Commentary: Does Small or Large Sphere of Influence Best Protect Ag Land?

After watching the LAFCO meeting and discussion for awhile last night, I did something I do not do very often–I got up and spoke during public comment. I asked them the very basic question–what does inclusion in the Sphere of Influence afford the city of Davis? Does it provide any additional protection against growth? No one had an answer for that question.

Mayor Sue Greenwald in the comment section of the Vanguard last night said the following:

I have posed the following question to a number of planners, attorneys and a past SACOG chair: “If, hypothetically, the city of Davis were to want to grow as slowly as possible, would be want a larger or a smaller sphere of influence?” The answer I have gotten from all of the experts to whom I spoke was, “it is unclear”.

As I watched the meeting last night, I became swayed by the questions of Supervisor Matt Rexroad, one of the LAFCO members and by the comments of a member of the public, Robert Ramming. The conclusion that I have reached is the opposite one that the council reached.

Frankly I did not buy the answers that Councilmember Stephen Souza gave on the dais last night as a member of LAFCO. The idea that we can have an agricultural urban land use. The idea that we are going to use the Sphere of Influence land to create some kind of greenbelt and bike route. That Davis is unique, it is different, it does things differently, it breaks the mould.

If you look at the map, it does not look like such a set up. It looks like plots of land for development. Maybe not in Stephen Souza’s mind. Maybe not this year. Maybe not five or even ten years from now, but it gets the ball rolling.

Talking to Supervisor Rexroad after the meeting, it was not his intention to really make a persuasive argument there. He told me he is a city-centric person and that what a city wants to do, he is pretty much going to let them do. At the same time, he does not seem comfortable with allowing the city of Davis to expand the sphere of influence.

Yeah I know there are a large amount of people that do not like Mr. Rexroad for a variety of reasons, but since he has been County Supervisor, he has been pretty consistent on his land use policies, and while I disagree with him on many things, in terms of land use in the county, there are not many votes that I disagree with.

Here is what I gleaned from last night’s discussion. If Davis expands the Sphere of Influence, it could cause the city a lot of problems. First from a legality stand point, all land will have to be put into the general plan. If you go beyond what you need, that is actually a very costly prospect. Second, if you are an owner of the included property, you can force basically one way or another, your property to be included in the general plan discussion. That does not directly lead to development, but as Matt Rexroad pointed out, it begins a very long and arduous process.

Third, and here is the point that Robert Ramming raised last night–it does not protect your borders from the county. As Mr. Ramming pointed out, the county’s general plan looked at several parcels around Davis’ border, these properties were all in the Sphere of Influence. It is clear therefore, that inclusion in the Sphere of Influence offers little in the way of protection against county development. What saved Davis was the pass-through agreement and probably the cost to the county of gaining access to city services, not the Sphere of Influence.

Again, an unnatural expansion of the Sphere of Influence means that you are realistically talking about urban uses of that land in the next twenty year period. Mr. Souza was talking about greenbelts and bike routes as urban uses, but that’s not what the map looks like. There is no belt around Davis with the city’s proposal. It is a bunch of plots of land to west and a bunch to the east, with a gap in the middle.

Davis is going to change what an urban use is? That was Souza’s argument is was downright unconvincing to anyone there.

Fact is, that I would not even have given this proposal the time of day except that Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek signed onto it. But on this issue, I think they were well-intentioned but ultimately flawed. From this discussion, I think inclusion in the Sphere of Influence, offers potentially unforeseen impacts of starting the development process for lands that this council likely does not support or foresee, but they have no control over future councils.

For this reason, I think that the best strategy is keep the Sphere of Influence as small as possible and to not include lands like Covell Village and the Nishe Property that you do not intend to develop if you are Sue Greenwald or Lamar Heystek.

Finally, I have a bone to pick with Katherine Hess, the City’s Planning Director. At the beginning of the talk was an assessment of city’s strengths and weaknesses. They go on to list, things like lack of a fourth fire station, not enough firefighting staff, not enough police staff, and my favorite, the budget is balanced with no foreseen problem. The last one is extremely problematic. The city is talking about having to have a string of new taxes to finance existing programs. Despite fancy budgeting assumptions, the future projections are a continued budget deficit due to structural issues with city pensions and salaries. The other points are issues of controversy, reasonable people disagree on the extent that those are needed or affordable. To present this as matter of fact was disingenuous at best. I was told that was all Katherine Hess’ doing.

I think the Davis City Council got bad advice overall on how to proceed with the Sphere of Influence. I think they risk turning LAFCO on its head, doing the opposite of what was intentioned. Davis cannot be the first city that has thought of this, but the legal consequences and unintended consequences are immense.

At this point, I am thoroughly convinced that the opposite approach is best–keep the Sphere of Influence as small as possible and keep areas outside of the General Plan to the extent legally possible.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

52 Comments

  1. Sue Greenwald

    The county was recently on the verge of trying to include land in the northwest quadrant for development in their general plan, and a majority of the Board of Supervisors still expresses an interest in developing commercially on I-80. The counties interest areas adjacent to Davis along I-80 make me very nervous. My instinct is that citizens of Davis would want to control this land.

    The deterrent value of the pass-through agreement diminishes over time, and Davis will be losing one seat on the County Board of Supes. My instinct is that we as a city will want to control the land around our borders.

    That said, I could be convinced otherwise, since there are negative implications regarding growth under both scenarios.

  2. Sue Greenwald

    The county was recently on the verge of trying to include land in the northwest quadrant for development in their general plan, and a majority of the Board of Supervisors still expresses an interest in developing commercially on I-80. The counties interest areas adjacent to Davis along I-80 make me very nervous. My instinct is that citizens of Davis would want to control this land.

    The deterrent value of the pass-through agreement diminishes over time, and Davis will be losing one seat on the County Board of Supes. My instinct is that we as a city will want to control the land around our borders.

    That said, I could be convinced otherwise, since there are negative implications regarding growth under both scenarios.

  3. Sue Greenwald

    The county was recently on the verge of trying to include land in the northwest quadrant for development in their general plan, and a majority of the Board of Supervisors still expresses an interest in developing commercially on I-80. The counties interest areas adjacent to Davis along I-80 make me very nervous. My instinct is that citizens of Davis would want to control this land.

    The deterrent value of the pass-through agreement diminishes over time, and Davis will be losing one seat on the County Board of Supes. My instinct is that we as a city will want to control the land around our borders.

    That said, I could be convinced otherwise, since there are negative implications regarding growth under both scenarios.

  4. Sue Greenwald

    The county was recently on the verge of trying to include land in the northwest quadrant for development in their general plan, and a majority of the Board of Supervisors still expresses an interest in developing commercially on I-80. The counties interest areas adjacent to Davis along I-80 make me very nervous. My instinct is that citizens of Davis would want to control this land.

    The deterrent value of the pass-through agreement diminishes over time, and Davis will be losing one seat on the County Board of Supes. My instinct is that we as a city will want to control the land around our borders.

    That said, I could be convinced otherwise, since there are negative implications regarding growth under both scenarios.

  5. Doug Paul Davis

    Sue:

    I think Ramming’s point addresses your concern–the SOI does not seem to grant Davis more control over its borders, as the county was willing and able to attempt what they did despite the location of those properties within the SOI.

    And as I said, the downside is that you are essentially putting additional properties into the general plan, this year that probably doesn’t matter, but it may down the line.

  6. Doug Paul Davis

    Sue:

    I think Ramming’s point addresses your concern–the SOI does not seem to grant Davis more control over its borders, as the county was willing and able to attempt what they did despite the location of those properties within the SOI.

    And as I said, the downside is that you are essentially putting additional properties into the general plan, this year that probably doesn’t matter, but it may down the line.

  7. Doug Paul Davis

    Sue:

    I think Ramming’s point addresses your concern–the SOI does not seem to grant Davis more control over its borders, as the county was willing and able to attempt what they did despite the location of those properties within the SOI.

    And as I said, the downside is that you are essentially putting additional properties into the general plan, this year that probably doesn’t matter, but it may down the line.

  8. Doug Paul Davis

    Sue:

    I think Ramming’s point addresses your concern–the SOI does not seem to grant Davis more control over its borders, as the county was willing and able to attempt what they did despite the location of those properties within the SOI.

    And as I said, the downside is that you are essentially putting additional properties into the general plan, this year that probably doesn’t matter, but it may down the line.

  9. Anonymous

    The result of enlarging Davis’ sphere of influence would be to drive up the value of the land now “under the plow”. This would add significant financial pressure to converting this land from agricultural to residential development. Sue… your position about not changing the Cannery Park property’s zoning to keep its cost to potential commercial interests in the workable range is applicable here as well. In spite of Souza’s characteristically passionate but empty-headed rhetoric, we grownups know that the overwhelming power of MONEY must be anticipated to be thwarted.

  10. Anonymous

    The result of enlarging Davis’ sphere of influence would be to drive up the value of the land now “under the plow”. This would add significant financial pressure to converting this land from agricultural to residential development. Sue… your position about not changing the Cannery Park property’s zoning to keep its cost to potential commercial interests in the workable range is applicable here as well. In spite of Souza’s characteristically passionate but empty-headed rhetoric, we grownups know that the overwhelming power of MONEY must be anticipated to be thwarted.

  11. Anonymous

    The result of enlarging Davis’ sphere of influence would be to drive up the value of the land now “under the plow”. This would add significant financial pressure to converting this land from agricultural to residential development. Sue… your position about not changing the Cannery Park property’s zoning to keep its cost to potential commercial interests in the workable range is applicable here as well. In spite of Souza’s characteristically passionate but empty-headed rhetoric, we grownups know that the overwhelming power of MONEY must be anticipated to be thwarted.

  12. Anonymous

    The result of enlarging Davis’ sphere of influence would be to drive up the value of the land now “under the plow”. This would add significant financial pressure to converting this land from agricultural to residential development. Sue… your position about not changing the Cannery Park property’s zoning to keep its cost to potential commercial interests in the workable range is applicable here as well. In spite of Souza’s characteristically passionate but empty-headed rhetoric, we grownups know that the overwhelming power of MONEY must be anticipated to be thwarted.

  13. Anonymous

    CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
    56425. (a) In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities
    for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and
    coordination of local governmental agencies to advantageously provide
    for the present and future needs of the county and its communities,
    the commission [LAFCO] shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county and enact policies
    designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas
    within the sphere.

  14. Anonymous

    CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
    56425. (a) In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities
    for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and
    coordination of local governmental agencies to advantageously provide
    for the present and future needs of the county and its communities,
    the commission [LAFCO] shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county and enact policies
    designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas
    within the sphere.

  15. Anonymous

    CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
    56425. (a) In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities
    for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and
    coordination of local governmental agencies to advantageously provide
    for the present and future needs of the county and its communities,
    the commission [LAFCO] shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county and enact policies
    designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas
    within the sphere.

  16. Anonymous

    CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
    56425. (a) In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities
    for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and
    coordination of local governmental agencies to advantageously provide
    for the present and future needs of the county and its communities,
    the commission [LAFCO] shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county and enact policies
    designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas
    within the sphere.

  17. Anonymous

    It was very clear at last night’s meeting that land included within a city’s sphere of influence is land that will ultimately be considered for urban development. Also, including land within the sphere of influence sends the message to the land owner that he can reasonably expect to bring forward at some point a development proposal for that land.

    It was also very clear that including land within the sphere of influence does not afford any special protection for that land from threats of development by the county. Robert Ramming pointed out that the the county had recently threatened to force development on Davis’s borders on land that was already within Davis’s sphere of influence. Clearly, the sphere of influence had no effect in protecting that land from development by the county. The best protections from development that county land around Davis has are the Pass Through Agreement and Measure J.

    Steve Souza tried to justify the council’s recent mistifying decision to include more land within the sphere of influence (then recommended by LAFCO) by arguing that that would protect the land from development because the city had control over it. (Untrue. See above.) He also pointed out that Davis has a 2 to 1 adjacency ag mitigation ordinance, apparently because at least some of the additional land that the council wants to include in the sphere of influence would presumably be those migigation lands. When the LAFCO spokesperson pointed out that including those lands within the sphere of influence would designate them for urban uses, Steve stated that he considered mitigation lands adjacent to our border as urban. He envisioned greenbelts and bikepaths.

    Actually, the land that is set aside with permanent easements to mitigate for loss of farmland on our borders is to do just that: mitigate for loss of farmland by preserving other farmland permanently as farmland. it is not to be uses for parks and greenbelts. It is ag mitigation land and is to be used as ag land.

    The council has made a very bad decision to move toward expanding the sphere of influence beyond what LAFCO is reommending. Lets hope that either they reverse that decision or that LAFCO follows its staff’s decision for the smaller sphere of influence.

  18. Anonymous

    It was very clear at last night’s meeting that land included within a city’s sphere of influence is land that will ultimately be considered for urban development. Also, including land within the sphere of influence sends the message to the land owner that he can reasonably expect to bring forward at some point a development proposal for that land.

    It was also very clear that including land within the sphere of influence does not afford any special protection for that land from threats of development by the county. Robert Ramming pointed out that the the county had recently threatened to force development on Davis’s borders on land that was already within Davis’s sphere of influence. Clearly, the sphere of influence had no effect in protecting that land from development by the county. The best protections from development that county land around Davis has are the Pass Through Agreement and Measure J.

    Steve Souza tried to justify the council’s recent mistifying decision to include more land within the sphere of influence (then recommended by LAFCO) by arguing that that would protect the land from development because the city had control over it. (Untrue. See above.) He also pointed out that Davis has a 2 to 1 adjacency ag mitigation ordinance, apparently because at least some of the additional land that the council wants to include in the sphere of influence would presumably be those migigation lands. When the LAFCO spokesperson pointed out that including those lands within the sphere of influence would designate them for urban uses, Steve stated that he considered mitigation lands adjacent to our border as urban. He envisioned greenbelts and bikepaths.

    Actually, the land that is set aside with permanent easements to mitigate for loss of farmland on our borders is to do just that: mitigate for loss of farmland by preserving other farmland permanently as farmland. it is not to be uses for parks and greenbelts. It is ag mitigation land and is to be used as ag land.

    The council has made a very bad decision to move toward expanding the sphere of influence beyond what LAFCO is reommending. Lets hope that either they reverse that decision or that LAFCO follows its staff’s decision for the smaller sphere of influence.

  19. Anonymous

    It was very clear at last night’s meeting that land included within a city’s sphere of influence is land that will ultimately be considered for urban development. Also, including land within the sphere of influence sends the message to the land owner that he can reasonably expect to bring forward at some point a development proposal for that land.

    It was also very clear that including land within the sphere of influence does not afford any special protection for that land from threats of development by the county. Robert Ramming pointed out that the the county had recently threatened to force development on Davis’s borders on land that was already within Davis’s sphere of influence. Clearly, the sphere of influence had no effect in protecting that land from development by the county. The best protections from development that county land around Davis has are the Pass Through Agreement and Measure J.

    Steve Souza tried to justify the council’s recent mistifying decision to include more land within the sphere of influence (then recommended by LAFCO) by arguing that that would protect the land from development because the city had control over it. (Untrue. See above.) He also pointed out that Davis has a 2 to 1 adjacency ag mitigation ordinance, apparently because at least some of the additional land that the council wants to include in the sphere of influence would presumably be those migigation lands. When the LAFCO spokesperson pointed out that including those lands within the sphere of influence would designate them for urban uses, Steve stated that he considered mitigation lands adjacent to our border as urban. He envisioned greenbelts and bikepaths.

    Actually, the land that is set aside with permanent easements to mitigate for loss of farmland on our borders is to do just that: mitigate for loss of farmland by preserving other farmland permanently as farmland. it is not to be uses for parks and greenbelts. It is ag mitigation land and is to be used as ag land.

    The council has made a very bad decision to move toward expanding the sphere of influence beyond what LAFCO is reommending. Lets hope that either they reverse that decision or that LAFCO follows its staff’s decision for the smaller sphere of influence.

  20. Anonymous

    It was very clear at last night’s meeting that land included within a city’s sphere of influence is land that will ultimately be considered for urban development. Also, including land within the sphere of influence sends the message to the land owner that he can reasonably expect to bring forward at some point a development proposal for that land.

    It was also very clear that including land within the sphere of influence does not afford any special protection for that land from threats of development by the county. Robert Ramming pointed out that the the county had recently threatened to force development on Davis’s borders on land that was already within Davis’s sphere of influence. Clearly, the sphere of influence had no effect in protecting that land from development by the county. The best protections from development that county land around Davis has are the Pass Through Agreement and Measure J.

    Steve Souza tried to justify the council’s recent mistifying decision to include more land within the sphere of influence (then recommended by LAFCO) by arguing that that would protect the land from development because the city had control over it. (Untrue. See above.) He also pointed out that Davis has a 2 to 1 adjacency ag mitigation ordinance, apparently because at least some of the additional land that the council wants to include in the sphere of influence would presumably be those migigation lands. When the LAFCO spokesperson pointed out that including those lands within the sphere of influence would designate them for urban uses, Steve stated that he considered mitigation lands adjacent to our border as urban. He envisioned greenbelts and bikepaths.

    Actually, the land that is set aside with permanent easements to mitigate for loss of farmland on our borders is to do just that: mitigate for loss of farmland by preserving other farmland permanently as farmland. it is not to be uses for parks and greenbelts. It is ag mitigation land and is to be used as ag land.

    The council has made a very bad decision to move toward expanding the sphere of influence beyond what LAFCO is reommending. Lets hope that either they reverse that decision or that LAFCO follows its staff’s decision for the smaller sphere of influence.

  21. Beg to Differ

    I would chalk up the decision by the County Board of Supervisors to back off their decision to consider peripheral development on the border of Davis to the recall of Sup. Yamada. She was deathly afraid of the recall backlash’s influence on her campaign to run for Assembly.

    Secondly, I agree with DPD – to increase the city’s sphere of influence is to aid the process of including land for future development. The words of Katherine Hess and Souza are disingenuous at best – and most likely the two are pandering to development interests. Souza is known for claiming things are “evolving” or “are not what they seem”, and other sorts of chicanery and subterfuge. Sue and Lamar made a huge mistake here…

  22. Beg to Differ

    I would chalk up the decision by the County Board of Supervisors to back off their decision to consider peripheral development on the border of Davis to the recall of Sup. Yamada. She was deathly afraid of the recall backlash’s influence on her campaign to run for Assembly.

    Secondly, I agree with DPD – to increase the city’s sphere of influence is to aid the process of including land for future development. The words of Katherine Hess and Souza are disingenuous at best – and most likely the two are pandering to development interests. Souza is known for claiming things are “evolving” or “are not what they seem”, and other sorts of chicanery and subterfuge. Sue and Lamar made a huge mistake here…

  23. Beg to Differ

    I would chalk up the decision by the County Board of Supervisors to back off their decision to consider peripheral development on the border of Davis to the recall of Sup. Yamada. She was deathly afraid of the recall backlash’s influence on her campaign to run for Assembly.

    Secondly, I agree with DPD – to increase the city’s sphere of influence is to aid the process of including land for future development. The words of Katherine Hess and Souza are disingenuous at best – and most likely the two are pandering to development interests. Souza is known for claiming things are “evolving” or “are not what they seem”, and other sorts of chicanery and subterfuge. Sue and Lamar made a huge mistake here…

  24. Beg to Differ

    I would chalk up the decision by the County Board of Supervisors to back off their decision to consider peripheral development on the border of Davis to the recall of Sup. Yamada. She was deathly afraid of the recall backlash’s influence on her campaign to run for Assembly.

    Secondly, I agree with DPD – to increase the city’s sphere of influence is to aid the process of including land for future development. The words of Katherine Hess and Souza are disingenuous at best – and most likely the two are pandering to development interests. Souza is known for claiming things are “evolving” or “are not what they seem”, and other sorts of chicanery and subterfuge. Sue and Lamar made a huge mistake here…

  25. Digusted with Sue and Steve

    I wish someone would post a map showing current borders, current Sphere of Influence, LAFCO staff proposed map, and what our wonderful CC members did to us last night.

    Remember, Sue and Steve are hell bent on bringing in a lot of land for a sports park, and this LAFCO process might be the cover they are using. So Davisites can drive their BTU-burning, global-warming SUVs from all over the city for playfields that are burning power half the night for the overhead lights. Our CC still has no clue, really, do they?

  26. Digusted with Sue and Steve

    I wish someone would post a map showing current borders, current Sphere of Influence, LAFCO staff proposed map, and what our wonderful CC members did to us last night.

    Remember, Sue and Steve are hell bent on bringing in a lot of land for a sports park, and this LAFCO process might be the cover they are using. So Davisites can drive their BTU-burning, global-warming SUVs from all over the city for playfields that are burning power half the night for the overhead lights. Our CC still has no clue, really, do they?

  27. Digusted with Sue and Steve

    I wish someone would post a map showing current borders, current Sphere of Influence, LAFCO staff proposed map, and what our wonderful CC members did to us last night.

    Remember, Sue and Steve are hell bent on bringing in a lot of land for a sports park, and this LAFCO process might be the cover they are using. So Davisites can drive their BTU-burning, global-warming SUVs from all over the city for playfields that are burning power half the night for the overhead lights. Our CC still has no clue, really, do they?

  28. Digusted with Sue and Steve

    I wish someone would post a map showing current borders, current Sphere of Influence, LAFCO staff proposed map, and what our wonderful CC members did to us last night.

    Remember, Sue and Steve are hell bent on bringing in a lot of land for a sports park, and this LAFCO process might be the cover they are using. So Davisites can drive their BTU-burning, global-warming SUVs from all over the city for playfields that are burning power half the night for the overhead lights. Our CC still has no clue, really, do they?

  29. Matt Williams

    Digusted with Sue and Steve said…

    I wish someone would post a map showing current borders, current Sphere of Influence, LAFCO staff proposed map, and what our wonderful CC members did to us last night.

    Go to http://www.city.davis.ca.us/story/pdfs/Davis_preferred_Sphere_of_Influence_Map.pdf for the map or http://www.city.davis.ca.us/story/?story=Sphere_of_Influence for all the pertinent documents

    Remember, Sue and Steve are hell bent on bringing in a lot of land for a sports park, and this LAFCO process might be the cover they are using. So Davisites can drive their BTU-burning, global-warming SUVs from all over the city for playfields that are burning power half the night for the overhead lights. Our CC still has no clue, really, do they?

    Last night when I got home from the LAFCO meeting I watched the streaming video of the February 26, 2008 Council Meeting. Perhaps, before you slam Sue and Steve, you might want to watch the LAFCO portion of that 2/26 meeting.

  30. Matt Williams

    Digusted with Sue and Steve said…

    I wish someone would post a map showing current borders, current Sphere of Influence, LAFCO staff proposed map, and what our wonderful CC members did to us last night.

    Go to http://www.city.davis.ca.us/story/pdfs/Davis_preferred_Sphere_of_Influence_Map.pdf for the map or http://www.city.davis.ca.us/story/?story=Sphere_of_Influence for all the pertinent documents

    Remember, Sue and Steve are hell bent on bringing in a lot of land for a sports park, and this LAFCO process might be the cover they are using. So Davisites can drive their BTU-burning, global-warming SUVs from all over the city for playfields that are burning power half the night for the overhead lights. Our CC still has no clue, really, do they?

    Last night when I got home from the LAFCO meeting I watched the streaming video of the February 26, 2008 Council Meeting. Perhaps, before you slam Sue and Steve, you might want to watch the LAFCO portion of that 2/26 meeting.

  31. Matt Williams

    Digusted with Sue and Steve said…

    I wish someone would post a map showing current borders, current Sphere of Influence, LAFCO staff proposed map, and what our wonderful CC members did to us last night.

    Go to http://www.city.davis.ca.us/story/pdfs/Davis_preferred_Sphere_of_Influence_Map.pdf for the map or http://www.city.davis.ca.us/story/?story=Sphere_of_Influence for all the pertinent documents

    Remember, Sue and Steve are hell bent on bringing in a lot of land for a sports park, and this LAFCO process might be the cover they are using. So Davisites can drive their BTU-burning, global-warming SUVs from all over the city for playfields that are burning power half the night for the overhead lights. Our CC still has no clue, really, do they?

    Last night when I got home from the LAFCO meeting I watched the streaming video of the February 26, 2008 Council Meeting. Perhaps, before you slam Sue and Steve, you might want to watch the LAFCO portion of that 2/26 meeting.

  32. Matt Williams

    Digusted with Sue and Steve said…

    I wish someone would post a map showing current borders, current Sphere of Influence, LAFCO staff proposed map, and what our wonderful CC members did to us last night.

    Go to http://www.city.davis.ca.us/story/pdfs/Davis_preferred_Sphere_of_Influence_Map.pdf for the map or http://www.city.davis.ca.us/story/?story=Sphere_of_Influence for all the pertinent documents

    Remember, Sue and Steve are hell bent on bringing in a lot of land for a sports park, and this LAFCO process might be the cover they are using. So Davisites can drive their BTU-burning, global-warming SUVs from all over the city for playfields that are burning power half the night for the overhead lights. Our CC still has no clue, really, do they?

    Last night when I got home from the LAFCO meeting I watched the streaming video of the February 26, 2008 Council Meeting. Perhaps, before you slam Sue and Steve, you might want to watch the LAFCO portion of that 2/26 meeting.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for