer is going to ask the city to put the project to a vote on something that they won’t be able to build. Any changes to the standards set in the Early Measure J vote couldn’t be enacted without another election. I assume you don’t think people should take your word for it that the “problems are too much to overcome without enough upside” and that you would agree with me that such a decision should come after a more formal analysis.
Greg S. “The message is clear from today’s blog.”
I hope you don’t think that we should rate the pulse of the country by what the citizens say when they call in to Rush Limbaugh. I suspect you realize that many of the posters on this blog represent the hardcore, very slow or no growth community and that probably isn’t representative of everyone in town. I think I will seek out more response than the 30-40 people who might comment here.
Jim W. “Why are you proposing to change Measure J?”
Lots of things in our country have had widespread popular support but the public has changed their support as they learned more. I don’t think Davisites have thought much about the problems with the existing Measure J (e.g. it exempts the ConAgra Hunt’s Cannery site), nor have they even considered that they could vote on a potentially improved Measure J. I think that if you will reread my opening piece, you will have a number of answers to your “why” question.
Alceste – “wow facto” at Nishi
At the Housing Element Committee meetings, some argued that we should not build on the 40 acres of the Nishi land because the entrance to Davis as seen by train riders and cars on I-80, should include this swath of ag land. They think that sending this message about saving ag land is important. I think most people miss this narrow swath of land and don’t think of it as farmland.
I would like to see the Nishi property be transformed into housing and buildings that complement the Mondavi buildings and tell the world that Davis is acting on its principles to help stop global warming by make high density, high rise housing near its campus and downtown. It could be a stunning addition to our town.
Got to get to bed. I will continue down the list of comments and respond soon.
Kevin
Kevin,
One railroad crossing will not solve the danger problem or the traffic problem. We have a ped/bike under crossing at Richards, and it has not solved the danger problem for East Olive Drive. Residents do not use the ped/bike underpass; they take the shortest route over the tracks. They cross equally at multiple points along the tracks, i.e., the shortest route from their home to their destination. It is human nature to take the shortest route. No amount of fencing keeps people from taking a short-cut across the tracks.
The site has a multitude of problems which I don’t have time to go into now. It is not a good idea to build housing which is wedged between the major interstate freeway and one of the most heavily used railroad tracks in the nation. I would be very surprised if the University is interested in facilitating housing at this site.
Sue
While I have a chance to respond directly below your comment, I will do so and then continue addressing comments sequentially.
Are you saying that you are so convinced that nothing can be done to stop the residents who would live at the Nishi from crossing the railroad road tracks, that you would not want to evaluate housing on this site? We have hundreds of apartments on East Olive Drive with many people crossing the railroad tracks all day long to get to L Street or down town, but you wouldn’t consider a project on Nishi that could have fences. Fences can be made to be difficult to climb over. I think this is a weak argument against the many benefits of the site. I would be interested in hearing your other concerns of the site and if you also think they too are unmitigable
OK. Back to answering sequentially.
Rich R. – density cognitive dissonance
I agree with you that most neighbors want lower density on projects close to them. Look at number of units that the neighbors succeeded in getting on the Grande site. Something like 45 units. The Housing Element Committee suggested 50-75 on this 8.4 acre site. At an average of six units per acre, the difference between 45 and 75 units equates to five additional acres of farm land lost somewhere in the region to other housing projects.
Neighbor selfishness should not override our common goals and common good. As a society, we need to overcome that or little good will be accomplished if each person attempts to maximize their personal benefit at the expense of the commons and future generations.
I think you are mistaken if you think more than a handful of people would have changed their vote and supported Measure P if the condos weren’t so dense. The people I talked with didn’t bring this up as an issue. And why should we care how dense the townhouses and condos are? If you don’t like it, don’t purchase one. If the developer guessed wrong and there aren’t buyers for the condos, he will have to lower his price to sell them. Or Rich do you think that people unthinkingly equate higher densities to crime, poor people, poor design and other perceived negatives and thus automatically oppose higher density?
I also agree with you that development projects can’t afford to do everything that people would like to see them do and then also sell moderately priced homes. But if that is what the public and council want to include in an Early Measure J vote, they can,, and the developers can decide to drop the application if they truly can’t swing the deal financially. And then no vote would be needed.
Don…. please indulge me here and thank you for allowing this issue to be raised which is believed by some in our community to be true. If clearly false, it should rightly be dismissed. Kevin Wolf… just one more query that requires just a yes or no reply please to finally “put to rest” this issue. Have you ever SPENT TIME in John Whitcomb’s hunting lodge in Montana??
[b]KW:[/b] [i]”You are right and I meant to say A Street’s extension to the south and not B Street. … As I understand it, the new overpass would work well and might connect to parking garages on one or both sides of the tracks. … if an overpass works out from the campus A Street location and your concerns about a dangerous railroad track are met, does this change your low rating of the project?”[/i]
It don’t have a problem with that solution. However, it ultimately seems to me that this should be a decision of the university. The land will become a part of the campus with this configuration, just the same as if it connected over near the Mondavi Center.
Noise issues aside, it could be a good location for dorms or more faculty/staff housing. I don’t see it as a sensible place to house new Davis families who are not associated with UCD.
And if it is going to be used for industrial purposes, a connection nearer the Mondavi Center makes far more sense.
Here is how I guess you see it looking, with the red line representing the new overpass:
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/Sw1i_aS3SLI/AAAAAAAAAQI/1xtumW9EFG0/s1600/SolanoParkApartments.jpg[/img]
Because of the pollution and the noise from trains and from Interstate-80, I think an industrial park would make a lot more sense than housing at Nishi. And if it is developed as industry, I think the only connection you need (and want) is not from Arboretum Drive, but rather from Old Davis Road near the Mondavi Center.
I’m unclear, Kevin, why you think it makes more sense to connect near the Arboretum? Either way, this property will be part of the campus. And because industry is so much more sensible than housing, a connection to the freeway (which you get by way of Old Davis Road) makes far more sense than sending that traffic onto already overcrowded First Street and Richards Blvd.
Here is another try at that image:
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/Sw1mTwjcw8I/AAAAAAAAAQQ/7wM-HFuEwIQ/s1600/SolanoParkApartments.jpg[/img]
There is an interesting development in West Sacramento between Business 80 and Hwy 275 (the road that goes to Tower Bridge) called Ironworks Homes & Lofts. It is nestled just between the freeways. I consider it an innovative use of land; not everyone wants to put up with railroad or freeway noise, but others aren’t bothered by it (I live right on I-80). It would be useful if development would be coordinated with the university.
Ok, davisite, but since you are posting anonymously and your question is not relevant to Measure J, any decision by Kevin to ignore it should not be misconstrued.
Yes an industrial park right in front of UC Davis’ signature buildings. But wouldn’t it lack aestetic qaualities you would want proximate to a great university?
“At an average of six units per acre, the difference between 45 and 75 units equates to five additional acres of farm land lost somewhere in the region to other housing projects.
Neighbor selfishness should not override our common goals and common good.”
Kevin please speak for yourself instead of assuming you know what is the common good. Speaking for myself, I think this density is good mantra, to preserve every inch of farmland, is crazy.
One other thing, and yes I know I am anonymous, but have you ever received any compensation of any kind for any of your activities in support of gravel mining or measure x? Reading your reply above still leaves me wondering. A simple no would close the door on these questions.
Mr. Toad
No I have never received any compensation, any gifts, any favors, or any personal help for my efforts with Measure X and for my work to stop the gravel mining companies from mining in Cache Creek and get them to restore that stream. I volunteer my time.
Regarding me speaking for the common good and common goals, I am using the goals that came from the public workshops of the Housing Element Committee and the goals set by our City Council. I happen to agree with the goals of protecting ag land (though I want to protect it on a regional basis and not just ag land on the borders of Davis) and the goals to reduce driving, improve our downtown, create affordable housing, etc.
And I obviously am not an advocate of preserving every inch of farmland as I supported Covell Village and I support converting the Nishi property to housing. I do so because I know that no housing in Davis means more ag land being converted to housing in Woodland, Dixon, Winters and around the county, and it means more commuters driving into and out of Davis. It seems selfish to say protect farmland around Davis but go ahead Woodland and convert twice as much land to housing as we would in Davis. I suspect you and I agree on the need to protect agricultural land and habitat on a regional basis and not just on the borders of Davis.
Eileen Samitz (Housing Element Committee “assertions”
It seems you continue to be at odds with the vast majority of the Housing Element Committee members, and your memory or interpretation of what happened doesn’t seem to be that good.
According to the final report, the top five “housing location principles” in order are, and I quote:
1. Promotes a compact urban form, which allows for efficient infrastructure and services.
2. Promotes overall proximity to existing community facilities including parks, greenbelts, schools and shopping (which reduces driving and negative impacts).
3. Promotes overall proximity to the downtown and UCD (which reduces driving and its negative impacts).
4. Is capable of proving compact development and higher density housing, especially near community facilities.
5. Preserves prime farmland and minimizes farmland conversion.
Notice how “higher densities” and proximity to the campus and downtown are right up there. I didn’t use the exact language but I think my interpretation is correct. And then, the Committee consistently voted for higher density ranges on all projects. You almost always voted for lower densities, yet, if I am correct, you do want to see ag land preserved in the region. There seems to be a clear contradiction between voting for lower densities and wanting to protect ag land and habitat.
Lets address your four reasons why oppose Nishi site even with no access to Richards Blvd”. I will address each concern below.
“In fact some of the biggest concerns regarding Nishi documented were:”
“1) Poor vehicular traffic to Core Area.”
With the core area a 5-10 minute walk from the site, fewer residents there would be driving to the downtown than from the Lewis Cannery site which you rated number one of all larger sites. Exit to and from the freeway would be from the campus exit and not from Richards. Development here would provide housing for some that presently commute through the Richards Underpass to campus. Most of the residents at the Nishi site there would be involved with the campus and wouldn’t need to drive through the downtown or along Fifth street to get to UCD like they would from the Cannery site or any other site in the city. And we want people walking and biking to shop in our downtown.
“2) Noise from I-80 and railroad.”
Modern construction eliminates most noise and would make those units quieter than my house is on N Street. So, are you worried about noise when people are outside You should hang around Borders or along Olive Drive and check it out. Really, it isn’t that bad. Certainly not so bad as to not develop this site but some other one instead.
“3) Safety concerns with the railroad.”
The existing underpass from south Davis is at the east end of the Nishi property and gives a very safe access from the site to the downtown. A new overpass over the railroad tracks to campus will solve the safety concerns on that side. If it still is a concern, a fence can be built.
“4) Prime ag land.”
All land in Davis is prime ag land. For example the Lewis Homes site could be converted to back to ag land. It also has a lot of good existing habitat on its northern 40 acres. You are a champion of converting that 100-acre site into 600 units of housing and yet you oppose converting the 44 acres Nishi property into 600+ units of housing and a business park. Clearly adding high density housing to Nishi would be better for overall farmland protection than converting the Cannery to housing. We could also make sure that a lot of community gardens are added to the site so the people in the high rises could garden within walking distance of where they live. My guess is that you really do understand that higher density housing eventually results in less ag land being converted to housing and more open space for community gardens, parks and greenbelts. I suspect that your apparent opposition to anything that John Whitcomb is involved in clouds your logic.
Eileen (continued)
Regarding public input in workshops, thankfully the majority of the Housing Element Committee members saw the problems of using the small number of comments at a public workshop (relative to the 65,000 who live in town) to use as its metric for ranking sites. The committee, in part decided not to use the results of the “voting” at a public workshop after we found out you were recruiting people opposed to Covell and Nishi to attend.
The most ardent supporters and opponents of a proposal attend public workshops and hearings (or make comments in blogs) . It is one of the reasons to have an election where the average citizen gets to have a say. Most of us don’t care about a project’s every detail. We want to know the important things like the level of traffic that will come through my neighborhood or at the main intersections on which I drive. Or the number of affordable or medium priced units in a project. Etc. An Early Measure J Vote can give citizens the guarantee that what they vote for is what they are going to get, while reducing the time and resources that were wasted in the Cannery, Measure X and Measure P efforts to bring those projects to their final form.
[quote]We have hundreds of apartments on East Olive Drive with many people crossing the railroad tracks all day long to get to L Street or down town, but you wouldn’t consider a project on Nishi that could have fences. — Kevin Wolf[/quote]Kevin, we have gone over and over this problem. The housing on East Olive Drive presents a HUGE safety danger. It should not have been built. When we explored trying to solve the safety problem due to people crossing the railroad tracks, the pedestrian and bike patterns were observed. It was fond that people were crossing at every point along the tracks. It was clear that one over-crossing wouldn’t solve the problem. It wasn’t even clear if people would climb over the tracks rather than sprint across them even if they lived a few feet from the over-crossing. People just don’t judge the danger of railroad tracks accurately. If they don’t see a train, they think they are safe. Every time a fence is built, it is cut.
Again, Kevin, I just don’t understand why you are so determined to approve high-density housing wedged between one of the busiest interstate freeways in the nation and one of the busiest set of railroad tracks in the nation.
Are there solid statistics showing that the relation of local people to the tracks is more unsafe than the relation of people to train tracks of that sort in other places? That is, do we have a form of “threat inflation” here? Just how unsafe is this location?
It seems to me that you folks are re-arguing something that has already been hashed out by the Housing Element Committee. The site is on the “green light” list, the same pros and cons are listed (see page 55 of the Final Draft Steering Committee Report, March 20 2008, pdf available at the city’s web site). So it seems that a majority of the committee ranked this site favorably. It calls for developing a cooperative plan with UCD, and for mitigating safety concerns with the railroad company.
“….any decision by Kevin to ignore it should not be misconstrued.”
I’m sure that you will agree that what the readers of this thread decide to construe (or misconstrue) is THEIR province.
Don, I think that the desirability of the Nishi is worth discussing regardless of the Housing Steering Committee recommendation. Neither the Steering Committee nor the council has the last word on any development.
But the property is not likely to be developed without University cooperation, so I agree that that folks should check in with the University before wasting too much time debating the proposal to develop the property.
I checked that report mentioned by Don and the site is 45 acres. If you are building a mid-rise or high-rise project I dont think you need to wedge housing onto the site since it would have a small footprint. It can be set away from the freeway and the RR tracks. But I agree with Sue, everyone who lives there will risk their lives hopping fences and dodging engines instead of riding their bike along the existing bike underpass to the Arboretum into the core area and campus. Especially if they are running late to a Mondavi perfomance. Those high heels are a real bear on the tracks- thats why I carry an extra pair of hiking boots and leather gloves in my purse.
As i said before, the “wow” possibility is for UCD to build an underpass that enters the campus between the new hotel and the existing student housing. That means, to me, that UCD should be the developer of the property and make it an organic part of the campus that also interacts with the downtown.
The other plans, such as that proposed by Mr. Rifkin, seem unlikely, given that UCD owns so much of the land involved.
[b]RIFKIN:[/b] [i]”I would think the entire Nishi Property should be sold to UC Davis and made part of the campus, given that its only vehicular access point would be the existing campus. … I think the only connection you need (and want) is not from Arboretum Drive, but rather from Old Davis Road near the Mondavi Center.”[/i]
[b]ALCESTE:[/b] [i]”the “wow” possibility is for UCD to build an underpass that enters the campus between the new hotel and the existing student housing. That means, to me, that UCD should be the developer of the property and make it an organic part of the campus that also interacts with the downtown.”[/i]
Sounds like you agree with what I said above, ALCESTE. You not only agree, you repeated my idea almost word for word. I should sue you for copyright infringement (LOL).
And thus, your last sentence is puzzling: [i]”The other plans, such as that proposed by Mr. Rifkin, seem unlikely, given that UCD owns so much of the land involved.”[/i]
Guys, again….I don’t think that the University is interested.
Desktop/Screen shot 2009-11-25 at 8.07.52 PM.png
Is the above what you posted? Is so, it is a very different story.
Hi all, I am back to tackle more of the comments. I am skipping some. If you think I skipped something that I should address, please let me know. Thanks.
Neutral (second comment)
Since you say you know what is involved with an EIR, why did you say “The timing of a Measure J vote has nothing to do with it.” In an Early Measure J vote, the EIR would come after the public voted to advance the project. If they voted no, an EIR would not be conducted. Therefore the time and energy spent by staff, citizen and developer would be saved. An EIR has to be done on a big project. You are not making much sense.
David G.
“Mr. Toad: If 75% of the people disagree with you, is it really still broke?”
Why do you equate the 75% of us who voted against the Wildhorse Ranch project as saying that 75% of the public supports Measure J as written? Quite a leap in logic.
E. Roberts Musser
“So we sacrifice seniors in favor of those who are younger with families?”
How does giving seniors an opportunity to move into a senior housing project in Davis “sacrifice” them in favor of younger families? The seniors wouldn’t be forced to sell their homes and move out. The University Retirement Community on Shasta Dr. gave a great boon to our property tax income as scores of seniors in town voluntarily sold their homes to be able to buy into this new facility. I think your statistic on 89% of seniors wanting to stay in their existing house is suspect. How about this as a question
“Would you be interested in selling your house for a lot more money than it would cost you to buy a unit in a senior housing facility within a mile or two of where you live now and where you didn’t have to maintain the big house and yard you presently have?” Try that question with your senior friends who might be alone in their big houses.
I sure like your idea of making it easier for seniors to retrofit their homes. I assume you mean making so that it is easier to build second units. Most seniors I know of aren’t interested in having housemates but could see themselves moving into a smaller unit attached to their main home. Adding second units was ranked number 5 out of the 37 options for increasing housing in town by our committee. Too bad leaders like Sue Greenwald and Eileen Samitz are so strongly opposed to making it easier to add second units. And so far, city staff and city commissions have done nothing to increase the number of second units being added to existing housing stock, as the city of Santa Cruz did.
Last, you argue that all the details of a project need to be available for the citizens to be able to make a decision on a project and you lament that the Measure J process that led to Measure P did not give the voters all the details that they should have. So you’ve identified another flaw in Measure J as written. If an Early Measure J vote doesn’t give citizens enough detail, I expect they will vote against the proposed develoment. I think the language can be structured to provide the vast majority of voters with assurances that will get from the proposed project what they expect when they voted on it. If it passes, of course. And I expect a lot of Early Measure J votes will result in Davisites voting down the proposed projects.
I hope this works. I was sent the following graphic by someone who is familiar with the UCD Long-Range Development Plan. This is where the new road and overpass would go:
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-iCrgpX1jNM/Sw691u_nuUI/AAAAAAAAAQY/C4UTrQwjndo/s1600/nishi+overpass.bmp[/img]
I am going to go out of sequence because I see that I didn’t totally answer davisite2‘s question about whether I have spent time at John Whitcomb’s Hunting Lodge.
No. I have never spent time there. I went to his house in Davis for a celebration party once years ago after we worked together to pass one of the early Park taxes or a school bond campaign, but other than that, I have spent no social time with him, his family, his partners or anyone assocaited with the big projects potentially developed around Davis. I have never been to any vacation property he or any of the others might have. Have I missed anything?
By the way, I suspect someone is feeding you these questions to ask. You should definitely reconsider your source of information. There are people in town who will never forgive me for exposing their friends Rodney Robinson and Steve Glazer for the unethical, immoral people they showed themselves to be in taking money from the Wildhorse developers and dropping our appealate court case to vote on that project’s zoning. The crazy things that have been said about me are often sourced to these people. Once a person has been exposed as lying about someone or something, I hope you realize that, by definition, they are a lier and you will be suspect of everything they say. Good luck!
kevinjwolfe: “4. …Senior housing in town does have a lot of potential benefits for our city finances as seniors move from their near empty, family sized homes into smaller units with shared facilities. The resale of their homes brings their property taxes to reset at the sale price, which can often bring 3-5 times more income than they presently pay. And more families moving into those older houses helps our schools.”
kevinjwolfe: “How does giving seniors an opportunity to move into a senior housing project in Davis “sacrifice” them in favor of younger families? The seniors wouldn’t be forced to sell their homes and move out. The University Retirement Community on Shasta Dr. gave a great boon to our property tax income as scores of seniors in town voluntarily sold their homes to be able to buy into this new facility. I think your statistic on 89% of seniors wanting to stay in their existing house is suspect.”
Your first statement is a pretty good indication of an effort to encourage seniors to give up their current large home in favor of downsizing “for the good of the community” even though 1) 89% of seniors would prefer to stay in their own homes (why is that figure suspect – it is taken from an AARP statistical survey – or is it an inconvenient truth?); 1.5) there is often an emotional attachment to a home one has raised children in, lived with a long-time spouse in, have made improvements to; 2) the large home gives a senior the flexibility to have relatives/caregiver move in to assist with activities of daily living if the senior becomes frail (a friend/relative can actually get paid by the gov’t to provide the care through IHSS if the senior is eligible for such services); 3) the equity of a large home can represent a stream of income that can be tapped into at will through a reverse mortgage, depending on the needs of the senior at any given time.
It is my understanding (and someone correct me if I am wrong, which I doubt), but many of the residents who chose to move to URC were from out of town. They were not residents of Davis. I have also talked to a number of residents at URC, some of whom are now having regrets at having given up such a large nonrefundable fee to live in a facility that makes the ultimate decision on what level of care they have to live in – but once done contractually, it cannot be undone from a practical point of view. It is not uncommon for seniors, especially in crisis, to sign on the dotted line without making the effort to become fully informed, particularly with respect to contracts that place certain items in amongst lots of verbiage and fine print.
kevinjwolfe: “How about this as a question [to seniors] “Would you be interested in selling your house for a lot more money than it would cost you to buy a unit in a senior housing facility within a mile or two of where you live now and where you didn’t have to maintain the big house and yard you presently have?” Try that question with your senior friends who might be alone in their big houses.”
How about asking a more honest question – “Would you be interested in selling your house to buy a unit in a senior housing facility within a mile or two of where you live now, where you will have considerably less room and pay a sizeable increase in taxes as well as a large monthly fee for services to maintain your yard and house?” Try that question with seniors, and I suspect they will choose to stay put.
I have seen too many horror stories involving homeowner associations and the monthly fees they charge not to shudder at your blythe suggestion of a senior Disneyland without disclosing the down sides. Shangri La does not exist, contrary to your misleading enticements. Furthermore, if a too large senior complex is built, it will greatly increase the need for city services, county social services, infrastructure costs, etc. This will necessitate a marked increase in taxes and fees to pay for it all, to the detriment of seniors currently living in Davis. Many will be driven right out of town because they cannot afford to live here anymore (this has happened in the past).
kevinjwolfe: “I sure like your idea of making it easier for seniors to retrofit their homes. I assume you mean making so that it is easier to build second units.”
I am NOT referring to building second units. I am referring to putting in grab bars, wheel chair ramps, railings, toilet risers, making a downstairs den or dining room into a bedroom, and the like. This retrofitting, making the home accessible/visitable, allows the senior to remain in their own home (age in place) if they so choose.
kevinjwolfe: “Last, you argue that all the details of a project need to be available for the citizens to be able to make a decision on a project and you lament that the Measure J process that led to Measure P did not give the voters all the details that they should have. So you’ve identified another flaw in Measure J as written.”
So why make Measure J worse, by giving even less detail? According to your exact words, you want to give voters information “similar” to what the project would be! “Similar”? That is an open invitation to “bait and switch” – to further financial elder abuse!
kevinjwolfe: “If an Early Measure J vote doesn’t give citizens enough detail, I expect they will vote against the proposed develoment. I think the language can be structured to provide the vast majority of voters with assurances that will get from the proposed project what they expect when they voted on it. If it passes, of course. And I expect a lot of Early Measure J votes will result in Davisites voting down the proposed projects.”
“Assurances they will get from the proposed project what they expect when they voted on it”? How about making sure voters DO GET from the proposed project what they expect when they voted for it, not just mere ASSURANCES?
Essentially you have admitted that in most cases the project will be voted down because it did not give enough detail (“I expect a lot of Early Measure J votes will result in Davisites voting down the proposed projects”). It is very unlikely a developer will give up (e.g. Covell Village developers), and citizens will be in for at least a second Measure J vote. All you have done with your “revised Measure J” is make the process more complicated and costly, not less.
To put things more succinctly, and what I believe is really behind the revision of Measure J is the following truth:
A DEVELOPER CAN PROPOSE POOR DEVELOPMENT AN INFINITE NUMBER OF TIMES, BUT ONLY NEEDS TO SUCCEED ONCE; WHEREAS CITIZENS MUST DEFEAT POOR DEVELOPMENT EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Measure J, AS IS, is an attempt to level the playing field for citizens, so that they don’t have to mount a campaign to oppose bad development at every turn. Your revised version of Measure J would entice developers to hide the ball as much as possible, to gain approval on a vague plan without an EIR report, even if the project would be horrible for Davis citizens.
I have a better idea. Why not improve the process by which a project gets to a Measure J vote? Sufficient time for more commission and public input for instance? Done correctly, to generate the proper public support for any proposed project, a better process would very likely result in more Measure J “yes” votes. LESS DETAIL WON’T!
“…exposing their friends Rodney Robinson and Steve Glazer for the unethical, immoral people they showed themselves to be…”
This appears to be a history of this Kevin Wolf mantra,e.g. his outrageous public accusation in his Aggie article, during the No on X campaign, that Stan Forbes had been “bought” to work as a spokesperson for the No on X campaign. As to the Wildhorse legal action, there appears to be an alternative narrative, from knowledgeable sources, that has the WHOA steering committee deciding not to pursue the legal action. This could very well have had to do with the significant financial resources necessary to pay for legal services to continue with an appeal. If attorney Glazer decided to do the work “on his own dime” and Rodney Robinson participated to assist, it is not unreasonable for them to believe that they were entitled to at least a significant portion of the resulting settlement.
“Once a person has been exposed as lying about someone or something, I hope you realize that, by definition, they are a lier…”
I thought that this Kevin Wolf quote should be included with regard to my above posting which discusses his slanderous Aggie article about Stan Forbes’ participation in the No on X campaign to defeat John Whitcomb’s Covell Village development plans.
Gene Borack (3:23 p.m.) quotes Kevin saying: [i]”Once a person has been exposed as lying about someone or something, I hope you realize that, by definition, they are a [u]lier[/u]…” [/i]
Gene,
Did you mean to write [i]liar[/i] where you wrote [i]lier[/i]?
there ought to be an outing of pseudonyms exception when the person being outed is constantly making strange personal attacks, as Gene has against Kevin and Kevin doesn’t know that it’s Gene Borack who is constantly making personal attacks against him.
I get your point, Rich, but it isn’t very practical to come up with a hierarchy of reasons for and against outing pseudonyms. Let’s just not do it. This is one of the reasons I pulled davisite’s post on this topic in the first place.
Please folks, try to stay on topic, avoid personal attacks and rumors, and be civil.
So what was the final outcome of that lawsuit against Rodney and the WHOA lawyer? What happened to the money?
TOAD — From [b]The Davis Enterprise – Monday, August 14, 2000[/b] [quote]A legal settlement of $95,000 was reached Friday in a 2-year-old lawsuit over Wildhorse settlement money. … The suit, filed on behalf of six Davis residents, questioned whether the ’97 settlement of $140,000 reached between two individuals and the Wildhorse subdivision’s then-owners Bill and Joe Duffel, should have been paid to defendants Rodney Robinson and Gerald Glazer. … Of the $95,000 settlement, Robinson will pay $10,000 over two years, with interest, and Glazer and his malpractice insurance company together will pay the other $85,000. Glazer will pay $10,000, and his insurance company will pay $75,000. …
Defendant Robinson called the lawsuit and the ultimate settlement a “hijacking” by the plaintiffs. “It wasn’t their money to decide how it should be used,” he said. … Boutin disagreed. “As much as they might say we are not admitting any guilt, when you pay $95,000, that speaks volumes as to whether Gerald Glazer and Rodney Robinson betrayed the Davis community.” … Boutin, who worked pro bono these last two-and-a-half years on the case, said, “Not a single penny is going to any of the plaintiffs or to me. So we will have almost $100,000 which we will be disbursing to schools, parks and neighborhoods.” …
Specifically, 25 percent of the settlement money will go to the Davis Unified School District, to be earmarked for the schools that were most impacted by Wildhorse, such as Holmes Junior High, and Birch Lane, Pioneer and Valley Oak elementary schools. … Another 25 percent will go toward open space, with a plan to distribute half to the Yolo County Land Trust and the other half to the American Farmland Trust, to be used for the purchase and maintenance of open space in and around Davis, since Wildhorse paved over land once used for agriculture. … The last 50 percent will go to parks and traffic improvements, with money likely to go through the city and be earmarked for specific projects. …
“What this all adds up to, we were faced with the prospect of when we prevailed it might have been exceedingly difficult to collect all of the money we got at trial,” Boutin said. … The ’97 settlement was reached just days before a WHOA appeal was scheduled to be heard by the 3rd District Court of Appeal. … In the $140,000 settlement, Robinson received $67,500 and the remaining $72,500 went to Glazer and his law office staff. Glazer served as the treasurer and attorney for the citizens’ group, WHOA. … The plaintiffs — Kevin Wolf, Gary “Corky” Brown, Rene Hannah, Larry Fisher, Ida Bryan and Sharon McDonell — sued to accomplish a few things. … They wanted to find out if there had been a settlement and the terms, including how much was paid and to whom, whether any money had been paid in consideration for WHOA abandoning its appeal, and to get money returned to the Davis community to pay for public amenities to mitigate for Wildhorse’s impacts. … A confidentiality agreement originally prevented the plaintiffs from finding out the answers they sought. …
Robinson still contends that the $67,500 he received in the settlement was his money to spend as he pleased. He spent at least half of the money to pay off his personal credit card debts, it was revealed during these legal proceedings. … “The tragedy in this whole thing was that (Kevin) Wolf and his associates were allowed to get away with this hijacking,” by ripping off WHOA, Robinson said. Robinson claims the plaintiffs were not associated with WHOA, and he said the community loses as a result of the settlement. “We have an illegitimate interloper succeeding in a legal action, and that puts everyone in danger because anyone can follow in Wolf’s path and falsely claim legitimacy,” he said. …
“I think both Rodney and Gerald Glazer will pay a very, very harsh penalty and that is that each will have to live with himself, knowing that he has betrayed his principles, his friends and himself,” Boutin said. … Wolf said the settlement is a victory for the plaintiffs. “We need to have people who are involved in nonprofit organizations to pursue problems if they occur,” Wolf said. “If the leadership doesn’t follow through, I hope the example (the plaintiffs set) is that just the regular old volunteer can make right.” [/quote]
Toad — my take, as an outsider, is that all of the hatred of Kevin Wolf — including the attacks against him about a hunting lodge and so on — stem from the WHOA lawsuit. In other words, the people who are anonymously attacking Wolf have personal reasons for their anger. When you read what “Davisite2” says, keep in mind that he is an associate of Rodney Robinson.
Kevin: If the problem is the amount of time and resources spent in the planning process, fix the planning process.
One more time: the processes for *any* project is the same irrespective of a Measure J vote. Your call for modification is therefore clearly directed at circumventing Measure J projects only.
Arrgh, meant to hit ‘Preview’. Comment should read:
Because the processes are the same for *any* project, your call for modification affects Measure J projects only, and therefore does not correct the problem.
“When you read what “Davisite2″ says, keep in mind that he is an associate of Rodney Robinson.”
No Rich Rifkin, I have only a passing acquaintance with Rodney. I am not an “associate”, whatever THAT is supposed to mean. The issue of Kevin Wolf’s slanderous public attack on Stan Forbes in the Aggie while I was part of the NO on X campaign was really my first contact with Kevin Wolf’s “style”, something not easily forgotten.
pnieberg (1:39 pm 11/24/09) wrote”
“An early vote does not allow the community to study all aspects of a proposal including the EIR, development agreement, and fiscal analysis before making an informed decision about a project.”
Pam. I think your statement above is a good summary of the key arguments against an Early Vote Measure J. Here are some responses.
1. Measure J doesn’t give the community *all* aspects either as we have seen from complaints about Measure P. Are you interested in fixing that flaw in Measure J or is the language from 10 years ago sacrosanct?
2. Issues can be spelled out in an Early Vote ballot measure, which, if the measure passes, can become requirements that the EIR, fiscal analysis and development agreement must meet. I haven’t found any issues yet that couldn’t be included in an Early Vote. I am interested in hearing of some that couldn’t be.
3. I think few of the public care about “all” aspects of a proposal. Getting all the detail together is what costs so much money and yet the detail won’t change the project if key project issues such as setback easements, densities, open space, traffic and fiscal impact etc are established.
You also state “As I stated before, the whole reason we did a Measure J was that the councils did NOT take into consideration the impacts of projects on the community.”
An early vote can properly describe and limit impacts on the community. In doing so, it solves the problem future city councils not considering community needs over developer interests.
One thing I think needs to be said often and regularly that the impacts on the immediate neighbors should not guide the overall decision we make or we will end up with all projects with very low densities as that is what the neighbors seem to want. And that won’t meet our overall community goals.
[quote]No Rich Rifkin, I have only a passing acquaintance with Rodney. I am not an “associate”, whatever THAT is supposed to mean. [/quote] I know who you are, Davisite.
“One thing I think needs to be said often and regularly that the impacts on the immediate neighbors should not guide the overall decision we make or we will end up with all projects with very low densities as that is what the neighbors seem to want. And that won’t meet our overall community goals.”
There you go again pretending to speak for the community. If every project is opposed because of its high density by the nearby inhabitants maybe we should rethink how dense the projects should be. Densification is great in theory if your goal is preservation of ag land at all costs but not in practice if you are concerned about quality of life for those that are actually going to be living there. I say spread out. There is plenty of room for everyone if we just get over the current local dogma about development.
How is this vitriolic barrage targeting Kevin Wolf about the WHOA history justified? Rich Rifkin’s posted Enterprise article makes it clear that the bulk of the $95,000 settlement was paid by a defendant’s malpractice insurance. Kevin was one of seven plaintiffs (along with the apparently wronged WHOA association) with whom Glazer and Robinson agreed to settle. The settlement cash went to Davis schools, parks, etc. The original $140,000 taken on WHOA’s behalf (and used by Robinson for personal credit card debts and Glazer for supposed public service, pro bono, work) apparently was kept by those two. It’s hard to see how Kevin can be made out as the bad guy in this case. And what does a decade-old dispute have to do with current Measure J issues? Sure wish it hadn’t been brought up–along with hunting lodge charges–so Kevin wouldn’t have been obligated to respond.
I agree, JustSaying. We need to stop rehashing old campaigns and pursuing personal vendettas, especially when they are only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Fair warning: in the future I am just going to delete such posts and keep deleting them. They sidetrack the discussion.
At some point there will be a forum board attached to this blog, and you all can settle old scores to your hearts’ content.
Kevin, if you could clarify your proposal. You say the following would be included in an early Measure J vote:
* Setback easements from neighboring properties.
* Minimum traffic ratings at key intersections and neighboring streets
* Minimum and maximum housing density levels and land set aside for open space
* Project map with parks, multi-family, single family, commercial, retail, etc shown
* Financial restrictions – e.g. Net positive impact on city finances
* Flood restrictions – e.g. the final project is not at risk in a 100 year flood
* Water use – e.g. uses 70% of the water per person of existing housing in town
* Net energy use/production requirement
* And more
The only things excluded from voter scrutiny would basically be CEQA and EIR?
But the wording you have posted on Davis Voice states that after approval, “… the City shall diligently process a full development application and entitlement package consistent with the baseline project features and guidelines through the applicable city review process.
This should be consistent with all applicable ordinances that govern development including design review, tentative map, CEQA requirements, public hearings, a development agreement, and a final action on the entitlement package by the City Council.”
So what exactly would be put before the voters in an “early” Measure J vote, what would be submitted after approval, and what would trigger a second Measure J vote?
It seems likely to me that nearly any early Measure J vote would necessitate a second one, as objections to the details emerge. How would this save effort and expense?
Sue Greenwald on 11:29 pm 11/25/09 wrote:
“Again, Kevin, I just don’t understand why you are so determined to approve high-density housing wedged between one of the busiest interstate freeways in the nation and one of the busiest set of railroad tracks in the nation.”
Sue, do you not agree with the goals of the Housing Element Committee? Nishi property best met the goals of any periphery site. We can put high density housing in a site that has little additional use and isn’t likely to be used much for farming. Only high density housing will allow the financing of a railroad overpass so that vehicles don’t have to exit onto Richards. Any development there, including just a business park, like the old Gateway proposal, will put too much traffic into the crowded Richards Underpass without an exit to the west. The density of any housing on the site must be high enough to finance that western exit and entrance to the Nishi site.
I think that such a prime spot near the downtown and campus should have as much housing on it as possible because the people who live there will not drive as much as people living almost anywhere else in town, and certainly not as much as UCD students and workers in Davis who commute to town from new housing in Woodland and other neighboring towns.
I believe the threat of global warming and peak oil are very serious, way more serious than having to protect idiots who decide to cut fences to make short cuts across railroad tracks. If they are so intent on killing themselves, they will find a way. On the other hand, we in Davis can do a great deal to promote highrise, high density housing near downtowns by modeling it at the Nishi site. It will send the right message to the tens of thousands who travel by train and on I-80 each day.
I know you have seen examples of highrise housing that looks great and works well for the residents. I remember you talking about wanting to put highrise housing on the old UCD football field at the corner of A and Russell.
Highrise housing would also allow a lot of that land at Nishi to be put into community gardens and orchards. The site could have its own composting in the western corner. The car parking facilities could be covered with photovoltaics. The site could be a show case for how to make the most sustainable use of land and provide housing and jobs (e.g. a small business park) that can significantly reduce the amount of miles driven per resident. And that showcase would be seen by a lot of travelers.
I thought you would know the answer to your own question by having read the Housing Element Committee’s report. I hope this summary helps.
E. Roberts Musser (11-26-09) Re: Senior Housing
I suspect we won’t have the resources to find out whether you or me are right about how many seniors in town would like to sell their big homes and moving into condos or another form of senior housing. I think you would agree that there is a lot of senior only housing around in the U.S., showing that there is a strong demand for it.
I think you would acknowledge that when seniors sell the house they have lived in for decades, the property tax receipts go up, sometimes 3-5 times more because their tax assessment might be at $150,000 per year but the house sells for $600,000. I think you would also agree that many of those homes would sell to people with school age kids. And I trust you know the financial problems our schools face with declining enrollments.
I also don’t follow your logic that seniors clustered together in a senior housing facility “will greatly increase the need for city services, county social services, infrastructure costs, etc. This will necessitate a marked increase in taxes and fees to pay for it all.” I am sure you know that residents of senior citizen housing projects are mostly on Medicare. They have money or they couldn’t afford to buy their unit. They can get better, more efficient care when they are clustered. I don’t think that there are many city services that Davis would provide to a senior housing project, nor county social services. For the most part, seniors have much less crime than other forms of housing. So I don’t follow your logic here.
So am I to understand it that you don’t support making it easier to add second units (a.k.a. granny flats) to Davis homes, that you just want someone to help the senior citizens make their bathrooms and homes easier to use as the residents get older? They are called “granny flats” for a reason. They allow older people to stay at their homes in a separate unit but without the need for housemates while they rent out their main house for a net positive cash flow. You sound like you care about seniors and are not an absolute no growther. I encourage you to learn more about second units/granny flats and the benefits they can provide seniors and our city. You will better understand why the Housing Element Committee rated this option 5th of 37.
Last you come back to talking about Measure J. You think that an Early Vote Measure J would allow the city council and the developer to “bait and switch”. I think it can be written well enough to prevent that. I think it can be written to improve some of the flaws in the existing Measure J, and save us all a lot of time and resources.
When I say “assurances” I mean legal binding requirements that are clear and cannot be broken by the city council. If they were, just as with the current Measure J language, the project would have to be voted on again. It would have all the requirements that would ensure a “vague” plan meets the expectations of the voters on just about everything they care about.
I don’t think that projects will be voted down because of lack of detail that would only be finalized after an Early Measure J vote. I think some of the proposed projects will be voted down because Davisites don’t like the location of the project, don’t like the number and type of housing, don’t like the fiscal impacts or because of some other perceived problems with the project. An Early Vote measure J can be structured so that we know the answers to these questions. When a project is voted down, we will all save time that we would have to invest in the EIR, etc that presently must be done before we voted on a Measure J ballot measure now.
By the way, I do hope that whether or not the council gives the citizens a chance to vote on an alternative Measure J, the discussion I hope ensues will get them to improve the process that leads up to their decision to put a project up for a Measure J vote.
“I believe the threat of global warming and peak oil are very serious, way more serious than having to protect idiots who decide to cut fences to make short cuts across railroad tracks. If they are so intent on killing themselves, they will find a way. On the other hand, we in Davis can do a great deal to promote highrise, high density housing near downtowns by modeling it at the Nishi site. It will send the right message to the tens of thousands who travel by train and on I-80 each day.”
Oh my! Union Pacific is one of the most energy efficient carriers of freight in the nation but I doubt they would agree with your insensitive remarks about people getting killed on their tracks and dismissing the need for public safety. Also what would blood on the tracks say about a community that knowingly builds something that precipitates death through the construction of an attractive nuisance. What would it say to the people on the trains who obviously already understand the need for alternative transportation and energy efficiency? Really it would be wise for you to retract that argument if it isn’t too late.
The real economic question about the development of that site is what does its access limitations do to the marginal cost of development? It seems you are trying to pass those costs onto the public to develop a property that is hemmed in by traffic, pollution and noise. It seems your vision would result in more profits for the developers but reduced quality of life for the tenants who would be exposed in a highrise to high levels of noise and pollution in addition to dense living conditions where they are put at risk becasue the developer chooses profits over human safety. To save the millions that construction of appropriate access requires how many lives are you willing to lose.
Not a really appealing vision if you ask me. I would prefer large lots with gardens, parks, greenbelts and access to public transportation on the periphery of Davis. Oh what nice gardens people could have living on those class 1 soils.
[quote]It seems your vision would result in more profits for the developers but reduced quality of life for the tenants who would be exposed in a highrise to high levels of noise and pollution in addition to dense living conditions where they are put at risk becasue the developer chooses profits over human safety. [/quote] This is nonsense. Whether Kevin’s idea for Nishi is good or not, it is not the case (as Toad’s diatribe implies) that people are going to be forced to live there. If someone chooses to rent an apartment in that location or buy a condo, it is for [i]his own profit,[/i] not for the developer’s. I get the sense that some people delude themselves when it comes to free transactions: both sides agree to the deal because both believe it is in their best interest.
kevinjwolfe: “I suspect we won’t have the resources to find out whether you or me are right about how many seniors in town would like to sell their big homes and moving into condos or another form of senior housing. I think you would agree that there is a lot of senior only housing around in the U.S., showing that there is a strong demand for it.”
In other words, you don’t want to spend the money to find out, much like the City Council and CHA – because neither they nor you want to know the answer. National statistics show 89% of seniors would rather stay right where they are.
From a realistic point of view, some age-restricted senior housing is of course necessary, for those frail elders who need assisted living for instance. There is also a small percentage of seniors, emphasis on the word small, who want to live in age-restricted housing, e.g. URC. That DOES NOT equate to a “strong demand for it” as you misleadingly suggest. You mustn’t create an equivalency out of thin air for
a) a developer’s wish to build for-profit age-restricted senior housing
b) and the limited desire of a small percentage of seniors for age-restricted senior housing (probably no more than 11%, and perhaps less in Davis because of the greater amount of home ownership).
kevinjwolfe: “I think you would acknowledge that when seniors sell the house they have lived in for decades, the property tax receipts go up, sometimes 3-5 times more because their tax assessment might be at $150,000 per year but the house sells for $600,000. I think you would also agree that many of those homes would sell to people with school age kids. And I trust you know the financial problems our schools face with declining enrollments.”
So, in other words, you want to encourage seniors to give up their existing homes and downsize for the “good of the community”? Why should seniors? We are not a socialist state. Seniors worked hard to purchase their homes and enjoy their retirement as they see fit, and should be able to age in place in their own homes if they so desire. As a nation, we are drifting away from the idea of family and commitment, the notion of building equity over time, and retiring in comfort after long years of struggle. Instead, some are advocating for seniors to move over, and make way for up and coming young families with children, youth somehow having more inherent worth than the elderly.
I would argue that a goodly number of seniors bought a starter home, in a poorer neighborhood, saved their money, then purchased a bigger home in a nicer neighborhood when the time was right. (This is what I did.) Why should seniors be forced to give up their long-term investment of a nice large home, so that younger families will have it easier than they did? The world does not owe the young a comfortable living – it only owes them an equal opportunity to make a living.
kevinjwolfe: “When I say “assurances” I mean legal binding requirements that are clear and cannot be broken by the city council. If they were, just as with the current Measure J language, the project would have to be voted on again. It would have all the requirements that would ensure a “vague” plan meets the expectations of the voters on just about everything they care about.”
Why should we have to vote twice on a project? Who is going to decide what expectations are important to the voters? Let’s let the voters decide that point, by voting only when all the cards are on the table for everyone to see. Why should the developer or City Council be able to hide some of their cards, or operate with only a partial rather than a full deck?
kevinjwolfe: “I don’t think that projects will be voted down because of lack of detail that would only be finalized after an Early Measure J vote. I think some of the proposed projects will be voted down because Davisites don’t like the location of the project, don’t like the number and type of housing, don’t like the fiscal impacts or because of some other perceived problems with the project.”
They will be voted down because there was not enough public input/effort to gain a community consensus of what citizens want. A revised Measure J will not result in any improvement to the process, only make it more costly and contentious. Better to improve the process, with greater commission and public input.
kevinjwolfe: “When a project is voted down, we will all save time that we would have to invest in the EIR, etc that presently must be done before we voted on a Measure J ballot measure now.”
An EIR contains important information that citizens need to know PRIOR to any vote. Why do you insist it is to citizens benefit to allow a developer to “hide the ball”? You have clearly admitted in most cases your revised Measure J will cause two votes to take place, not one. Why complicate the process on the remote possibility a developer will go away on a first “no” vote?
[quote]Better to improve the process, with greater commission and public input. [/quote] I agree with Elaine. However, some conflicts are not resolvable — at any point in the process. For example, if the most proximate neighbors don’t want density nearby, but (supposedly) the community value is to have much greater density for new developments, that won’t be resolved with Measure J, as is, or a different version of Measure J.
What seems to be happening in these cases — esp. with Chiles Ranch and somewhat with WHR — is that the developers are being told, [i]”you have to meet with the neighbors and design a project which they can live with.”[/i] So the developer goes to the neighbor and modifies his project as much as he can to mitigate the concern of the neighbors. And then the city staff, reflecting the (supposed) community value of high-density sardine-housing which is included in the General Plan, rejects whatever the neighbors wanted and forces the project to comply with the inviolable General Plan. As such, any compromises made with the neighbors are disregarded and the effort to build concensus is tossed in the circular file. … Then, because the staff has taken ownership of the proposal, the commissions are largely ignored. Either they don’t ever get a chance to discusss the issue; or they are heard at such a late point in the process that their ideas don’t conform with the staff’s ideas and thus the project moves forward regardless of what they might think. Moreover, commissions with similar purposes never hear what other commissions are doing; and so the ideas a commission has which might be accepted by staff might later be rejected by another commission, unbeknownst to the first commission.
My suggestion is, if we are going to consider the GP sacrosanct, forget the neighbors. Don’t even bother to explain the project to them. Ever. Just try to build a community-wide concensus by meeting the strictures of the General Plan and of the ad hoc Housing Element Committee and of every sitting commission which has jurisdiction over some aspect of the decision — with all the commissions meeting jointly if it is a large project.
And be up front about this: Declare explicitly that high-density is paramount and there will be no exceptions.
If that were done, at least it would be an honest process that kept to the rules laid out in the General Plan and out of which the concerns and suggestions of the Finance & Budget Commission, the Open Space Commission, the Parks & Rec Commission, the Senior Citizen Commission, the Housing Element Committee, the Ovarian Cyst Commission, the Bicycle Advisory Commission, the Natural Resources Commission, the Planning Commission, the Safety and Parking Advisory Commission, the Tree Commission, the Social Services Commission and the Business & Economic Development Commission would be heard.
With all of that input, the City Council could approve the project because it conformed to the GP; or the City Council could change the General Plan and the process could start over. If the community then voted no in a Measure J vote, it suggests the ideals built into the General Plan are not favored by the general public.
davisite2 – Aggie Letter to the Editor about Stan Forbes
11/26 2:56 pm
I misspelled the word “liar” when I wrote about Rodney Robinson and his action that defrauded WHOA. A problem with lying on blogs is that commenters who misconstrue or lie about someone can’t be shamed into not doing this as they won’t put their name with the wrong things they say. So it leaves people like me having to respond but knowing that not everyone who read davisite2’s next attacks will read my response. Such attacks can intimidate some from even entering the level of public debate.
I will first deal with davisite2’s first charge that I made an “outrageous public accusation in his Aggie article, during the No on X campaign, that Stan Forbes had been “bought” to work as a spokesperson for the No on X campaign.” I made no such charge though I can see why someone who attempts to whitewash what Rodney Robinson did may not be good at carefully reading or researching what actually happened.
I can’t find my letter to the Aggie editor, but you can read what I said about Stan Forbes (and Mike Harrington) and their role in the Measure X campaign at http://www.gidaroelectionwatch.org/. The letter was basically the same. The links in the piece list the donations made by developers to both candidates’ 2004 campaigns. I said:
“It’s pretty simple, really. If “No on X” wins, and the voters don’t put Covell Village back in the Davis General Plan — where it was and where it belongs — Gidaro hopes to use that housing allocation for his own sprawling, 800-acre project, Mace Gateway, on the outskirts of the city. If Measure X passes, Davis will meet its housing goals through 2017, and Gidaro won’t be able to get his project approved for a long time. He’ll lose a bundle on his land speculation bet.
It’s no coincidence that Gidaro spent $21,000 to primarily help “No on X” spokespeople Michael Harrington and Stan Forbes. At a September 19 League of Women Voters forum, Forbes said Davis should “look at other projects” — including Gidaro’s, Stan? — before approving Covell Village. (Note: Stan received funding from Gidaro’s attorney in his 2004 city council race, and both Stan and Mike received over $1000 each from developers or individuals with developer ties. Only Sue Greenwald did not take any funds from developers in the last election.)”
The No on X campaign received over $20,000 in unidentified contributions and a $5000 loan from Bill Ritter that I never was able to find out how or if it was repaid. The campaign also received donations directly from developers. You can read the city campaign reports to confirm this. (The DCN election archives aren’t on line right now or I would provide you that url.)
Lastly, davisite2 and pnieberg are trying to create a new narrative “If attorney Glazer decided to do the work “on his own dime” and Rodney Robinson participated to assist, it is not unreasonable for them to believe that they were entitled to at least a significant portion of the resulting settlement.” Yet in their depositions, Robinson and Glazer had every reason to say that such a meeting occurred. They didn’t because no such meeting occurred. No one at that alleged meeting will come forward because to do so would mean that they were in favor of disenfranchising the voters of Davis and betraying all of the volunteers. For such an important right-to-vote, many other attorneys would have volunteered. And it was against the state bar’s code of conduct for Glazer to switch from WHOA’s attorney on the case to a plaintiff who could get a settlement without a vote by the WHOA board to allow that. The people I know on the WHOA steering committee would never have supported giving up this case without at least trying to find another attorney to take over. This is a ridiculous line of defense for Robinson and Glazer’s malfeseance that smears the WHOA leadership. davisite2 should be ashamed, but of course he or she won’t be because of the postings are anonymous.
Don Shor (11/27/09 – 10:35 PM) wrote:
…
“Kevin, if you could clarify your proposal.”
Don, I appreciate your efforts to help this blog be a better forum for discussion. Hopefully people get savvy enough to ignore anonymous gossip or attacks because they often may contain more hate and anger than truth. Now to your question:
I don’t yet know all that should/could be moved into an Early Measure J vote but my sense is that all key issues could be brought forth through the commission hearings, meetings with neighbors, public workshops and the city council process. Metrics could be placed around these issues such that, if the ballot measure passed, the subsequent finalization of the project would have to stay within the metrics.
Lets look at one example that is of concern to neighbors – how far from their property lines will the new homes be set? This detail could easily be included in the Early Vote language. If the neighbors didn’t like it, they could use this to argue against the ballot measure’s passage. If the ballot measure passed, they would know that the easement couldn’t weaken and bring the new homes closer to their property lines. Easements are pretty easy to understand and enforce. I think most of the subjects of concern to voters could similarly be clarified with binding metrics placed on each.
A second election would only be needed (and required) if the City Council decide that one or more of the restrictions that were passed in the Early vote no longer worked when it they finalize the project entitlements, developer agreement and EIR. I can’t see situation being so dire that they would want to overturn a section passed in the Early Vote and risk bringing it to another public vote. The city council would not be required to rezone the project and give it entitlements just because it passed the Early Measure J vote.
It seems to me that it would be in the developer’s best interest to get as many details in early vote ballot language as they could because this would help alleviate some of the fear of the ‘unknowns” that will drive some people to vote against a ballot measure. I don’t have much experience with developer agreements but from the ones I have looked at, just about everything required there can be included in an Early Measure J vote language.
I would like to see the City Council authorize city staff to evaluate and provide draft language in January on how an Early Measure J vote alternative might be written. In this process we can all see whether the language could address these types of concerns. Maybe it can’t but I think it is worth seeing if it can be rewritten to meet most people’s concerns.
Mr. Toad (11/28 9:47 am) wrote:
“Also what would blood on the tracks say about a community that knowingly builds something that precipitates death through the construction of an attractive nuisance.”
The city has been authorizing housing near the railroad tracks for decades. All of Olive Drive apartments sit between the same tracks and the freeway. There is no fence almost anywhere along the eastern part of Olive Dr. So what are you saying about our city councils who voted for these projects and then by default those of us who elected them?
With development at Nishi you are talking about a project that would have two safe crossings over and under the railroad tracks and a difficult to cross fence between the railroad and the property. It is hard to believe that you really wouldn’t support a project there because theoretically someone could get hurt even though the track protection would be much higher than it is for housing on East Olive Drive where, as far as I know, no one has been killed crossing the unprotected tracks there.
If you carry your argument that protecting residents from doing stupid things that might get them killed must supercede our other community goals, we shouldn’t have allowed any of the existing projects north of Covell on Pole Line (e.g. Wildhorse) because a truck ran over a bicycler at that intersection years ago. Did you know that development of Covell Village would have fixed that intersection’s problems and as well as the speeding problem on Pole Line as people entered and exited town? Did you support Measure X to help solve those problems, which won’t likely be solved until a development is approved there? If you voted against Measure X, do you think you will have “blood on your hands” if another person dies at that intersection? Your argument becomes kind of absurd.
You seem biased against “dense living conditions”. Have you visited many nicely done high-rise apartments, dorms or condos? They are sought after in many cities because they are excellent places to live. With new construction techniques and design, they can be very quiet; have filtered air, great views, and a sense of community. And they use a lot less land per person, which can leave more land available for greenbelts, community gardens and open space.
Not everyone wants large lots and gardens. Developers won’t build high-rise units if don’t think there is a market for an easy-to-maintain and smaller condo or apartment with access to a nearby community garden plots, and a 5-10 minute walk to the campus and downtown. There are plenty of houses with large lots in town. Adding high-rise condos doesn’t create competition for that existing housing stock and will help keep those property values higher than by adding more large lot developments. And if you really think Davis should build more large lots over higher density housing, then you don’t likely agree with the priority goals that came out of the public workshops and the Housing Element Committee. Thankfully I think you are in a small minority in town.
Last, why do you say, “It seems you are trying to pass those costs onto the public to develop a (the Nishi) property”? I think if Nishi can’t pay for its own infrastructure needs like the railroad overpass, the council shouldn’t put it on the ballot. This should be a key early litmus test before the commissions. The proposed project’s ability to pay will be how many units are allowed on the site and how many square feet can be built in the business park. The income from these entitlements will pay for the underpass and other infrastructure and development agreement costs. If the math doesn’t work out, the developer will drop the project.
E. Roberts Musser (11/28/09 – 11:04 AM)
I am sorry but I have trouble with how you write your arguments and how you state mine when you do so.
1. You wrote “Why should seniors be forced to give up their long-term investment of a nice large home, so that younger families will have it easier than they did?” No one is going to force seniors to sell their house. When you write like this, you sound like you have some kind of short-term memory problem or you like being hyperbolic. Providing senior only housing gives seniors an opportunity to sell their house and buy into such a new project if they want to. A number of seniors I have talked to feel they are forced to stay in their large houses because they want to continue to live in Davis but there are no opportunities for them to downsize and live in a senior community.
2. A statistic I heard the other days is that in the next decade 20% of our population will be over 60 years of age. That equates to over 12,000. If 89% wanted to stay in their homes and 11% wanted to move into senior housing, over 1,200 would want to move. At 2 people per house, that would be 600 units. That’s a lot of units that could open up for families with kids to help rejuvenate our schools. I am sure that the developer of a proposed senior project will pay for the costs of determining if more or less than your national average of 11% want to move from their big homes.
3. You wrote, “Why should we have to vote twice on a project?” Under the existing Measure J, you would have to vote twice if the city council violated any of the language in the Measure J vote ballot measure. I assume you want that requirement to stay in Measure J. I would keep this same language in a rewrite of Measure J.
4. You wrote “A revised Measure J will not result in any improvement to the process, only make it more costly and contentious.” My guess is that you are so locked into your opinion that you either really didn’t read my arguments for an Early Measure J vote or you can’t understand them because they go against the story you want to tell yourself. I will repeat the core argument again.
An Early Measure J vote would occur before the time consuming and costly final work is done that must go into the project EIR. If the early vote ballot measure failed, like I think Covell and Wildhorse Ranch would have, then we wouldn’t have to put citizen, staff or developer/consultant time and resources into this part of the development project that presently is done under existing Measure J language. An early measure J should also have language that forced the city and developers to go through a better process than is done now.
So, now that this is clear, you should change how you wrote that sentence to “A revised Measure J could result in improvements to the process and could make it less costly.” We have no idea on whether an improved process would make a Measure J ballot measure more or less contentious. I believe a good process reduces disagreement as it did with our Housing Element Committee.
[quote]we wouldn’t have to put citizen, staff or developer/consultant time and resources into this part of the development project[/quote]
It seems to me that most of the staff time involved in processing a development project is paid for by the applicant, so I’m wondering if staff time is really an issue. Is time spent preparing and presenting agenda items pertaining to proposed developments at commission and council meetings billable to the developer, or does that come out of department budgets? If the latter, would anyone care to estimate the magnitude of the unreimbursed cost for a project like Covell Village or WHR?
kevinjwolfe: “1. You wrote “Why should seniors be forced to give up their long-term investment of a nice large home, so that younger families will have it easier than they did?” No one is going to force seniors to sell their house. When you write like this, you sound like you have some kind of short-term memory problem or you like being hyperbolic. Providing senior only housing gives seniors an opportunity to sell their house and buy into such a new project if they want to. A number of seniors I have talked to feel they are forced to stay in their large houses because they want to continue to live in Davis but there are no opportunities for them to downsize and live in a senior community.”
It sounded to me as if you would like to encourage seniors to downsize for the “good of the community”. (Do you want to encourage seniors to downsize for the good of the community?) I have heard this argument from developers before, who have a vested financial interest in talking seniors into giving up current homes/downsizing. And just exactly how many seniors have you talked to? Enough that you can unequivocally say it is in their best interests to approve a new 600 unit senior housing development, which is what it sounds like you are advocating for? How would you know what most seniors in this town want, or what most future seniors in this town want? No senior survey has been done, no independent needs analysis, no fiscal impact analysis. Or are you taking the word of some developer as to what is needed/wanted?
kevinjwolfe: “2. A statistic I heard the other days is that in the next decade 20% of our population will be over 60 years of age. That equates to over 12,000. If 89% wanted to stay in their homes and 11% wanted to move into senior housing, over 1,200 would want to move. At 2 people per house, that would be 600 units. That’s a lot of units that could open up for families with kids to help rejuvenate our schools. I am sure that the developer of a proposed senior project will pay for the costs of determining if more or less than your national average of 11% want to move from their big homes.”
I wonder if that 11% would be so eager to approve/move to a new 600 unit age-restricted housing development, if they thought it would result in higher taxes for everyone (especially burdensome to low/middle income seniors on fixed incomes), paying a significant monthly HOA fee (that very likely will be as if they were paying rent), as well as service fees (depending on what level of services they want or can afford after paying the steep increase in taxes and HOA fee)? Those sorts of “details” present the devil of a problem and not quite the rosy picture you paint! This is why a fiscal impact analysis is needed before any project is approved – one of those messy little details you want to skip on a first vote.
kevinjwolfe: “4. You wrote “A revised Measure J will not result in any improvement to the process, only make it more costly and contentious.” My guess is that you are so locked into your opinion that you either really didn’t read my arguments for an Early Measure J vote or you can’t understand them because they go against the story you want to tell yourself. I will repeat the core argument again.”
Yes, I am against any attempt to water down or gut the effectiveness of Measure J. Any Measure J vote taken without knowing all the details first is an open invitation for developers to “bait and switch”. I don’t care to further the potential for financial elder abuse.
kevinjwolfe: “We have no idea on whether an improved process would make a Measure J ballot measure more or less contentious. I believe a good process reduces disagreement as it did with our Housing Element Committee.”
As I said, and you just agreed to it, an improved process reduces disagreement. So improve the process that brings the proposed project to a Measure J vote, instead of trying to hide the ball with your attempts to “revise” and weaken Measure J itself.