In light of discussion at the LAFCO meeting at the end of March, the City Council agreed to have new discussions on a proposal by the city to dramatically expand the city’s sphere of influence (SOI).
My question at the time of the LAFCO meeting was whether a larger or a smaller sphere of influence provided more protection of agricultural land and gave the city more control over its future growth. Originally, the city felt that having a larger sphere of influence would maximize the city’s ability to grow. However, points made at the LAFCO meeting undermined that philosophy, particularly two points. One that a larger SOI might contribute to the need for an expanded provision of services. Second, that an expanded SOI might contribute to greater pressure to grow from those developers who owned the lands now included in the SOI. The thinking was that this would facilitate a move down the line that would include these properties in a future General Plan for development considerations.
Finally, there is the fact that the lands considered for development by the county last year were in the SOI, and the SOI did not appear to grant the city any additional growth protect. A point reiterated later in the evening by City Manager Bill Emlen.
“In other areas, a sphere of influence has not stopped counties from approving development right next to a city.”
In a good discussion that ensued, City Planner Katherine Hess suggested that growth pressure would probably occur regardless of the size of the SOI. The main tools that the city of Davis has as protection are the pass-through agreement and Measure J.
Even after this discussion, it was not entirely clear what the city would gain either way by changing their SOI.
City Councilmember Don Saylor said:
“I don’t hear us having an overwhelming case one way or another to change it frankly, and I think the value of our other land use tools is far in excess of whatever happens on this decision. I’m fairly neutral on which way we end up coming down on individual cites in the list or not in the list because I think the real issues are going to be ongoing in discussions between the city and the county on the pass-through agreement and with the voters on Measure J. And the next general plan with the city and the county. I don’t see this as a make or break decision.”
Now this is what we were told by City Staff and by Stephen Souza. However, during public comment–and we are talking about public comment at midnight–representatives from developers of Oeste Ranch, requested their property be including in the SOI.
Councilmember Don Saylor moved that that the city request LAFCO to add Mace-Covell Gateway to the SOI, the staff recommendation.
“We ought not to apply too much emphasis or importance to this. As I understand from the discussion tonight this is not something that we can achieve many objectives doing.”
Then Lamar Heystek spoke:
“I don’t see this as merely a ministerial action of the council, because personally I will speak very frankly, I don’t feel that I received enough information from city staff to be able to make a decision. I understand that LAFCO has made a recommendation that certain sites be excluded, but I have not received information for our staff as to why certain sites should be included.”
He continued:
“I don’t understand and I haven’t heard from city staff, why we have to include other areas such as the northwest quadrant, such as covell village, such as the Nishi site, when we know we already have Measure J, when we know we already have the pass-through agreement, and we know that those are really the strongest protections from unwarranted or undesirable development on our borders.”
LAFCO’s report warns that adding such areas would lead to land speculation on those sites for the purpose of development.
As Councilmember Heystek pointed out, it appears in the next five years we neither intend to expand city services into these areas nor develop in these areas–so why include them in the SOI?
He then made a substitute motion to exclude Covell, the Northwest Quadrant, and the Nishi site from the recommended sphere of influence. It was seconded by Mayor Sue Greenwald.
As Mayor Sue Greenwald pointed out, we have reduced our growth from a 1% growth guideline to a 1% growth cap.
“These should be areas that we are realistically considering for growth in the next five years.”
When Councilmember Heystek made this motion, it is unlikely that he believed it would pass. However when both Councilmembers Souza and Saylor abstained, the motion passed 2-1 with Ruth Asmundson the dissenting vote.
The reason this motion was made and considered important by Councilmember Heystek is that inclusion of areas within the SOI could lead to their inclusion in the 2010 General Plan. These are sites that were ranked relatively low by the Housing Element Steering Committee and thus the inclusion in the SOI could lead to the owners of the properties (such as the Northwest Quadrant) to push for inclusion in the General Plan. As mentioned during the LAFCO meeting, this may not directly lead to development but could potentially be the first step along a path that leads down the road to development of these sites.
Why both Councilmembers Souza and Saylor decided to abstain is an open question. What the vote means, is also unclear, however, council is now recommending that the Covell Property, the Northwest Quadrant and Nishi Propety all be excluded from the SOI.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Does abstaining allow Saylor and Souza to bring this back for RECONSIDERATION after the election, while now choosing to remain “neutral” on an issue that will call attention to their public record in office as shills for developer/land speculator interests??
Does abstaining allow Saylor and Souza to bring this back for RECONSIDERATION after the election, while now choosing to remain “neutral” on an issue that will call attention to their public record in office as shills for developer/land speculator interests??
Does abstaining allow Saylor and Souza to bring this back for RECONSIDERATION after the election, while now choosing to remain “neutral” on an issue that will call attention to their public record in office as shills for developer/land speculator interests??
Does abstaining allow Saylor and Souza to bring this back for RECONSIDERATION after the election, while now choosing to remain “neutral” on an issue that will call attention to their public record in office as shills for developer/land speculator interests??
I heard that there were developers in the audience when the item was heard. One of them even spoke in favor of including Oeste Ranch in the City’s Sphere of Influence, even though LAFCO eliminated it from consideration and the General Plan Housing Element Committee ranked it at the bottom. Clearly, being included in the SOI is a good thing from the developers’ standpoint. The Council minority (acting as the “plurality” for once!) made a smart move.
I heard that there were developers in the audience when the item was heard. One of them even spoke in favor of including Oeste Ranch in the City’s Sphere of Influence, even though LAFCO eliminated it from consideration and the General Plan Housing Element Committee ranked it at the bottom. Clearly, being included in the SOI is a good thing from the developers’ standpoint. The Council minority (acting as the “plurality” for once!) made a smart move.
I heard that there were developers in the audience when the item was heard. One of them even spoke in favor of including Oeste Ranch in the City’s Sphere of Influence, even though LAFCO eliminated it from consideration and the General Plan Housing Element Committee ranked it at the bottom. Clearly, being included in the SOI is a good thing from the developers’ standpoint. The Council minority (acting as the “plurality” for once!) made a smart move.
I heard that there were developers in the audience when the item was heard. One of them even spoke in favor of including Oeste Ranch in the City’s Sphere of Influence, even though LAFCO eliminated it from consideration and the General Plan Housing Element Committee ranked it at the bottom. Clearly, being included in the SOI is a good thing from the developers’ standpoint. The Council minority (acting as the “plurality” for once!) made a smart move.
Dear Curious-
Good question. In the outside world, a motion for reconsideration may only be brought by a person who was on the prevailing side of a vote. So either Lamar or Sue could bring it back, and no one else. In the People’s Republic here, perhaps the rules are different 😉
The entire debate is an odd one, ordinarily, counties don’t try to monkey with land planning inside a city’s sphere of influence- but Yolo County appears to take great joy in finding ways to harm Davis. By doing what Lamar and Sue did, we have taken a position that these properties are not desired for growth by the city and at least made it more difficult for pro-development pressure.
What we really need is a less dysfunctional relationship with Yolo County. Perhaps we could invite the Board over for the Whole Earth Festival and buy them all a nice set of hemp love bracelets or something…
Dear Curious-
Good question. In the outside world, a motion for reconsideration may only be brought by a person who was on the prevailing side of a vote. So either Lamar or Sue could bring it back, and no one else. In the People’s Republic here, perhaps the rules are different 😉
The entire debate is an odd one, ordinarily, counties don’t try to monkey with land planning inside a city’s sphere of influence- but Yolo County appears to take great joy in finding ways to harm Davis. By doing what Lamar and Sue did, we have taken a position that these properties are not desired for growth by the city and at least made it more difficult for pro-development pressure.
What we really need is a less dysfunctional relationship with Yolo County. Perhaps we could invite the Board over for the Whole Earth Festival and buy them all a nice set of hemp love bracelets or something…
Dear Curious-
Good question. In the outside world, a motion for reconsideration may only be brought by a person who was on the prevailing side of a vote. So either Lamar or Sue could bring it back, and no one else. In the People’s Republic here, perhaps the rules are different 😉
The entire debate is an odd one, ordinarily, counties don’t try to monkey with land planning inside a city’s sphere of influence- but Yolo County appears to take great joy in finding ways to harm Davis. By doing what Lamar and Sue did, we have taken a position that these properties are not desired for growth by the city and at least made it more difficult for pro-development pressure.
What we really need is a less dysfunctional relationship with Yolo County. Perhaps we could invite the Board over for the Whole Earth Festival and buy them all a nice set of hemp love bracelets or something…
Dear Curious-
Good question. In the outside world, a motion for reconsideration may only be brought by a person who was on the prevailing side of a vote. So either Lamar or Sue could bring it back, and no one else. In the People’s Republic here, perhaps the rules are different 😉
The entire debate is an odd one, ordinarily, counties don’t try to monkey with land planning inside a city’s sphere of influence- but Yolo County appears to take great joy in finding ways to harm Davis. By doing what Lamar and Sue did, we have taken a position that these properties are not desired for growth by the city and at least made it more difficult for pro-development pressure.
What we really need is a less dysfunctional relationship with Yolo County. Perhaps we could invite the Board over for the Whole Earth Festival and buy them all a nice set of hemp love bracelets or something…
The county/city relationship is why we should all ensure Jim Provenza gets elected to the board of supervisors.
The county/city relationship is why we should all ensure Jim Provenza gets elected to the board of supervisors.
The county/city relationship is why we should all ensure Jim Provenza gets elected to the board of supervisors.
The county/city relationship is why we should all ensure Jim Provenza gets elected to the board of supervisors.
“I don’t hear us having an overwhelming case one way or another to change it frankly, and I think the value of our other land use tools is far in excess of whatever happens on this decision. I’m fairly neutral on which way we end up coming down on individual cites in the list or not in the list because I think the real issues are going to be ongoing in discussions between the city and the county on the pass-through agreement and with the voters on Measure J. And the next general plan with the city and the county. I don’t see this as a make or break decision.””
Translation: I can’t openly vote the way I want to, to help my developer friends, so I will abstain to do as little damage as possible to them, while I still appear civil, which of course I always am, because everyone knows that Don Saylor is a good guy who truly cares about the city, especially because I always pop up everywhere in this town I can think of to convince everyone how much I care about this town, even though I try to never take positions on anything until that finger of mine gets put up to test the political breeze, which may blow north or south or east or west…
Sorry folks, but I just could not stop laughing at Don Saylor’s “deliberative” answer!!!
“I don’t hear us having an overwhelming case one way or another to change it frankly, and I think the value of our other land use tools is far in excess of whatever happens on this decision. I’m fairly neutral on which way we end up coming down on individual cites in the list or not in the list because I think the real issues are going to be ongoing in discussions between the city and the county on the pass-through agreement and with the voters on Measure J. And the next general plan with the city and the county. I don’t see this as a make or break decision.””
Translation: I can’t openly vote the way I want to, to help my developer friends, so I will abstain to do as little damage as possible to them, while I still appear civil, which of course I always am, because everyone knows that Don Saylor is a good guy who truly cares about the city, especially because I always pop up everywhere in this town I can think of to convince everyone how much I care about this town, even though I try to never take positions on anything until that finger of mine gets put up to test the political breeze, which may blow north or south or east or west…
Sorry folks, but I just could not stop laughing at Don Saylor’s “deliberative” answer!!!
“I don’t hear us having an overwhelming case one way or another to change it frankly, and I think the value of our other land use tools is far in excess of whatever happens on this decision. I’m fairly neutral on which way we end up coming down on individual cites in the list or not in the list because I think the real issues are going to be ongoing in discussions between the city and the county on the pass-through agreement and with the voters on Measure J. And the next general plan with the city and the county. I don’t see this as a make or break decision.””
Translation: I can’t openly vote the way I want to, to help my developer friends, so I will abstain to do as little damage as possible to them, while I still appear civil, which of course I always am, because everyone knows that Don Saylor is a good guy who truly cares about the city, especially because I always pop up everywhere in this town I can think of to convince everyone how much I care about this town, even though I try to never take positions on anything until that finger of mine gets put up to test the political breeze, which may blow north or south or east or west…
Sorry folks, but I just could not stop laughing at Don Saylor’s “deliberative” answer!!!
“I don’t hear us having an overwhelming case one way or another to change it frankly, and I think the value of our other land use tools is far in excess of whatever happens on this decision. I’m fairly neutral on which way we end up coming down on individual cites in the list or not in the list because I think the real issues are going to be ongoing in discussions between the city and the county on the pass-through agreement and with the voters on Measure J. And the next general plan with the city and the county. I don’t see this as a make or break decision.””
Translation: I can’t openly vote the way I want to, to help my developer friends, so I will abstain to do as little damage as possible to them, while I still appear civil, which of course I always am, because everyone knows that Don Saylor is a good guy who truly cares about the city, especially because I always pop up everywhere in this town I can think of to convince everyone how much I care about this town, even though I try to never take positions on anything until that finger of mine gets put up to test the political breeze, which may blow north or south or east or west…
Sorry folks, but I just could not stop laughing at Don Saylor’s “deliberative” answer!!!
I watched the meeting. My sense was the abstaining votes was pre-planned. All were totally tired, and I don’t think the strategy involved with abstaining from the vote could have been thought of at that late hour.
It was a deliberate move during a campaign season to prevent being painted as pro-developer or anti-developer. Nothing more and nothing less. Typical politician move.
I watched the meeting. My sense was the abstaining votes was pre-planned. All were totally tired, and I don’t think the strategy involved with abstaining from the vote could have been thought of at that late hour.
It was a deliberate move during a campaign season to prevent being painted as pro-developer or anti-developer. Nothing more and nothing less. Typical politician move.
I watched the meeting. My sense was the abstaining votes was pre-planned. All were totally tired, and I don’t think the strategy involved with abstaining from the vote could have been thought of at that late hour.
It was a deliberate move during a campaign season to prevent being painted as pro-developer or anti-developer. Nothing more and nothing less. Typical politician move.
I watched the meeting. My sense was the abstaining votes was pre-planned. All were totally tired, and I don’t think the strategy involved with abstaining from the vote could have been thought of at that late hour.
It was a deliberate move during a campaign season to prevent being painted as pro-developer or anti-developer. Nothing more and nothing less. Typical politician move.