Five Year Sunset Clause Problematic However
In 2000, Measure J was passed by the voters of Davis by a 53.6% yes vote giving the citizens the right to vote and determine whether land can be re-designated from Agriculture or Open Space to any urban usage. The measure however, sunsets at the end of 2010 and must be reconsidered by the voters.
As the staff report argues:
“While there are a myriad of options for amending the provisions of Measure J, staff believes that based on the relatively short history of, and limited experience with Measure J, the most appropriate course of action at this time is to renew it unaltered with only minor technical changes.”
There is one recommended technical change. While it appears minor and non-substantive, someone ought to make sure that is the case.
“The adopted language of Measure J explicitly requires a citizen vote on any proposal to develop on “the last two large vacant properties designated for urban use, commonly known as the Covell Center and Nishi Properties.” At the time Measure J was enacted these properties were designated Urban Reserve for a mix of urban uses. Therefore, these two particular sites needed to be called out in order for Measure J to apply to any project proposal on them. These sites are now both designated as Agriculture in the City’s current General Plan and are, therefore, no longer required to be called out. Staff recommends an alteration to remove specific references to these properties. A recital or footnote could be added to ensure that voters are clear that Measure J will still apply to these sites and to summarize that the land use designations changed since the original adoption of Measure J.”
My reading of this is that since both Covell and Nishi are no longer urban reserves and rather they are zoned agricultural, they are still covered by Measure J and would require a vote of the people, but they no longer require a special designation.
The most controversial part of the staff recommendation however is the five year sunset clause. The original ordinance contained a ten year sunset, there appears no real reason for the shorter sunset, if a sunset should be required at all. Personally I would prefer no sunset and if the ordinance becomes unpopular the people can remove it.
Staff does not explain their reason for recommending just a five year period other than the time period is consistent with both the next General Plan update period and the UC Davis Long Range Development Plan. But it does not appear necessary that it be coincided with both plans. Clearly the staff somehow believes it is to their advantage to have a shorter sunset clause, but it is unclear why it is necessary from their report.
It is our hope then, that council will alter this portion of the staff report to either a ten year sunset period like the original or no sunset. We now know how Measure J works, and while there has only been one Measure J vote, it seems likely that more modest projects will not excite the large grassroots response that the Covell Village campaign inspired and without that kind of response it is less likely that the voters will vote against a project.
There is somewhat of a complacency that comes with having Measure J on the books. It allows the voters a false sense of security that land use decisions that go outside the current boundaries of the city, must go through them.
Nevertheless, Measure J is vital to the ability of the voters to control their own land use decisions and to at least partially mitigate the influence of powerful development interests. Given the renewed move that we have seen toward Covell Village the Redux, we need all the tools in place to fight to keep the right to determine whether a project is worthy of development and not simply have a council rubber stamp the same old poor land use decisions.
The key question now is whether Council will opt to make changes to Measure J. My guess is that there are probably three votes to keep Measure J as is, but the sunset period is a key question now.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I would watch to see how Don Saylor might try to manuver a change and watch Souza at all times. Ruth blows with the wind so much it is hard to predict with her.
I am wary of any change to the Measure J ordinance, no matter how substle it might seem on the surface. In terms of “Sunset.” I would prefer that Measure J be approved permanently, or at least for a minimum of 10 years to conform with the current “sunset” clause.
No matter how any of us view Measure J, it is critical to understand that this is an ORDINANCE, and that when we vote on it’s renewal, we will be voting on the specific WORDING of the ordinance before us.
Therefore, I STRONGLY urge the original leaders & supporters of Measure J to become involved ASAP in the wording of the “new” Measure J ordinance, to ensure that no “loopholes” or subtle language changes are made that might dilute the power of Measure J as it exists today.
I am wary of any change to the Measure J ordinance, no matter how substle it might seem on the surface. In terms of “Sunset.” I would prefer that Measure J be approved permanently, or at least for a minimum of 10 years to conform with the current “sunset” clause.
No matter how any of us view Measure J, it is critical to understand that this is an ORDINANCE, and that when we vote on it’s renewal, we will be voting on the specific WORDING of the ordinance before us.
Therefore, I STRONGLY urge the original leaders & supporters of Measure J to become involved ASAP in the wording of the “new” Measure J ordinance, to ensure that no “loopholes” or subtle language changes are made that might dilute the power of Measure J as it exists today.
Sorry, double-clicked and submitted my comment twice. Hopefully, you’ll see at least one. Sorry for the redundancy; an honest mistake.
What happens if measurse J gets voted down? Who are the 3 on the council that will vote to put it on the ballot?
J should be put on the ballot with at least 10 year term, default being it continues permantly unless changed by a new measure.
Also, I don’t like the personal attacks on the motives of the current CC members. Everyone has their interests, and anyone who voted for one of the five should not be surprised by any of their votes. Each candidate had his or her own support groups, and I have not been surprised by any of the big votes that I have heard about. Disappointed sometimes, yes, but not surprised. Each of them are sacrificing a lot to sit up there and listen to hours of often-boring routine city business, so give them that courtesy and understanding.
Mike: You’ve weighed in on Measure J and I agree with you completely regarding “sunset.” But now you seem to be apologizing for (unnamed) Council members who might change the wording of the Measure J ordinance.
Am I just too stupid to understand the subtleties of your comments or are you giving a “free pass” to City Council members who are trying to change the specific wording of the Measure J ordinance?
Rick E.
Rick, good to see you posting these days. I see a lot of personal attacks on CC members on various stories, and I just thought I would add my view that we really should separate their votes from the rest of it. For example, DPD seems to have caught Yes on X with their hands in the cookie jar as to the recent disclosures. You can (and I have) say a lot about their motives, implications, etc. But I dont personally think that a $100 contribution from someone buys a vote on the CC. Now, if someone shows how a particular person with financial interests before the CC collects dozens of checks and brings them in (the bundler), then you have something to attack that CC member for …. So I dont think that an adverse vote against my views by, say, Sue, allows me to personally attack her, unless I have some evidence of bad motives, corruption, etc. In other words, I try not to come at things with a negative default setting. In my hard-fought civil litigation cases, I am trained to separate the personalities of the attorneys from the dispute that our clients might have. Clients come and go, but lawyers stay around, and I dont generally mix it up with them on a personal level, unless they give me evidence of improper conduct. I guess I look at the CC in a similar viewpoint: the CC members come and go, and they vote things up or down, but I take it as they come, and deal with it on a positive basis, unless I see a process problem. As you know, yesterday I posted a comment that I was disappointed with city staff for not disclosing that the Yes on X Committee late-filed an amendment. To me, that is a fairly severe violation of what I consider to be good public process. And I called them on it. I know that many of the senior staff pushed Covell Village on the city in 2000-2005, and are doing it again. So the failure to inform the CC and public about a red-hot document that I think will be highly significant politically and legally in our town implicates motives … and I brought it up.
But I dont like the generally out of the blue malicious personal attacks on CC members.
“Each of them are sacrificing a lot to sit up there and listen to hours of often-boring routine city business, so give them that courtesy and understanding”—-they weren’t drafted into CC service; they all knew what they were getting into. Sorry Mike, no sympathy from me. If they feel especially picked on, quitting is always an option. Won’t affect me or my life.
Mike: Appreciate your sensitivity towards criticisms of Council members. You’ve been there, and it must hurt (even through a thick skin) when you feel you’ve been attacked unfairly. On the other hand, agree even more with “don’t get it:” council members are there by their own choice. If they can’t take the heat, they should get off their collective butts and allow someone more commited to sit in their seats.
Now, back to Measure J. Where are the designers & proponents? Behavior of individual CC members aside, Measure J is the voice of the people and must be extended with the same (or even more stringent) wording.
Mike,
You were probably referring to my first of the comments this am. While I agree that this blog is not designed or solicits disparaging remarks about CC members I believe this story was nicely setting up a discussion of what might happen to J, its wording, etc by the current CC, so predicting or discussing what we think each might do, is ‘fairer game’ No?
Get rid of Measure J let the council decide. Isn’t that why they are elected. Measure J supports too high property values and restricts growth it was a mistake and should be voted down if not just allowed to sunset out.
“Get rid of Measure J let the council decide. Isn’t that why they are elected. Measure J supports too high property values and restricts growth it was a mistake and should be voted down if not just allowed to sunset out.”
Afraid to let the voters decide?