SacBee Editors Snip Social Justice Elements From Woodland Voting Rights Story, Raising Concern Of Institutional Bias Over Their Claim Matter Is “Settled” By Planned City Election In 2014

YOLO SUN OPINION :

Apparently, editors at The Sacramento Bee (SacBee) have become cheery advocates of Woodland City Council’s recent decision to hold an election in 2014 for purposes of eventual, 2016 compliance with state law regarding the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) of 2002 — as well as becoming unjournalistically leery of any complications to that scenario.

So much so, that these editors fixed-up its news article of May 11, 2013, removing information deemed too clumsy to include, about the legal and political background of matters and events which its own (very good) reporter believes to be relevant, raising serious concern of institutional bias within SacBee’s news coverage.

Not only this, since a separate question arises about whether SacBee is also unfairly skewing this locally derived presentation away from pertinent local details, in order to enhance broad appeal to a vast readership outside of Woodland.

At the expense of a fully accurate story about Woodland, SacBee’s readership received a trimmed and more digestible account of affairs, so they wouldn’t have to wade through the mire of reality.  Well, that’s the editorial theory.

SacBee editors wanted an:

“[O]verview on CVRA and where Woodland stands in relation to it, [opining] that the special election issue had been settled with the (City Council) decision to vote in 2014,” according to its quite capable reporter, who was “arguing that [ ] social justice issue[s]” related to this subject required more inclusive and detailed, localized news coverage.

For one thing, there is a fair chance that a local CVRA ballot measure would fail at the polls.  This serious potential and its consequences do not find any space in SacBee’s lengthy “overview” narrative.

Tidying up its news product, SacBee gives a false impression inclining toward support for this action by Woodland City Council, while still displaying that the Council is now composed of five White Republicans who live nearby each other — in this City which has more Latinos than Whites (47.4% to 42.1%).  Only three Latinos have been on Woodland City Council in its history, and only one in recent years.

Falsity exists in the fact that if Woodland is sued in 2013 to enforce the CVRA at the polls in 2014 — there would be no 2014 election measure to eventually establish this reform in 2016.

As well, these five White Republicans would not be drawing the electoral districts mandated by CVRA; instead, the courts would be (hopefully impartially) drawing them.

Over-simplifying its news report, SacBee editors play lawyer in support of the City’s present plan — while suppressing contrary and critical views which they clearly had at their journalistic disposal.

___  Elicited Comments Of Yolo Sun Excluded From Story  ___

Well worth keeping in mind here, is these obvious facts :

“CVRA applies to Woodland since its inception, 2002.  There is no need to wait to act until Latinos overcome Whites in percentage of population.  But that is how far this key civil rights reform has drifted in Woodland.

“Woodland City Council has ignored CVRA for more than a decade, and it now wants to delay reform through [yet] another election cycle.

“After the 2010 Census, the question of CVRA reform arose in city hall, but nothing much happened.  Apparently, there was an opportunity to place this matter on the 2012 ballot, but that wasn’t pressed forward.

“This would seem to be something of immediate importance — holding lawful elections.”

Of course, one huge (supposed) political reason for keeping CVRA reform off of a local 2012 ballot — is that Woodland’s near lonely Latino City Council Member, Art Pimentel, was then making a run for county supervisor, with support from most members of the City Council.

CVRA reform and Pimentel running for county supervisor upon the same 2012 ballot would appear as a rather novel, complex (yet more just) political circumstance — one that the city council declined to perform upon.

These remarks above and others by Yolo Sun (which was elicited by SacBee to contribute) were snipped out of consideration for SacBee’s essentially — ‘cooked’ — local story, which looked good at a distance in the midst of its being an “overview.”

SacBee’s diligent reporter describes Yolo Sun’s remarks / comments as: “good stuff, particularly on the gap between CVRA implementation and Woodland’s action.”

However, SacBee editors had another, broader agenda related to publishing a — tighter and tidier — piece of journalism, dispensed for a statewide audience — not to be slowed down by pertinent facts about Woodland’s actual historical setting and what is or is not legally “settled.”

Phil Isenberg (bless his pure political heart) even made it into this “overview” story, in terms of his recounting the 40+ year-old transition of Sacramento to district-based elections, as now enforced by CVRA against citys like Woodland.

___  No Ink For Essential Local Details  ___

But what happened to these SacBee editors’ inkwell, when information was required for comprehending the subject of Woodland’s present political and legal circumstance, the very tether of this story?

No ink could be found and such clumsiness was avoided.

Indeed, Woodland City Council appears to be living up to its legal / social duty and is sponsoring such justice, through seemingly ethical and timely comportment with state law.

When in fact:

“Woodland City Council has essentially been intent on closing off a reliable opportunity to enforce the CVRA in 2014.

“What this really boils down to is a City Council decision that CVRA reform does not merit a special election (especially the cost thereof).  Yet, it’s more than obvious that relevant conditions in Woodland genuinely merit this sort of attention, since this reform is so long overdue.

“Early in 2013, Woodland City Council [finally] delegated two members to investigate and evaluate the CVRA situation.  What should have taken two weeks took more than four months [and remains unconcluded].  This unjustifiable delay has largely prevented CVRA reform from finding a way onto a November 2013 (special election) ballot.

“[CVRA] elections are an appeasement to local authority to draw its own districts, if it acts in a timely way.  Woodland City Council is instead using it as a ploy to delay CVRA reform.  Historically, it has not acted in a timely way to enforce this reform.”

These comments by Yolo Sun are in SacBee editors’ wastebasket, when at least some of them should have been within its (for that reason) incomplete and skewed news story.

 

 

Yolo Solar Energy Program Will End June 30, Clean Electricity From Residential Solar Now Competitive With Conventional Utility Sources

YOLO SUN NEWS REPORT :

Are you a homeowner or landlord who wants to lower utility costs using solar energy to cleanly produce electricity, but you aren’t sure how to go about it or have time to research all the options?

Based on intense concerns regarding climate change and predictions that by about 2017 “clean” electricity produced by residential solar installations will cost about half of what regular utility companies will be charging — all local governments within Yolo County are now sponsoring and promoting a fully vetted (20%) discount program to introduce such solar energy innovation — but this program will end on June 30.

Residential solar energy has recently become competitive with the cost of electricity from utility companies, at about 12 cents per kilowatt hour, and will soon be even cheaper.  In three or four years, residential solar energy is projected to cost only 8 cents per kilowatt hour, while utility companies are expected to offer electricity at that rate for about 14 cents.

Importantly, residential solar energy installations eliminate the need for electricity to be transferred long distances from its point of production to its point of use, which is an immense cost utility companies will increasingly pass on to their consumers.

Selective independence from the conventional “grid” — while paying only half of its cost for your own “cleanly” (non-polluting) produced (onsite) electricity source, appears as an attractive prospect for the future.

Currently, energy consumers can match the price of conventional electricity with residential solar installations reliably producing their own “clean” electricity.  For those folk with an environmentally aligned conscience, this present equaling of cost should become a tipping-point toward a revolution of solar energy use.

As well, recent data reveal that 7 times as many ‘jobs per megawatt of electricity’ are being created in the United States through residential solar installations, as are created from coal production.

Both for economic and environmental reasons, residential solar installations clearly are very beneficial.

Local governments are associating to sponsor and promote such a program, so that it can offer a 20% cost discount by means of group-based purchasing.

Phase one of this program in 2012 was limited to local governmental employees, but in 2013 it has been expanded to include any person who lives or works in Yolo County.

Various incentives exist for participation, such as: free (no obligation) solar evaluation of homes, discounted energy efficiency assessments, pre-negotiated group discounts, fully vetted contractors, an independent and unbiased technical advisor, 30% federal tax credit on solar installations, and solar leasing options.

Environmental and economic reasons have now strongly combined to make residential solar installations an attractive alternative to involvement with conventional utility companies.

“[S]olar energy use has surged at about 20 percent a year over the past 15 years, thanks to falling prices and gains in efficiency,” indicates the National Geographic webpage about solar energy, which continues: “With tax incentives, solar electricity can often pay for itself in five to ten years.”

Apparently, through this Yolo County program, consumers can now begin to pay less than they do to utility companies, by using solar energy.

This local solar-electricity installation program, named: “Energy Benefits Yolo,” is managed by GroupEnergy, “specializing in the design and administration of collaborative purchasing programs that make clean energy solutions simple, social and affordable.”

The relevant GroupEnergy website, where persons may register and participate, is:  http://www.mygroupenergy.com/yolo

Fast-Food Feud Erupts On Woodland Main St.; Planning Commission Fails To Grapple With Environmental, Political Issues, Rubberstamps Staff Report, As Petrovich Pays Back City Gift – Part Three

YOLO SUN OPINION :

Once in a while, it’s possible to see past the plain details of civic affairs, affording perception of the basic dynamics of civic dysfunction.

Such a scene was on vivid display at Woodland Planning Commission during its specially convened meeting on April 25 for a hearing on Paul Petrovich’s latest escapade, his Starbucks project beside the Burger King near Ashley and Main Streets.

___  Fast-Food Goliaths Collide On Main Street  ___

Starbucks and Burger King are genuine commercial goliaths, the third and fourth largest fast-food restaurants in the nation (measured by sales, both around $9 billion for 2010).  And they are squaring-off for a big legal duel on Woodland’s West Main Street, with Petrovich at the center of it.

The Rite Aid on Ashley and Main was developed by Petrovich, after he sold the eastern half acre of his overall parcel to Burger King in 2009.

Then recently, Starbucks (apparently) has decided to abandon its present location within Raley’s Market at Main and Road 98, allegedly because there is no drive-through capability at that site.

So, Petrovich is now trying to squeeze a (1700 sq. ft. – 36 seat) Starbucks plus another yet to be determined (1000 sq. ft.) business / shop onto only a half acre site, surrounded by existing drive-throughs at both Rite Aid and Burger King.

This project is not actually capable of meeting its parking requirements, which have been twice adjusted downward (25 to 14, then to 10 with mitigation measures).  Yet, if Petrovich simply excised the 1000 sq. ft. shop section, it would be capable of meeting these city requirements.

Testimony from traffic experts describes this three drive-through situation as “unusual,” potentially troublesome, with vehicular blockages occurring a third of the time during peak (morning and afternoon) operating hours.

“Unusual” enough, for Burger King to retain Stoel Rives, LLP, a large multi-state law firm, for the purpose of stopping this project because of its perceived adverse environmental impacts and violations of law being seen as a threat to this Burger King’s commercial viability.

[ Editor’s note:  for background events, see Parts One (Feb. 21) and Two (April 20) of this series of articles, closely located below on this scroll. ]

___  Planning Commission Fails To Comprehend Situation  ___

Apparently being lobbied independently by Petrovich, not a single planning commissioner questioned the political posture of the city staff report supporting conditional project approval, which has fallen into serious question as essentially being  — ‘cooked’ — under orders from the city manager, Paul Navazio, and ultimately from the mayor, Skip Davies.

The Starbucks project file contains material obviously demonstrating a city planning staff consensus that a different form of environmental review is legally required, than a virtual “exemption” supported by the eventual staff report.

This particular situation within the project file was clearly described and revealed on February 21 by Yolo Sun in Part One of this series of articles.  Planning commissioners were personally directed to this article during their February 21 regular meeting.

Legal counsel for Burger King contends that these city shenanigans amount to: “developer favoritism and hints of back room cronyism which have tainted this application to date.”

Indeed, the city manager made an unlawful gift of public funds toward appeasing this peculiar demand of Petrovich.  But once challenged by legal counsel for Burger King and brought into public light, Petrovich suddenly desired to reimburse the city for this unlawful gift, paying back the $5640 for his project’s traffic study.

Thus, the city manager is now off the immediate hook related to unlawfully gifting public funds; however, his over-ruling of city planning staff regarding this project remains a very pertinent legal and political issue.

At this April 25 hearing, Petrovich claimed he is prepared to — “pay $100,000” — to defend his project in court, but he had so far adamantly refused to pay even the minor cost of his required traffic study.  Typical Petrovich.

Invited by public testimony at this meeting to explain these sordid affairs, Petrovich declined.

Burger King’s attorneys persuasively, compellingly contended on a number of grounds that this project does not qualify for the environmental “exemption” it was potentially being granted by the city — even revealing quite recent and salient remarks by Petrovich’s own agents toward this end.

But, not a glimmer of concern was raised by the planning commissioners, especially once the city attorney said a few words which undermined such a course by appearing to vaguely reinforce this supportive staff report and its questionable legal posture.

Of course, the whole idea here was to avoid publically confronting the relevant details and legal truth of these matters.

If the city attorney had instead admitted there may be legal problems of the kind being presented by Burger King, such a statement would impede the desired (rubber)stamp of approval by city planning commissioners.

As a commissioner said following this meeting: “The city attorney said there wasn’t a problem, and I’m not an attorney.  I depend on staff.”

Well, while that attitude is often a good idea, it clearly has its limits; like in this case, where plainly persuasive and compelling contentions were being presented by opposing legal counsel.

In such a case, addressing the substance of these contentions and expressing a reasonable degree of skepticism about the city’s actual legal position may be very much — in the public interest — common sense scrutiny which is fundamental to having a good (lay-person) planning commission, instead of simply a rubberstamp type of commission.

Expressions of such concern and scrutiny were not, however, within these planning commissioners’ playbook.

Delving under the surface of these matters, fairly easy to do as evidenced by instant series of journalistic articles, seems not within the commission’s complexion.  It seemed quite happy to float upon the surface, disdaining the credible controversies; while, genuine public interest, disregarded by dynamics of dysfunction, simply sank down to wherever the bottom resides.

___  What Planning Commission Did Accomplish  ___

Ironically, while not addressing these central contentions of Burger King’s attorneys, planning commissioners in reality succeeded in better proving such contentions by establishing yet additional features and conditions of project mitigation for environmental impacts which — must not exist — for a relevant “exemption” to be lawful.

Mitigating such environmental effects of this project places it squarely outside legal terms for the relevant “exemption,” with the city pursuing an unlawful approach to environmental review and decision-making.

An obvious motivation for this condition is an attempt by the city to save Petrovich some money he would otherwise have to pay.  Just as with the traffic study, Petrovich does not want to pay for an authentic environmental review and is using city processes as a device to obtain (unlawful) relief.

Commissioners seemed quite oblivious to the transparent fiasco / blunder of their style of engagement with this project, even though the situation was pointed out to them by attorneys for Burger King, hopeful it seems, for some indication of awakening comprehension — but to no avail.

Unanimously (6 to 0, commissioner Lopez absent) approving the carefully (or carelessly, as you will) conditioned (mitigated) project, planning commissioners have set the stage for a certain appeal by Burger King to Woodland City Council, likely to occur in June.

Burger King has expressed “strong” opposition and a clear determination to resist being side-swiped by Starbucks and Petrovich, so litigation will likely follow any city council affirmation of planning commission approval.

If the city council were to overturn this approval of planning commissioners, that would be the end of this project, as it now exists, without occurrence of litigation.

___  A Relevant Tidbit, Much More Later  ___

An argument has been raised that since the Burger King received this same nature of environmental “exemption,” Starbucks’ must somehow deserve similar treatment.  The problem with this particular view is that environmental impacts are legally viewed as cumulative in this sort of context.

These two projects are not similarly situated in this regard.  Present existence of adjacent Burger King and Rite Aid creates a cumulative scenario which directly influences the required legal review of any Starbucks’ proposed to be squeezed between them.

Additional details of this matter, including some very interesting, already received remarks from the city manager, will be presented and examined within Part Four of this series of articles, alongside expected appeal of planning commission approval of Petrovich’s Starbucks project to the city council.

Fast-Food Feud Erupts On Woodland Main St.; City Of Woodland Accused Of Unlawful Conduct By Giving Public Funds For Petrovich Project – Part Two

YOLO SUN OPINION :

Succinctly stated, current Woodland Mayor Skip Davies simply requested that City Manager Paul Navazio assist Paul Petrovich’s Starbuck’s project.

That was where the colorful trouble began, trouble which suddenly boiled over before the Planning Commission on April 18 and is set for full-scale eruption on April 25, at another – especially arranged – meeting.

Citizens might indeed wonder how a city mayor can behave in such a corrupt and biased manner, or question how a city manager would be so intimidated to go along with this corrupt behavior — but then again, this is Woodland.

Being from Davis, though, Navazio is likely not well enough acquainted with Woodland’s historically corrupted political styles.

Legal counsel for (adjacent) Burger King, opposing Petrovich’s Starbuck’s project (Timothy Taylor, of Stoel Rives, LLP, a large multi-state law firm), has on April 18 written to Woodland Planning Commission that:

“[T]he City must [now] commit to an unbiased project review without developer favoritism and hints of back room cronyism that unfortunately have tainted this application to date.”

Burger King’s counsel also writes that the city must:  “[R]ectify [an unlawful] gift of public funds” (detailed below).

This means that Petrovich must pay the city back for something he initially refused to pay for: traffic circulation and parking analyses for his project.  These analyses support conclusions directly against Petrovich’s interest.  What real chance is there that he will pay the city back?

Davies seems to believe the city can do anything it wants — until it gets sued — and should squander city staff and resources toward such improper ends.

City managers, of course, serve at the utter pleasure and discretion of the city council.  Davies and only two cohorts could remove Navazio and he is obviously aware of that grim circumstance.  When the mayor requests that the city manager do something for Petrovich, fix things for Petrovich, this is easily taken as an order, despite any later, adverse consequences.

[Editor's note:  Part One of this series was published on February 21, 2013 and is only a few articles below on this scroll. ]

___  What Navazio Has Done  ___

Firstly, Navazio over-ruled a generally held city planning staff opinion that a more comprehensive environmental review is required for Petrovich’s Starbuck’s project — than Petrovich is willing to admit or permit.

Navazio demanded this project receive an exemption from environmental review, for which it clearly did not deserve; since, city planning staff’s view was later plainly upheld by “substantial evidence” through expert analyses.

Secondly, Navazio approved what is described by legal counsel for Burger King as — “a gift of public funds” — which is clearly illegal under state law.  Counsel for Burger King persuasively outlines in legal detail this unlawful situation.

Petrovich was adamant that he would not pay for obviously needed traffic circulation and parking studies for his Starbuck’s project, and he would not submit his project application until the city paid this (private developer) cost — so Navazio used city funds (~$5,640) for this unlawful purpose.

Thirdly, after city planning staff decided that it did not yet possess the legal advice from the city attorney that it believed was needed to competently proceed — and thus prudently rescheduled the hearing on Petrovich’s project for a month — Navazio intervened, demanding that Woodland Planning Commission meet anyway and hold the originally scheduled hearing on April 18.

___  Hearing Still Postponed, But Only By A Week  ___

Due to these strange scheduling problems and the fact that the relevant material (157 pages) was not timely disseminated because of this (suddenly reversed) postponement, as well as accusations by counsel for Burger King of potential due process violations, Woodland Planning Commission could not in good faith even move forward to a project hearing on April 18, despite Navazio’s insistence.

Petrovich’s project was the only agenda item, so it was truly a strain to discover any good / proper reason for this meeting which Navazio had demanded be held.

Several planning commissioners offered some comments about their various concerns regarding the project, in order to best use this misfired meeting to some fashion of advantage and that city planning staff might then have time to respond with informed and prepared advice.

However, another reason Navazio intervened to demand the planning commission meet and this hearing convene partially confounded – even this useful advantage — since the planning commission was simultaneously flummoxed by Petrovich’s (obviously bogus) appeal for great haste — because of some issue over Starbuck’s lease with the Raley’s grocery store at Main Street and Road 98.

Even if it proceeds with city approval, this project will be tied-up in court  — for years.  Thus, Starbuck’s lease is totally irrelevant to these matters.  However, the planning commission still decided that it had better convene a special meeting on April 25 to consider Petrovich’s project.

Woodland Community Development Director, Nick Ponticello, strongly argued that city planning staff would not have time to properly respond to immediately expressed concerns of planning commissioners — if the meeting would be only a week away.

But anyway, bullied by Petrovich’s bullshit, a majority of the planning commission (Commissioners Holt and Lopez dissenting, and Commissioner Murphy looking like he wanted to) decided that a very special meeting must indeed be convened to prevent Petrovich from having to wait another three weeks for a project hearing.

So, Navazio demanding that the Planning Commission convene on April 18 presented the chance for Petrovich to gain three weeks in his quest, as well as unlawfully receiving city funds and adjusted environmental review for this purpose.

As requested by Davies, Navazio did his city manager duty and assisted Petrovich’s project — to what end appears certain:  extended litigation and a large-scale squandering of municipal resources.

Instead of working on the General Plan Update, city planning staff are spending their time spinning the city’s wheels to assist Petrovich’s crazy misadventures.

All this occurs, because Davies — improperly — asked Navazio to help Petrovich with his Starbuck’s project.  Stay tuned for Part Three of this series, which will cover the special April 25 Planning Commission hearing and Navazio’s condition.

Yolo Sun Writer-Editor Comments To City Hall Regarding Woodland Downtown Revitalization

Comments To City Of Woodland

Regarding Downtown Revitalization

April 18, 2013

Bobby Harris

___  Preface  ___

Almost a quarter-century ago, I was the initial Woodland City Council candidate to advocate for its downtown revitalization, prior to any form of political consensus existing toward that purpose.

I had settled in 1983 near City Park in the house built a century earlier by the premier local cement mason of those days, H.T. Barnes (for example, he laid the sidewalks around the county courthouse), whose grand-daughter aged in her seventies still lived next door.

State Theatre was only a few blocks away, serving as an urban landmark which then roughly defined the western edge of the City’s downtown area. I was attracted to Woodland because it represents historical urbanization within what was otherwise vast rural countryside, bounded by the Sacramento River, its Delta, and stretching far off into the hills and central valley.  Although Winters and Knight’s Landing have regional, historical significance alongside it in this countryside which would become Yolo County, Woodland has always functioned as its most cosmopolitan zone.

Yet, UCD has during recent decades catapulted Davis into another style of urbanization, reflecting anticipated characteristics and diversities of a university city and rivaling Woodland for regional and cultural significance.  While Davis’ identity has been slowly strengthened, community identity for Woodland and its downtown area has fallen increasingly into question, as if latent remains of its political and historical significance were assumed to somehow provide worthy compass for the upcoming century.

___  Pivotal Problem  ___

Woodland’s evolution has been greatly impeded by anachronisms and its chronic political inability to create true community consensus about basic details of its genuinely modern setting and identity.  Central examples of this problem are the starkly contradictory and incompatible goals within the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) regarding both: (a) efficiently moving traffic through downtown Main Street and (b) having a pedestrian-friendly zone at the downtown core.

On July 21, 2009, I published an article in Yolo Sun, entitled: “Woodland’s Evolution Impeded By Anachronism – New Street Master Plan Indicates Options Exist,” the text of which I hereby fully incorporate by reference into these comments.  This article is available on the internet at Yolo Sun (- http://yolosun.wordpress.com – in archive -); it analyzes the problem stated above and examines it in light of this updated City Street Master Plan (which for various reasons has not yet — for four years — been formally adopted).

Also, in February of 2012, I filed with the city a ballot petition on this subject (downtown traffic circulation system), but the city attorney refused to provide a fair and accurate ballot title and summary for this measure (despite admitting and correcting other serious mistakes), the text of which I hereby fully incorporate by reference into these comments.  The city has, of course, the filed original copy of this ballot petition.

This ballot petition outlines a plan for four-way stop signs and diagonal parking within the downtown area, as well as a program for intermittent closure of Main Street and its use as a flexible and central, public plaza.

These two sources of information and advocacy display a pivotal problem confronting downtown revitalization:  traffic flow, speed and noise on Main Street disallows essential pedestrian gravity, atmosphere, participation.

Combining with this problem the huge, added problem that there exists no adequate central plaza / city square within the downtown area, strongly argues for a serialized and intermittent, civic dedication of Main Street infrastructure for purposes of establishing a flexible and convenient downtown plaza directly upon it, within the downtown core.  Downtown merchants and property owners, as well as pedestrians, would greatly benefit from such a fundamentally focused civic program.

Significantly, such a program would supply a key and desperately needed civic resource — at only a small fraction of the cost of any relevant alternative.

General Plan 2035 Stakeholder Interviews directly reflect a consensus about these two matters:  Downtown’s basic and immediate need for a (much) more “pedestrian-friendly environment” and a “central public plaza” which both encourage socializing of various kinds.

For instance, the Woodland Farmers’ Market would take place on a block (perhaps more / perhaps in rotation) of Main Street, on most Saturdays and some evenings.  Thursdays and Fridays may also be popular days to close a particular block or two of Main Street for various community events, celebrations and various merchant-based activities and functions.  Perhaps much of Main Street would be closed and pedestrian-occupied during certain weekends to accommodate key civic / commercial events.

The length and scope of downtown Main Street would thus become a valuable resource, serving as a flexible city square.  Properly managed, such an essential downtown program would establish a system of interest and activity conducive for significantly elevating pedestrian values and participation – pivotal to downtown revitalization.

___  Entire Downtown Core As “Entertainment District”  ___

Unfortunately, the (five years out of date) 2003 DSP contrives to make an “entertainment district” upon only a half of the core downtown zone (First Street to Fourth Street).  The key to extending such an “entertainment district” to the western edge of the downtown area is, of course, State Theatre, which has lately become politically diminished by the city council and may eventually be largely reduced to an auxiliary, (only) 200-seat theater space for Woodland Opera House.

Original vision of the DSP (1993) was for an expanded and renovated State Theatre to robustly function as an anchor of revitalization at the “western gateway” to downtown.

The 2003 DSP, however, without even a shred of explanation, analysis or justification, suddenly prioritized a rival project of Paul Petrovich, for which the historical nature of the Electric Garage building was aggressively obscured and ignored.

On October 15, 2010, I published in Yolo Sun an article (in archive) about these circumstances:  “Movieplex Muddle Displays Disordered Downtown Planning Goals, Glaring Conflicts,” the text of which I hereby fully incorporate by reference into these comments.  This article examines details of the stark incongruities of city council actions in this area, exposing their departure from the city general plan and DSP.

The lawsuit over Petrovich’s Gateway 2 project resulted in a very strange municipal statement regarding zoning and community development in general.  In response to this litigation, Woodland claimed that:  “It is not within the City’s authority to distribute or control the distribution of commercial (“free market, free enterprise”) potential.”

Of course, this statement is clearly a general abdication of the civic “police-power” of zoning, for vague ideological reasons.  Repeated inquiries to the city for an explanation of this statement have been ignored.  Yet, this same attitude has been present in the Rite Aid project, the Chase Bank project, State Theatre matters and various other places.  If this perverse ideological perspective toward community development persists within downtown development, Woodland’s revitalization vision will become denigrated.

Because of the city council recently rejecting a quite popular opportunity to renovate and expand State Theatre into a cineplex (as originally envisioned by the DSP), and its permitting of Chase Bank to locate next to it (with obvious, multiple violations of the DSP), things presently appear rather bleak for the cause of extending any robust, authentic vitality of an “entertainment district” into the western part of downtown.

This is a huge problem, for a wide variety or reasons, resulting from the adverse notion of locating a cineplex — not in conjunction with State Theatre as an entertainment anchor at the western side of downtown, but rather on the site of the former Electric Garage, owned by Paul Petrovich.

Another gigantic problem for any new downtown cineplex is that the city council’s development agreement with Petrovich allows the location of yet another cineplex at his Gateway projects — once a downtown cineplex is operational.  This deleterious situation is reminiscent of past (~1990) city zoning for the cineplex at County Fair Mall, weakening State Theatre and seriously eroding the entertainment-center identity of downtown.

Petrovich has reneged on his promise to develop a cineplex at Electric Garage, but he still owns this property.  If the city buys this property (seemingly being considered), as part of any such negotiation it must also extinguish the section / portion of the Gateway project development agreements which permits location there of a cineplex.

Otherwise, Woodland’s “entertainment district” will eventually include Petrovich’s Gateway project, again eroding the integrity, the identity of its downtown area, and significantly impairing opportunities of revitalization.

___  Get Back On Track!  ___

Petrovich’s various (municipally facilitated) influences over the 2003 DSP were devastating for community interests of downtown revitalization.  His and Chase Bank’s projects have dealt serious blows against revitalization of the downtown area.  Luckily, his Rite Aid project at East and Main Streets was abandoned.  A lengthy series of articles concerning Petrovich’s pernicous involvement with Woodland community development can be found at Yolo Sun.

For one matter, Woodland City Council allowed Petrovich eight (8) years to mitigate admitted environmental damage done to the downtown area by his existing Gateway development project.  By July of 2016, Petrovich must create a downtown project(s) assessed at a little more than $3 million, or pay the city a little more than $1 million.  Of course, extensions of performance on this matter may be negotiated with the existing City Council, so perhaps it will be more than eight years.

Electric Garage, for another example, on the site Petrovich desired for his now abandoned cineplex project, has been very curiously ignored in the 2003 DSP regarding its historical nature as the initial auto dealership in Yolo County at the turn of the previous century.

Optimally, Electric Garage should be developed as a flexible, excitingly and authentically (historically) named, event / concert venue, with a maximum capacity of ~1500; while, State Theatre should represent the (also historical) cineplex opportunity at the other end of downtown.

With an expanded Woodland Opera House complex located (somewhere) in the middle, downtown would possess four distinct centers of diverse entertainment – spread out along its core – and finally begin to evolve overall pedestrian gravity, as well as broadening civic, cultural and commercial participation.

All of Woodland’s downtown Main Street, etc., deserves to be and should be included within an “entertainment district;” a 200-seat Woodland Opera House venue which fundamentally distorts State Theatre is not a suitable anchor for the western side of downtown.  The Opera House should be fully funded (prior to any other options / causes) for proper creation of its expansion at another location in the core downtown area; then, the City should concentrate on the development of Electric Garage and State Theatre as noted above.

Property now vacant and blighted on the southwestern corner of Main and Walnut Streets is perhaps available to assist with a cineplex locating somewhat adjacent to State Theatre, while enough added land may exist between it and Elm Ford to make possible such a staggered cineplex site, anchoring the western downtown amidst a two-dealership, downtown auto-mall.  With this vision, we’re talking significantly increased pedestrian flow in synergy with downtown commercial revitalization.

___  Downtown Housing  ___

I was the first city council candidate (1990) to focus attention on redeveloping housing within the downtown core, largely on upper floors.  That was about a quarter-century ago, and (excepting enlargement of low-income units at Woodland Hotel) despite a lot of talk over the years, only a handful of such housing units have been created since then.

Essentially, the problem is that persons with incomes sufficient to afford living at the cost needed to promote such housing development are not interested because there is not enough downtown attraction to truly warrant their housing interest; only genuine revitalization would establish a commercial basis to develop upper-income units above retail spaces.

Housing being developed within the downtown core itself, though, is not the salient aspect of its revitalization affairs.

Many thousands of potentially interested folk live within the many and diverse neighborhoods surrounding the downtown area, only a short walk, bicycle ride or (even) drive away.

Providing a – good reason – to relevantly occupy Woodland’s downtown clearly is the primary issue for its revitalization; then, even closer housing will become more plausible.  The measure of interest and motivation toward downtown within its surrounding neighborhoods will surely indicate and reinforce any real success.

Even though not now pivotal, housing certainly should be increased within and proximate to the downtown core, as well as upon underdeveloped, etc., sites throughout the general downtown area (West to East Streets and along East Street from Beamer Street to Gibson Road).

___  Library  ___

Woodland Public Library provides key civic services to more persons than any other department of city government (excepting basic utilities).  Yet, the existing General Plan set a goal of only one-half square foot per local resident (now ~57,000 and growing).  For decades, the American Library Association Guidelines have established one square foot per resident as its standard.

The library is an essential facility and prominent, historical feature of the downtown area.  It must be closely woven into downtown revitalization, including creation of a city plan to at least double its size (from 20,000 to 40-50,000 square feet).

___  Latinos  ___

Latinos are now a (census documented) majority of Woodland residents.  This demographic reality should be reflected within downtown affairs.  Latino music festivals would be appropriate and desirable (there is a wide variety of Latino music), as would such ethnic-food based events and soccer related activities.  For example, a “Yolo Cup” soccer tournament might become connected with downtown activities of a weekend-long Latino music and food festival.

___  Festivals  ___

Once downtown Main Street functions properly (as noted above), much is possible in terms of recapturing several events and festivals from the county fairgrounds (some of which began downtown but had to move away because of insufficient facility).

A Tomato Festival is a natural and historical event for downtown.  Another popular event would likely be an Olive Festival.  Capay celebrates the almond blossoming time, but why not also have a later, downtown Woodland Almond Festival?

From chili to barbeque, cooking contests, etc., could be held within a properly functioning downtown area, rather than at the county fairgrounds, where the city is not able to collect sales tax.

Cultural festivals of all kinds become possible once the downtown becomes pedestrian-friendly with a flexible and historical, central public plaza.

___  Other Ideas  ___

Directional signage (especially related to parking) should be improved.

Wifi coverage throughout downtown should become a goal.

A downtown business improvement district should become considered.

Community communication about downtown should become improved.

Building facade assistance should continue, as much as feasible.

Reuse of the old county courthouse should become a priority.

City council responsiveness to concerns of downtown merchants should become improved.  In October of 2012 I filed with the city a one-page petition regarding city parking policy on downtown Main Street, endorsed by a majority (36) of downtown Main Street merchants.  Six months have passed without any response, whatsoever.  This is inappropriate city conduct, engendering adverse relations between downtown merchants and the city.

City Of Woodland Faces Voting-Rights Challenge; Council Divided Over Local Reform’s Timing – Litigation More Likely

YOLO SUN OPINION :

With one of its most vastly interesting and revealing political discussions in recent memory, Woodland City Council unanimously decided on March 19 to continue its consideration and evaluation of options for timely satisfying the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA; please see prior Yolo Sun article just below on scroll].

Councilmember committee, Bill Marble and Tom Stallard, reported about their firm legal conclusion that:  “[T]he intent of the CVRA is that a City like Woodland would be represented by districts.”

Their “settled conclusion,” said Stallard, is that the CVRA “puts [the city] in a situation where we’re legally vulnerable, with a high probablility that we will not prevail,” if taken to court.

Unusually, the city attorney (Andy Morris; Best, Best & Krieger) also stated in this public meeting that Woodland was, indeed, extremely vulnerable to litigation enforcing the CVRA and that it clearly would pay all of the costs if sued.

Morris briefly explained that his unusually outspoken legal conclusion was simply based on demographic and electoral records.  Woodland’s population is 47.4% Latino and 42.1% White, with only two council seats held by a Latino in recent years.

Woodland is thus a huge legal target attached to a big bag of money.

___  City May Have Initial Chance To Draw Districts  ___

Also, litigation would likely result in equitable court action to design electoral districts within the city; while, if it acts expeditiously, the city would have a first chance to draw these lines and bring them to the voters for approval.

If either these electoral districts are significantly flawed or are rejected by municipal voters, however, litigation ensues with court-designed electoral districts.

This legal process makes good sense.  How would it be plausible to allow local voters to simply preserve (unlawful) at-large voting practices and reject, obstruct fundamental civil rights types of reforms.  CVRA mandates that local agencies comply — whether or not voters may agree.

Perhaps this is one of the more politically queasy angles for the city to explain; that, despite what local voters might think or do, it must enact this reform, if needed: under a court-supervised process.

Evelia Genera appeared, “represent[ing] a group of community members who await your decision.” Genera stated that: “this transition is long overdue,” and implied that they have retained assistance of legal counsel.

Former Woodland Mayor, Art Pimentel, its only recently elected Latino council member, independently describes to Yolo Sun that some form of civic discussions regarding CVRA reform began occurring during his latest mayoral term, 2010-12.

Obviously, Woodland has quite a lot on the line here, without much time to act.

Expectations of at least one potential litigant (off the record) are that these “somewhat complex,” CVRA-compliant electoral districts “must” become installed for the Woodland City Council election of 2014.

Another pertinent issue is which two electoral districts would become active in 2014 (two city council seats become open that year), and which three electoral districts would await 2016.

Timing is where these city council affairs are truly getting — unnecessarily interesting — if its basic goal is to swiftly comply with the CVRA and allow the city to avoid “a court challenge,” in the words of Stallard.

___  Marble, Stallard Report  ___

Marble and Stallard seemed to want to convey two messages in their report, (a) that the city is indeed a huge legal target attached to a big bag of money, and (b) that they need more time and information to figure out what to do in precise detail.

They well-accomplished some allegedly anquished hand-wringing about:  “a struggle, [being] not at peace,” (Stallard) and “spending quite a little bit of time on this item,” etc. (Marble) — these sorts of statements seemingly intended as apologia and solace, consoling likely numerous, perhaps confused local citizens / voters opposed to CVRA reform.  Davies and Denny clearly gave this impression, as well, within their remarks.

Marble explained that CVRA reform would save the city some money over time, since each electoral district would hold a city council election each four years.  In other words, only a portion of the city would be involved in each election, whereas now the entire city is involved at each election.

Marble summarized that this reform involves:  “legal compulsion, equitable aspects and [even] some benefits.”

Both Marble and Stallard earnestly appealed for public comment:  “in the next short time,” (Marble), to help them find their way through this seemingly treacherous morass.

___  Report Suddenly Gets Expanded  ___

Their report-approach, though, dramatically fell apart toward the end of council discussions, when Davies suddenly stated and commented upon some of these potential, precise details under consideration by Marble and Stallard: all-mail-in ballot for the CVRA ballot measure and a shift of city council elections to general elections in November — and Davies didn’t like either idea.

First Marble and then Stallard extended their remarks to address Davies’ views, clearly indicating that both of these ideas are now in their mix of evalutation — with Marble even specifically suggesting a timeline of placing the CVRA ballot measure (containing compliant district maps) upon the regular June, 2014, ballot, while also shifting council elections to November elections.

Ironically, when Davies thus (perhaps unwittingly) expanded council discussion, Stallard had just said that:  “We have identifed a host of issues that are yet to be resolved,” but that those details couldn’t be raised at this time because of potential Brown Act violations: “under our rules we can’t talk to you, because we’re talking to each other,” stated Stallard.

Talking among a city council majority is certainly going on somewhere, however.

Elsewise, how did Davies know about these precise issues, especially about a potential shift of council elections to November?

Is expressed reluctance to inform the public about precise details of unresolved issues, mainly a charade to obscure political affairs?

Did Davies read about this idea in Yolo Sun and so begin to worry?

Intervention by Davies about these details of a potential plan devised by Marble and Stallard, has evaporated any proper cloak of confidentiality over council deliberations on this topic.  As seen by this unintended council colloquy, public interest is ususally served by presenting adequate information.

___  Davies Wants To Delay CVRA Reform  ____

Davies wants to play cagey with this legal predicament, declaring that he is: “in support of this movement, without any doubt” — but only on his own terms; while, each day that passes without a CVRA lawsuit being filed is a gracious blessing.

Davies seems oblivious to harsh legal realities, speaking of this Marble-Stallard Report as only: “the first of many reports,” as if Woodland retains the legal luxury of controlling its own time and fate over this matter.

“We should time it out and put this before the people in a regular election in 2014, having it fully implemented by 2018,” Davies continued.

“We have time.  We’re not in a hurry.  Let’s do it right,” proposed Davies, emphasizing a (legally deflated) course of introducing a lengthy process of public comment and discussion — a vivid (and largely irrelevant) sled for moving matters only upon Davies’ chosen timetable for this reform.

Who does:  “We have time.  We’re not in a hurry.  Let’s do it right,” speak for?  Certainly not for Latinos and others who expect, perhaps demend, more civic devotion to democratic principles.

CVRA reform has been on the table in this town for several years (as indicated by Pimentel), and the city still appears to be running behind a proper schedule for its local implementation.  For example, the local school district attended to this subject in 2011.

The “right [way]” for Davies appears to mean stalling CVRA reform until after 2014 and preserving June primary elections for city council.

Admonishing against electoral districts causing council members: “to get myopic with regard to their district [and] sometimes losing a sense of the overall welfare of the city,” Davies also contended that all-mail-in ballots “disenfranchise people,” and that: “I like a June ballot. There are so many things on the November ballot,” complaining of an allegedly consequent: “lack of focus on council.”

“Disenfranchise[ment],” if indeed an abiding concern of Davies, would seemingly motivate him toward expediting CVRA reform.

Davies plainly wants to delay this urgent matter, however, not seeming inclined to support a reform timeline which will serve long overdue justice and equity, keeping the city away from litigation.

___  Denny And Hilliard Make Some Remarks  ___

Council members Sean Denny and Jim Hilliard made a few remarks.  Hilliard expressed his anxieties that some — “qualified” — candidates may become inaccessible using a district-based format; but, he also stated his support for the interim recommendation of Marble and Stallard.

Concerned citizens might hope that Hilliard would provide a solid third vote for timely and constructive city council action on CVRA reform.

Denny had more confusing things to say.  “People still have to step forward and put their names in the hat,” he declared.  At the end of the day, it’s a free system.  You can go and sign up.  You should have advantages one way of another, if there’s one group that’s larger than another.”

Denny is apparently addressing here, Woodland’s Latino majority. His remarks fail to demonstrate proper understanding of the legal basis of the CVRA, seeming to display some dismissive sense of disdain for this reform. His support / vote for what may become immediate, urgently necessary actions by the city to install this reform — is in question.

___  The Real Bottom Line  ___

Woodland doesn’t have much time to accomplish this important and overdue task.

The city will, despite avoiding expense of an “in-depth” (Marble) evaluation of the legal need to adopt a district-based election format, still immediately require some professional nature of demographic / electoral help.

Decisions must soon be made about how to best concentrate Latino voters in either two or three electoral districts.

This key decision must be based upon a thorough analysis and evaluation of demographic and electoral information, not simply using some (extended, on Davies’ terms) roughly anecdotal testimony from the public.

Our local purpose of the CVRA is focused on reinforcing, reasonably concentrating Latino turnout and potential election, while not unlawfully abridging “communities of interest.”  This specific legal mission should clearly predicate relevant city council actions.

Shifting city council elections to November general elections does not require voter approval, only three votes of the existing city council.

Timeline for CVRA reform must respect the ability for potential litigation to be completed for this purpose, with its beginning in 2014.  Fairly urgent action is necessary if the city intends to — in good faith — impart belief in its ability to install this reform upon this timeline (allowing time to litigate if things don’t smoothly work out).

For instance, it local voters were to reject a CVRA ballot measure upon the June, 2014, ballot — there would not be adequate time to reasonably litigate relevant issues, install CVRA reform and then hold a properly organized city council election in November, 2014.

Potentail litigants understand these legal and practical realities.  If things get dragged-out, at a certain point litigants will lose their ablility to timely and confidently influence these key affairs.

Placing this reform (CVRA compliant map, etc.) on the ballot is largely a legal pretense; while, court challenges may occur at various stages of this process, over various matters.  This election, as well as any extended public comment / testimony, is not of primary concern.

___  Of Primary Concern  ___

What is of primary concern?

The city must — immediately — act to retain the professional nature of demographic and electoral help, essential to designing electoral districts which are CVRA compliant — and then get to work drawing them.

Public comment / testimony should, of course, be a part of this (few months long) process

The city should then place a CVRA-compliant map at a November, 2013, election — after having formally shifted city council elections to this (general election) format.  Such timing of the CVRA measure will help to reinforce voter attention and participation in this shift of city council elections.

Also and importantly, holding this CVRA-related election in November, 2013, will demonstrate necessary good-faith action by the city toward potential litigation to obtain this “long overdue” (Genera) reform.

There would then be no city council matters on the June, 2014, primary ballot, defraying the cost of what is essentially a special election in November, 2013.

Waiting until June 2014 to place this matter on a ballot encroaches upon the time needed for potential litigation and will not allow the city to properly respond.  The city may well end up in court using this timeline.

The deadline for placing this CVRA ballot measure at a November, 2013, election is the first few days of August.  Thus, the city council has only about four months to fully prepare this measure, in order to meet that prudent timeline.

The city should now get busy, for once it becomes clear that it will not meet such a timeline, the likelihood of CVRA litigation will greatly increase.

City Of Woodland Faces Voting-Rights Challenge; Obscures, Clams-Up About Source Of Challenge

YOLO SUN OPINION :

Demographic inevitabilities have finally begun overtaking Woodland’s (elected at-large) political system — where Latino members of its City Council during recent decades may be swiftly named: Art Pimentel, elected in 2004 and 2008.

In 1998, Latino candidate Michael Contreras received 13.2% of votes, but needed twice that many to win (in many local city council elections, winners begin to appear around the 20% level of total votes).

In 2006, Xavier Tafoya, a Latino candidate, received about 18%, but was defeated by Skip Davies (~40%) and Bill Marble (31.5%).

Fred Lopez (member of Woodland Planning Commission) was a Latino candidate in the 2008 City Council election, garnering about 10% of cast votes, less than half of what was needed to win a council seat.

More Latinos (47.4%) than Whites (42.1%) now live in Woodland, according to 2010 census data.

Asians are a very distant third place. ~50.000 of the town’s ~56,000 residents (89.5%) are either White or Latino.

Rumors arose during Woodland’s 2012 municipal election cycle, that a legal challenge using California’s landmark, 2002 “Voting RIghts Act” (CVRA, Elections Code, sections 14025-32) would ensue well in advance of 2014.

___  “At-Large” Elections Disfavored by CVRA  ____

The CVRA targets “at-large” election formats for reform, with legal cost burdens landing upon local governments and districts which choose to resist conversion to a “district-based” format.

“At-large” elections are elections in which voters of the entire jurisdiction elect members of the relevant governing board.

The CVRA disallows use of an “at-large” election system, if it: “impairs the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or its ability to influence the outcome of an election” (section 14027). “Protected class” refers to voters of a legally relevant (statewide) ethnic-minority status.

“District-based” elections, wherein only voters so residing within a geographic area are relevant, is the simple objective of this political reform.

Voluntary reform makes it possible for a local agency to create its own election districts, rather than having these become court-drawn within legal proceedings.

City Of Modesto resisted this election reform, reportedly paying $4 million in legal fees, then settled the lawsuit by eventually accepting the reform. Other pertinent legal examples have duly established a reasonable, well-ordered trend toward voluntary election-system reform whenever any credible CVRA challenge arises.

Only one Latino city council member being recently elected in Woodland — while Latinos have clearly demonstrated robust demographic significance and inevitable primacy — is a legal slam-dunk for CVRA reform.

All that is really needed, would be to file this credible legal case, and the city would be very well advised to soon settle by accepting the (obviously impending) reform.

___  CVRA Challenge Received, Obscured  ____

On January 15, 2013, Woodland City Council appointed a committee (Bill Marble, Tom Stallard) to consider and evaluate its policy position regarding this CVRA challenge and to soon report back to the council.

The staff report associated with this agenda item offered that:  “One member of the community has requested that the City shift to district-based elections.”

When Yolo Sun asked for a copy of this “request” — it turns out that there is not:  “One member of the community” involved — but rather, there is — “a group representing the Latino community” — which have lodged this CVRA challenge.

Repeated requests of Yolo Sun, for the city to specifically identify this “group” and to disclose relevant, written material have been ignored.

City officials are apparently clamming-up and circling their wagons in advance of the likelihood that this white-hot, unsettling and variously influenced political item will be coming onto the agenda for the city council meeting of March 19, where one might well expect relevant disclosures to publicly occur.

The California Public Records Act allows the city ten days to respond, so it makes sense to simply await release of the council’s March 19 agenda.

Clearly, the city seems intent toward attempting to — negotiate with this “group representing the Latino commuinity” — in secret — regarding its (various) potential policy positions, rather than to — at the outset of such affairs — make broadly public the general nature and circumstances of this CVRA challenge.

For instance, the present city council may attempt to preserve a vestige of “at-large” elections by means of getting this “group representing the Latino community” to agree to a resolution involving dividing the city into only four districts, with a mayor still being elected “at-large.”

___  Practical Effects of CVRA Reform  ___

Of course, there is no way to assure that Latinos will actually become elected within a reformed, district-based format; the CVRA goal is simply to incline electoral potential in that general direction by removing the most prodigious obstacle: “at-large” elections, where Latino votes most often suffer serious dilution among the more active and wealthier White electorate.

In fact, the CVRA doesn’t even require any (resulting) electoral “districts” to contain a majority of minority (”protected class”) voters.

Voter turnout by Latinos is clearly a pivotal issue — especially for (recently, generally low turnout, ~40%%) primary elections — which serve as the constant, historical venue for Woodland City Council elections.

Assigning several local city council districts along lines of simply, reasonably concentrating Latino voters should assist to balance election results away from these lower voter turnouts.

Some areas within southwestern Woodland are particularly conservative. For example, it has long been common political practice to gerrymander southwestern Woodland into conservative (upper-valley) congressional districts.

Voting districts which attempt to reasonably concentrate Latino votes would likely be generally located in northern and east-central Woodland.

___ Class-Based Voting-Rights Reform And More  ____

Perhaps of even greater significance, more fundamental problems of economic-class status find much needed mitigation within this reform.

Campaigning within only a fifth of a city is a whole lot easier and less expensive than attempting to pursue an overall, city-wide contest.

Woodland currently has about 20,000 households / dwelling units. It’s a whole lot easier and less expensive to campaign toward the relevantly closest 4,000, from where you live, than to try to canvass the entire city.

District-based elections establish relative economy and convenience for candidates, hopefully encouraging more political participation by Latinos and other persons of lower economic-class status.

Of course, such election reform usually distresses and perturbs the historically entrenched political system.

That’s why the city is suddenly clamming-up and circling its political wagons.

Another big election reform which is now lingering in the background:  Woodland CIty Council elections at the General Election cycle in November — where voter turnout (recently) ususally doubles from about 40% to about 80%.

West Sacramento holds its City Council elections in November, a bright local lesson and clear democratic beacon for this particular reform.

Combining CVRA, “district-based” election reform with November elections for Woodland City Council is what should be seen as truly required to maximize local democracy.

Why not now combine these election reforms, for 2014?

Ask the all-White, carefully negotiating, primary-election inclined, Woodland City Council.

Fast-Food Feud Erupts On Woodland Main Street; City Minimizes, Funds Project Analysis – Part One

YOLO SUN NEWS REPORT :

Unusual relations and consequential drama betwixt City of Woodland and Paul Petrovich have again surfaced connected to his newly proposed project to squeeze a (vehicle) drive-through Starbucks on what city staff describe as a — “’tight’ [half-acre] development site” — between Burger King and Rite Aid at the southwestern corner of Main and Ashley Streets.

The existing Starbucks location within Raleys at the shopping center where Main Street meets Road 98 (the western edge of town), would then be closed (“cannibalizing an existing business site,” according to a city staff member), with that Starbucks moving aside this Burger King and Rite Aid.

Petrovich’s “Justification Statement” for his project expresses that: “The Starbucks coffee shop is a relocation from an existing site further west on West Main Street. At the current location the coffee shop does not accommodate a drive-thru operation which Starbucks has defined as essential for their continued operation on the west side of the City of Woodland.”

Starbucks currently operates three other locations (some drive-through) in eastern Woodland. Dutch Brothers (Starbucks’ major competition) operates two Main Street drive-through locations on the broad edges of Woodland’s downtown area.

___  Three Drive-Throughs In A Row On An Acre  ___

Petrovich’s Starbucks project would unusually create — three (3) vehicle drive-throughs — within about an acre — adjacent to a long built-out and occupied residential zone on Lincoln Avenue — while, such vehicle intensity is much more applicable to highway-commercial zoning.

A traffic engineer at a professional firm contracted by the city to provide relevant analyses, relates to it that: “It is unusual to have 2 drive throughs in a row outside of highway-commercial locations. Three drive throughs in a row on one site is very unusual,” especially in a regular commercial (C-2) zone adjacent to residential uses.

Because of such clumsiness on this already “’tight’ [  ] site,” a city staff member writes: “Should the city discuss with Starbucks directly what their site selection criteria entails and are there any other sites that might be more attractive to them?” Another city staff member later relates to Yolo Sun that going “directly” to Starbucks would not be proper process for the city; still, such was the level of staff concern regarding this project.

___  Significant Intensification From Original Zoning  ___

A memo among city staff, including city manager, Paul Navazio, refer to Petrovich’s project as “a significant intensification from the original [zoning] concept, [yet which must] not result in significant effects relating to traffic[,] noise [and] air quality” (emphasis in original), in order to legally avoid relatively basic processes within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Rare planning proposals such as this obviously deserve by law at least a sufficiently regular environmental review process, to properly evaluate various project impacts, such as: noise, air-quality, parking and traffic circulation, in this case perhaps even urban decay.

___  City Mimimizes Environmental Review, Pays Cost Of Traffic Study  ___

Unusually, however, City of Woodland has chosen to both: substantially minimize this project’s environmental review process and — pay the cost ($5640) — for the one project study being required: parking and traffic circulation. Usually, project proponents would pay such costs.

Documents obtained by Yolo Sun clearly indicate that relevant members of city staff were proceeding upon regular, professional-type expectations of a more robust nature of project environmental review (although still willing to present “somewhat of a [political] compromise’’) — when their work was substantially affected by sudden interference from the level of city council.

___  Burger King Versus Starbucks  ___

About five years ago, Petrovich, who owned the entire southwestern corner of Ashley and Main Streets (128,543 s.f.), sold a half-acre parcel on the eastern side of this property to the developer of the now existing Burger King: Sunny Ghai, leaving another half-acre parcel, the “Shops Parcel,” between this Burger King and an adjacent Rite Aid on the corner.

Documents obtained by Yolo Sun plainly indicate that Petrovich’s Starbucks project is likely in blatant violation of the: “covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs)” which were associated with this previous land sale to Ghai. Those CC&Rs, among other relevant items, contain the following provision: “[N]o portion of the [middle, remaining] Shops Parcel shall be used as a restaurant business.”

Relevant CC&Rs, dating from September 30, 2009, states that “Declarant [Petrovich] plans to develop the [entire] property as an integrated retail shopping center,” implying the middle “Shops Parcel” would become developed to meaningfully expand / diversity the center’s retail variety. “Integrated” now apparently means for Petrovich, by means of drive-throughs, since so much of the project space is devoted to them.

Another perhaps relevant CC&R provision states that the use of “Common Areas” (such as driveways, etc.) “[shall not] impede the free flow of vehicular or pedestrian traffic.”

Petrovich’s “Justification Statement” for this project contends that; “[T]he drive-thru for the Starbucks has been carefully designed such that it will not interfere with the existing drive-thrus on the overall site.” Yet, it seems that he will not pay for any confirming study, the city must pay.

In late September of 2012, Ghai submitted a “strongly oppose[d],” written message to the city, complaining in part about Petrovich’s project being “in breach of recorded [CC&Rs]: I am hopeful that this [project] application will die before it reaches the Planning Commission and save me the legal expense of engaging an attorney to have it stopped.”

Ghai has since retained legal counsel from a Capitol Mall (located) firm, Stoel Rives, LLP., which recently requested that the city forward to it a copy of all material relevant under the California Public Records Act, obviously preparing to sue the city if it approves Petrovich’s project.

“I don’t see any reason for staff to support it in contravention of what was agreed at my [city development permit] hearing and what is on record,” writes Ghai, “Mr. Petrovich himself stated at our Burger King [city development permit] hearing that there was no likelihood of [another] drive-thru.

“In the end, the Starbucks customers will jam up my driveways and kill my business,” writes Ghai.

Ghai also writes that Petrovich is claiming that this 1700 s.f. Starbucks is not a restaurant, contrary to county health department regulations.

A key problem for Ghai, though, is that the city does not enforce CC&Rs. These legal agreements may be considered within a developmental permit process — but in order to ensure their actual enforcement — Ghai must (potentially) engage in a civil lawsuit against the city and Petrovich.

___  Substantially Minimized City Environmental Review  ___

“[W]e could have required a Neg Dec [CEQA MItigated Negative Declaration] and urban decay [due to relocation context] and greenhouse gas studies [trip generation data and air analysis],” declares a memo in early September, 2012, from the city engineer, Brent Meyer.

“We reduced the study requirements to only require the traffic study and the noise study [avoiding a Neg Dec].” reads this memo among relevant city staff, to city manager Navazio.

A memo from other relevant staff adds that: “[B]ased on recent occurrences [multiple, significant, planning-related lawsuits in previous year or so], it may be best to reconsider the requirement for [CEQA] Mitigated Negative Declaration in the case of this possible intensification of use.”

“Three drive through businesses in a row could lead to a significant amount of traffic congestion at this site and could negatively impact the existing Burger King business,” describes the memo from Meyer to Navazio.

Meyer continues, “Council has communicated a heightened sensitivity to traffic issues for previous projects. [  ] In situations like these, we recommend a traffic study so that we have the answers when [they] are raised at the Planning Commission (and possibly at Council meetings).”

As far back as April of 2012, Petrovich was formally advised by city staff that both noise and traffic studies would be required. In July of 2012, he was again so informed.

Within a few weeks of these memos (above) from Meyer and related staff, toward the end of September of 2012, relevant city staff received a phone call from Petrovich’s staff, informing them:  There would only be a traffic circulation study, no noise study, and that the city was paying this cost.

City staff responded, “I told him that was news to me. [He] informed me he would be bringing in the application early next week.”

Already substantially scaled back from what relevant staff believe should have been required (Mitigated Neg Dec), environmental review established by law for this project has over again become significantly minimized – with the city paying the bill.

___  Questions  ___

Documents obtained by Yolo Sun indicate that Woodland’s City Manager, Paul Navazio, issued these orders.

Why did city manager Navazio suddenly waive the requirement for a noise study and agree to fund the traffic circulation study?

Were these orders issued purely on Navazio’s own initiative — contrary to the city’s expert staff working for months in this area?

Not very likely. Something else is needed to explain these circumstances.

On fact is clear, the more environmental studies are done, the more exposure has Petrovich – to potential mitigation measures or even project collapse due to infeasibility. Thus, he would greatly desire (especially in such an unusual planning context) to minimize city environmental review to protect the viability and value of his Starbucks project.

With his Starbucks project susceptible to being potentially obstructed by relevant city staff, Petrovich must have appealed to someone upon the city council for assistance. By process of logical exclusion, the only member of the city council likely to have become involved in this civic caper is the city mayor, Skip Davies.

Petrovich called Davies, Davies called Navazio and ordered (or strongly suggested) that Navazio:  Fix this item for Petrovich.

Navazio issued this order, upon this basis of a request / direction from Davies.

Apparently, this is the fundamental trajectory of these planning affairs.

Requests for an official statement by city hall about these matters were made several weeks ago and again a week ago. No response has yet been received.

Another ripe question for city hall is whether the other four council members were aware of these matters and by what procedure one council member was able to independently direct that the city substantially minimize its environmental review of Petrovich’s project and pay the cost for whatever limited review cannot be avoided?

These questions and many others will be examined within upcoming articles of this series.

Petrovich’s Starbucks project is expected to arrive before the city Planning Commission sometime this Spring.

City Of Woodland Uses Obvious Fraud To Defend Gateway 2 Project Lawsuit At State Appeals Court

YOLO SUN NEWS REPORT :

Glaring fraud is plainly present within legal briefs by City of Woodland for its defense of an environmentally based lawsuit filed in September of 2011 by California Clean Energy Committee against municipal approval of the Gateway 2 project by Paul Petrovich, a doubling of size of the existing Gateway retail center at the City’s eastern edge.

Fraud obviously exists by the city’s repeated references in its legal arguments — that the Gateway 2 project would: “[R]elocate two auto dealerships, allowing for additional redevelopment sites consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan.”

City of Woodland’s appellate brief continues: “[R]elocation of the two Main Street auto dealers to the Project could also help spur redevelopment Downtown by opening those sites up for the development of a Cineplex, multistory parking facility, and other uses described in the Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown dealership sites would need to be redeveloped relatively quickly to avoid having prolonged vacant uses along Main Street.”

The city’s legal brief to the appellate court goes on to indicate alleged benefits from “relocation of [these] auto dealerships — as intended” — to Gateway 2.

Further reference to this supposed relocation of auto dealerships alleges that, “”[D]owntown Woodland may benefit from the Project [   ] by allowing relocation of the two auto dealerships.”

____  The Facts  ____

The facts are that there are no “two [downtown] auto dealerships” moving into a Gateway 2 project. Although two such businesses currently exist on downtown Main Street: Elm Ford at the SW corner of Main and Elm Streets and Hoblit Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep across the street at 333 Main Street; neither of these two auto dealerships will be moving to Gateway 2. Anyone at all familiar with relevant circumstances should easily agree.

Elm Ford (on Elm Street) is a very successful, long-time downtown business which has never indicated even the slightest hint of interest for leaving its original site; while, Hoblit and Gateway 2 developer Paul Petrovich, have a long history of conflict.

Hoblit has for many years flatly refused to arrange its relocation into Gateway 2, with retaliation resulting by Petrovich’s refusal to allow Hoblit a lease at its former site where Petrovich was landlord, keeping this large auto dealership on — a month-to month tenancy — for about five years.

During this time period, Petrovich actually issued Hoblit a thirty-day notice to vacate the premises (later rescinded). Then, over a later rent dispute, Petrovich had Hoblit legally evicted from his (downtown) property. This Yolo Superior Court process took about four months, March – July, 2011.

With city help, Hoblit took temporary refuge at the large, vacant site of a former downtown auto dealership located across Main Street from Elm Ford.

During an earlier interview with Yolo Sun, Dave Hoblit (the firm’s principal) stated that: “I want to keep my Woodland dealership, but Petrovich has a gun to my head.”

Hoblit has flatly stated to Yolo Sun, relevant city officials and other persons that he would never move into a Gateway 2 project, as Petrovich was insisting, one might say even “strong-arming.”

[  Please see various Yolo Sun articles about Hoblit and Petrovich, on its Archive Page and on the (extended) current scroll.  ]

Relations between Hoblit and Petrovich, thereafter — got even worse — if that seems possible.

Petrovich sent Hoblit an email offer to return to his now vacant, former downtown auto dealership site (northern side of Main Street between Third and Fourth Streets). This invitation was to pay a bit less than Hoblit was now paying at 333 Main Street, which has more dealership area, fronts on Court as well as Main Street and is more convenient.  Hoblit swiftly and tersely declined.

Then, Hoblit and the local General Motors dealership (located at a freeway interchange on the eastern side of town) — with intense city cooperation — attempted to establish a modest auto mall across the I-5 freeway from Petrovich’s Gateway retail center — only to have Petrovich’s attorney, Steve Herum of Stockton, file a lawsuit against municipal approval of this small (two-dealership) auto mall.

This modest auto-mall project’s developer (Panattoni of Sacramento) declined to fund a legal defense of the already approved auto mall project, and the city in turn voided its approval to avoid the lawsuit Herum had filed.

Ironically, if it had proceeded to fruition, this freeway frontage, two-dealership auto mall would have left only one auto dealership within the downtown area (Elm Ford), making available key downtown parcels for redevelopment (as purported by the city’s legal briefs to occur with Gateway 2). This freeway-exposure auto mall also would have likely and immediately increased local receipt of sales tax.

Thus, Petrovich’s designs and actions regarding the auto mall component of his Gateway 2 project (a third of the project size) has resulted in a continuati0n of two auto dealers being located within downtown.

Hoblit has since reacted to these various antagonistic circumstances by recently obtaining municipal approval of a conditional use permit to quite substantially improve its present location across Main Street from Elm Ford, apparently planning to remain there indefinitely (at the least, until Petrovich is otherwise distracted).

The (in partnership) former owner of Hoblit’s current home at 333 Main Street, Ron Caceres, recently indicates to Yolo Sun that Hoblit has now purchased it.  Hoblit now owns its dealership site, across Main Street from Elm Ford.

Owners of these two auto dealerships are very good friends and even engage in joint promotional events, now well enjoying their close proximity as a sort of — downtown — auto mall.

It may reliably be assumed that even after hell freezes over, these two auto dealerships would fight on the ice against relocating to Petrovich’s Gateway 2 project.

____  The Fraud  ____

Clearly, the city is very well aware that there are no “two [downtown] auto dealerships” that will relocate to Gateway 2.

So, why is such an obviously fraudulent claim being used by the city’s legal briefs before the state appellate court?

The city needs something to say, attempting to balance away several looming, legal curiosities found within its approval process for Gateway 2, to somehow demonstrate its (purported) good-faith toward the city’s downtown area in this approval process.

Significantly, the city claims that a large number of seemingly quite relevant “goals and policies” within its (voter-referendum approved) General Plan, relating to “revitalization” of the downtown area (somehow) — “do not apply” — to the process of consideration and approval for the Gateway 2 project.

Plainly, a central issue related to doubling the size of the present Gateway retail center to more than a hundred acres, is the impact this development will have on the city’s core areas.

How is it possible to (legally) separate the actual identity, the prevailing concept of Woodland’s “downtown,” away from its — “revitalization” — and such “goals and policies” included within a voter-referendum based General Plan?

If these “goals and policies” would have been included within the process of consideration, meaningful responses to them would have been required to be made by the city / Petrovich.

And of course, slanting this process by eliminating them would surely (and unfairly, inaccurately) incline toward Gateway 2 project approval.

The city’s legal briefs claim only three potential benefits to the downtown area resulting from a Gateway 2 project: (a) perhaps any added sales tax might be spent on downtown, (b) perhaps added shoppers at Gateway 2 might be lured downtown, (c) two downtown auto dealerships would be relocated to Gateway 2, making available key land for redevelopment.

Starkly apparent is the fact that having to address in official documents these downtown revitalization “goals and policies” within the city’s General Plan — through only these weak and non-existent channels — would not make for easy sledding —  if the basic intention of the city was to simply approve this project.

Thus, these “goals and policies” were excised from the approval process, seemingly for being viewed as too relevant, too fair and accurate.

“Significant and unavoidable impacts” against Woodland’s downtown area are admitted by the city to occur with its approval of Gateway 2, despite impact mitigation which has been challenged in appellate court.

Motivation for Petrovich’s attorney, Herum, to sue the city’s modest auto mall project can also easily be seen as action protecting Petrovich’s interest in somehow keeping alive a hoax about Hoblit moving to Gateway 2.

City of Woodland is desperately (and intentionally, knowingly) clinging to this spectacular, transparent fraud of relocating, downtown auto dealerships, in order to attempt to persuade the appellate court that it did its legal duty pertaining to Gateway 2 consideration and approval.

City of Woodland has never had any reasoning or evidence to support this now pivotal legal notion of downtown auto dealers moving into Gateway 2.

In relevant point of law, if this (actual) situation was not clearly displayed within its Gateway 2 approval process, the city — legally failed — to have before it the relevant circumstances of project approval.

The fact that this totally bogus claim appears in the city’s legal arguments, based upon only a sheer, non-specific idea being long-present in the city’s Downtown Specific Plan, amounts to vivid, bold testimony of the extent that Petrovich is actually driving, crassly influencing for his own benefit this city’s core community planning activities.

As an interesting aside, although Woodland resident Whitman Manley’s legal firm (Remy Moose Manley LLP) is the city’s attorney in this lawsuit, he doesn’t personally sign this appellate brief (his non-resident associate does) — perhaps because he certainly knows that it contains deliberate fraud.

Walmart Neighborhood Markets Soon Coming To Woodland

YOLO SUN NEWS REPORT :

“Walmart Neighborhood Markets,” an evolution of Walmart’s overall retail strategy recently spreading across this state and nationwide, will soon be coming to Woodland according to reliable sources.

Long famous for its huge mega-stores often located along urban sprawl-lines, Walmart has now realized that another distinctive retail opportunity exists in locating much smaller stores (averaging about 40,000 sq. ft.) within older, fully urbanized zones.

These smaller ”Neighborhood Market” stores emphasize groceries and various, specialized lines of convenience oriented merchandise.

Apparently, Woodland will soon receive a — double-dose — of this “Walmart Neighborhood Market” expansion, with new stores opening at the vacant, former site of the Rite Aid store within Shade Tree Plaza (central Woodland), as well as within a portion of the vacant, former site of Mervyns at County Fair Mall (southeastern Woodland).