Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Category: Trustworthiness

  • More Good Reasons to Vote NO on Davis Measure Q – Part 2

    Mismanagement of City Finances by the Davis City Council

    by the No on Measure Q Campaign Committee

    No on Q Banner Artwork

    Introduction and Background

    This article is the second in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee about the new tax measure. The first article (see here) provided three good reasons for citizens to vote No on Measure Q  including a decided lack of transparency and disclosures by the City Council in bringing the measure to a vote   This 2nd article discusses the mismanagement of city finances by the current administration, which is attempting to get their financial house in order by encouraging citizens to approve forking over millions of dollars annually rather than addressing the root causes of the city’s financial problems. The best way to describe this effort is that it is a “Bailout of financial and operational mismanagement!

    About Measure Q

    If passed on the November ballot, Davis Measure Q would double the extra sales tax from 1% to 2% imposed by the City of Davis on all goods purchased or used within the City except for some food and medicines. Based on the expected $11 million per year generated by the new tax and a Davis population of about 66,000, this works out to to be an approximately $165/year tax for every man, woman, and child in Davis. And like the previous two ½ percentage point sales and use tax hikes, this tax is permanent.  It doesn’t matter if the City’s financial condition substantially changes for the better in the future, this tax never goes away!   

    Reason 4 –  The City Council suspended paying down $42 million of unfunded employee benefits.

    (more…)

  • Sierra Club Yolano Group Opposes New Changes Proposed for our Revered Davis Citizen Advisory Commissions

    The changes will threaten Commission independence and stifle innovation

     By the Sierra Club Yolano Group Management Committee

    A recent op-ed by Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser (see here)  alerted Davis residents to a concern with a new proposal before the Davis City Council that has the potential to substantially limit citizen input into environmental issues in the City of Davis. 

    According to the op-ed, Mayor Josh Chapman and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla recently began asking Davis City Commissioners for feedback on their proposal for “clarification of how items are placed on a commission meeting agenda.”

    Carson and Roberts Musser state:

    “…in a big change, proposals initiated by a commission would now be subject to review and veto — by either any relevant council subcommittee (two councilmembers) or that commission’s assigned Council liaison (typically one councilmember).The Chapman-Vaitla plan says these new rules would apply whenever the council wished to “undertake a particular task/project/discussion.” In other words, almost anything and everything a commission might ever want to do would be subject to veto by one councilmember. The Council and city staff would dictate what a commission can or cannot do, but the commission itself would have absolutely no control over its work.” (Bold emphasis added)

    If enacted, we find this proposal deeply concerning and undemocratic.  Historically, at least six of Davis’s volunteer citizen commissions regularly dealt with environmentally-related matters: Tree; Open Space and Habitat; Natural Resources; Bicycling, Transportation, and Street Safety; Utilities; and Recreation and Park Commission (for the latter, with topics such as the use of toxic pesticides and drought-tolerant plantings).

    (more…)

  • Good Reasons to Vote NO on Davis Measure Q – Part 1

    Lack of Transparency by the Davis City Council

    By the "No on Measure Q" Campaign

    About Measure Q

    If passed on the November ballot, Davis Measure Q would double the extra sales tax imposed by the City of Davis from 1% to 2% on all goods purchased or used within the City except for some food and medicines. Based on the expected $11 million per year generated by the new tax and a Davis population of about 66,000, this works out to to be an approximately $165/year tax for every man, woman, and child in Davis. And like the previous two ½ percentage point sales and use tax hikes, this tax is permanent.  It doesn’t matter if the City’s financial condition substantially changes for the better in the future, this tax never goes away!  

    Introduction and Background

    This article is the first in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee talking about various adverse impacts and lack of disclosures of the new tax measure. This article discusses the non-transparent and deceitful process by which Measure Q was brought to the public.  Many elements of Measure Q and the City’s finances have been shrouded in secrecy and not subject to public scrutiny and analysis by a citizen advisory commission.

    _____________________________

    Reason 1 –  The City Council prevented our watchdog Finance & Budget Commission from weighing in on the Tax Measure by unscrupulous means

    For decades, the citizens of Davis have relied on the citizen’s advisory Finance and Budget Commission to provide needed oversight of the City’s finances. But our City Council has been so contemptuous of this Commission that they quietly refused to appoint any new applicants to fill Commission vacancies for more than a year. As a result, they have not met since July, 2023. So this critical Commission never even got the chance to weigh in on the need for new  taxes or how the proceeds will be spent. What is the City Council trying to hide from us?

    (more…)

  • New Plan to Micromanage City Commissions Isn’t Good Government (Or Legal)

    Commission-Task-Memo-ATT-Flow-ChartBy Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser

    Mayor Josh Chapman and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla recently began asking city commissioners for feedback on a proposal for “clarification of how items are placed on a commission meeting agenda.”  Chapman and Vaitla did not invite the public at large to weigh in on their proposal, but we feel compelled to do so in the public interest.

    To sum up, we recommend jettisoning this illegal and ill-conceived plan. It would empower even a single councilmember to micromanage and indefinitely block any commission-initiated proposal they didn’t like for any reason whatsoever. There are far better alternatives to promote teamwork and collaboration between the City Council and the city’s expert volunteer citizen commissioners.

    Current city policy allows commissions free reign to work on pretty much anything they want as long as it is consistent with the written charter established for them. Once a commission has explored a policy matter, the city’s Commission Handbook says it may submit items to the Council to be placed on the Council agenda for   its consideration.

    The Chapman-Vaitla plan, summarized in a flow chart [see graphic at the beginning of the article], overrides those policies. The Council and the city staff could continue to place items on commission agendas. Yet, in a big change, proposals initiated by a commission would now be subject to review and veto — by either any relevant council subcommittee (two councilmembers) or that commission’s assigned Council liaison (typically one councilmember).The Chapman-Vaitla plan says these new rules would apply whenever the council wished to “undertake a particular task/project/discussion.”  In other words, almost anything and everything a commission might ever want to do would be subject to veto by one councilmember. The Council and city staff would dictate what a commission can or cannot do, but the commission itself would have absolutely no control over its work. This is bizarre and extremely unwise.

    (more…)

  • Palomino Place Project receiving comments on environmental impact report until Sep 23

    By Roberta Millstein

    Screen Shot 2024-09-02 at 1.29.22 PMA Davisite reader sent me the following information.  Until that point, I hadn't realized that comments were being sought on the environmental impact report for the proposed Palomino Place Project, so I thought I would share the information with other Davisites, too.  I haven't seen anything in the Davis Enterprise or Vanguard about it (though it is possible I just missed it).

    Apparently, the draft Subsequent EIR ("subsequent" to the EIR from 2009) for the Palomino Place Project has been available since early August. Comments on the draft are due September 23. Comments would typically point out errors, inconsistencies, omissions of data or analyses, conclusions not based on evidence, or failures to provide discussion required by CEQA.

    As the post below indicates, there is also a public meeting about the project on Sep. 11.

    City link to Palomino Place documents:

    https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/palomino-place

    Draft Subsequent EIR released August 2024:

    https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Palomino-Place-2023/Supplemental%20EIR/Draft-Palomino-Place-SEIR-August%202024.pdf

    Notice of Availability (NOA) of Palomino Place Subsequent EIR:

    https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Palomino-Place-2023/Supplemental%20EIR/NOA-20240807-Palomino-Place-SEIR.pdf

    (more…)

  • Will council let out-of-town landlord ignore Climate Policy?

    Time to enforce the Law at Oakshade Mall?

    By Alan ”Lorax” Hirsch

    Image001 1705

    Near Treeless North Parking at Oakshade Mall

    To give the landlord more flexibility to find tenants, Davis council is being asked to rezone the Oakshade Mall (Safeway)  located  at south Pole Line Rd x Cowell.  This is before council  on the Tuesday 8/27/24 agenda ( see  staff report  item #4).   However this landlord is notorious for their neglect of its trees and is in violation of city tree protection ordinance.

    So, while makes sense for city to update zoning in response to a changing retailing climate,  it also  makes sense to do updates in city’s  relationship with this out-of-town landlord in regard to the Climate Crisis and city’s  CAAP policies, changes to sustain  Davis’s quality of life by deal with global heating.

    More Shade is Existential

    It is forecast that half Davis’s  summer days will be over 100 degree in 50 years. Unshaded asphalt reachs 140+ degrees in those conditions.  Davis’s CAAP climate plan appropriately calls for more tree shade as part our adaption plan.  To have that shade in 50 year tree need to be planted now. And investing in tree is just good marketing sense of a long-term landlord-  as contrast with incentive for on-site property manager who  often just think about next quarter’s cash flow so look everywhere to cut maintenance cost.

    Image002 528

    30 year old oak at Oakshade Mall

    But beyond increased tree shade called for Davis CAAP climate plan, this shopping center development has for years been in  gross violation of the city’s  1990’s tree ordinance under which it was approved.  That ordinance required “50% parking lot shade in 15years”  The landscape plan the developer/landlords signed off as part of plan- check had them agree to no just plant trees, but maintain the newly planted trees to obtain that 50% tree shade level.  This was not an impossible requirement:  If you drive West of Cowell just 2 block to the Kaiser clinic you can see tree can be grown in Parking lots.

    Image003 375

    In the past, a large shade tree was (killed?) and replaced with small shrub…that was then topped

    However, the landlord & his property managers have not grown and maintain trees as agreed over near 30 years the mall has been in operation. And when trees have died they have either not been replace, or replace with a shorter species. And the irrigation system has been neglected.

    As you can see from attached recent arial pictures- (and picture in below linked article from 2018), the landlord has not met their legal requirement of 50% shade.   A visit the site will make obvious the gross number of  missing, stunted and dead trees.  The north parking area is nearly tree-free.

    (more…)

  • Dangerous Bike Lanes: Automobile Normativity Breeds Neglect (Part 1 of 3)

     

    PXL_20240815_190057157.RAW-01.COVER

    East Covell, Westbound, between the Mace Curve and Alhambra. See Video. Reported on 8/1/2024. Based on my understanding of how My Davis Requests are processed, this has not even been evaluated at time of writing. 

    Davis, CA -  I've been riding a bike in cities for most of my adult life – that's forty years. As an example for others I don't often say that something feels safe; but when I feel a situation is dangerous it's a more valid perspective to share. 

    For the last six weeks or so I've had to travel two times a week from my home near Mace and Cowell to Sutter Davis. The fastest way there by car is via 80 and 113; by bicycle it's Mace to East and then West Covell.  I have an e-bike, and it takes about 23 minutes, a bit longer if I don't make the lights, and longer still if I have to slow or even stop to avoid hitting overgrowth of trees and bushes into the bike lane, and slower if I have to stop to let vehicles pass when the overgrowth extends all the way to the edge of the traffic lane. 

    "In some situations when the tree concern appears to be an immediate safety hazard [emphasis mine] the Street division will respond and put up barricades or traffic control to block off the area until tree work can be done. When the Urban Forestry division assesses the tree they determine the urgency of the concern and who the work will be assigned to. They also consider if the tree is the City’s responsibility to maintain. If a tree is blocking the public right of way per the clearance standards for that specific area they will assign pruning of the tree to meet clearance standards for the roadway, bike lane, sidewalk or path. Prune may be done but City Urban Forestry staff or by our contract arborist, currently West Coast Arborist. Work is completed based on the priority assessment conducted by one of the City’s Certified Arborist. If you have any additional questions please contact us …" – from a response to an earlier complaint. 

    How in this cornhole-tomato industrial apocalypse is the situation in the photo above  not an "immediate hazard"? As of time of writing,  along the westbound (WB) route between Mace and Sutter Davis, there are just over 30 bushes and trees which are "overgrowth" – the City's term – in the bike lane. Some require a diversion into the buffer (which is not a passing lane, and only part of this route has painted buffers), some require a diversion into the traffic lane,  some require ducking under possibly sharp branch ends (ironically, the by-product of earlier trimming….). 

    Along this route I first reported overgrowth on the NB Mace Blvd overpass on July 27.  It's still there, requiring a quick maneuver to avoid this punji stick, but – watch out! – not so far into the traffic lane! 

    What's curious is that "Closed" seems to only mean that the problem is solved in regards to potholes (and similar). "Closed" in relation to overgrowth on city property such as Covell indicates that the issue has been forwarded to the City's trees department, and with private property it means it went to the police for code enforcement.  I have mentioned this and suggested that "Closed" should only be used if the issue is resolved (or fixed, etc) or some kind of interim category should be created to show it's in process. While non-anonymous issue filers receive updates via email, it would be better if everything was more clear in the My Davis App. 

    So… a real question is what's a realistic timeframe for the City to respond to what is objectively an "immediate hazard"? BUT the better real question is:

    Would this be tolerated in [motor vehicle] traffic lanes for weeks at a time?

    What would people who drive motor vehicles do if their daily route required diversions, stopping, making sure a big truck wasn't going to ram into them, multiple times a week on the way to work or an errand?

    The answer is simple: The city would clear it immediately, or with a bit of delay during an exceptional weather event. They would clear the traffic lane or lanes. This is how it works here, and my personal experience for the last seven years I've lived here. 

    The roughly similar – but roughly more seasonal issue – is yard waste in bike lanes. It's explicitly completely illegal under city rules; "overgrowth" is not. Both are equally dangerous. 

    Reviewing City Hall minutes from ten years ago… many things regarding yard waste in bike lanes were promised. When I was on the BTSSC (RIP) – actually the night that Officer Natalie Corona (RIP) was killed  – the Commission supported my wording of a recommendation to City Council to improve things. (It's perhaps worth noting that the immediate sequence of events that resulted in a person with serious behavioral health issues killing Officer Corona started with a vehicle crash on 5th St – things like that with cars are seen as normal, and are forgotten). The Council watered it down and nothing improved, or changed (with the exception of a few signs in certain areas simply referring to the existing regulation.) 

    I have very little hope that the Council, Staff and relevant Commissions will do anything about it. Case in point: School starts today! Did DJUSD work with the City in the last weeks  to ensure that our City's safe routes to school (SRTS).. are safe? Beyond my ride to Sutter Davis I can say that they have not. There's lateral pot holes and overgrowth all over. 

    Measure Q?  It makes general promises about improvements, but why would Davis change now and target the needs of the most vulnerable road users? It's never been the priority: The City chronically builds infrastructure that's not compliant with the 2016 Street Standards  — while simultaneously referring to then as "progressive" when it is going forward on a street project. The BTSSC was never consulted about the ongoing 10-year pavement plan nor the overlapping Cool Pavements project. 

    The City's not making it feel safe for me to get around… my sense is that those who are younger or have less experience with bicycles simply don't consider the fastest routes if they feel unsafe on them. Do people who normally drive not take certain routes in town because they feel dangerous?

    *****

    In the following additional examples, there is also the before and after of a sewer grate on the Mace overpass damaged to the level where one could stand a bike up in it, and its "fix", a few months after being reported. Some fine craftsmanship, there!

    There's also a screenshot from the City's "What Do you Do?" video series of very light and uncritical portraits of city staff and their job duties. Why wasn't this slip up about "world" never corrected? 

    Additional photography and video from the Mace overpass on NB Mace to E. Covell just west of Pole Line.

    *****

    Parts 2 and 3 coming soon: 

    Part 2: What the City plans to do about yard waste and other materials in bike lanes – a ridiculous new tool. 

    Part 3: What the City should be doing (and why success of Measure Q might not help very much.)

    *****

    What can you do now? 

    * Write the Transportation Commission (copying to City Council, new Active Transportation Coordinator Sereena Rai and the City's tree department):  tc@cityofdavis org, citycouncilmembers@cityofdavis.org, srai@cityofdavis.org,citytrees@cityofdavis.org.

    * Ask the League of American Bicyclists if Davis deserves its "Platinum Bike Friendly" rating: bfa@bikeleague.org (there is not an application currently under review — this is just a cheeky way to get this corrosive garbage on their radar.)

    * Ask the Board of the Davis Joint Unified School District if the situation is safe for students, and if they got the City to check for obstructions – including potholes – on safe routes to schools in Davis before the first of day of class today: boe@djusd.net.

  • Rebuttals to arguments for and against Davis tax increase (Measure Q)

    By Roberta Millstein

    Yesterday, I posted the ballot arguments for and against Measure Q, which would increase Davis's current retail transactions and use tax from 1% to 2%.  Here are the rebuttals to those arguments that will also appear on the November ballot.  See the County's website (where these arguments are also posted) for more details: https://ace.yolocounty.gov/417/Measure-Q—City-of-Davis

    Rebuttal to argument in favor of Measure Q:

    (more…)

  • Arguments for and against increasing transactions & use tax from 1% to 2% (Measure Q)

    By Roberta Millstein

    This November, Davisites will vote on Measure Q:

    To support essential City services, such as public safety and emergency response; crime prevention; pothole repair; parks, road, sidewalk, and bike path maintenance; and addressing homelessness, affordable housing, and climate change, shall the City of Davis's Ordinance be adopted establishing an additional 1¢ sales tax providing approximately $11,000,000 annually for general government use until repealed by the voters, subject to annual audits, public disclosure of all spending and with all funds staying local?

    This would increase Davis's current retail transactions and use tax from 1% to 2%.  To pass, a majority (50% + 1) of the votes cast by City of Davis voters must approve the measure.  As implied by the text above, the tax has no automatic sunset date; it will be in effect until repealed by voters. 

    Further details are available at the County's website: https://ace.yolocounty.gov/417/Measure-Q—City-of-Davis

    Here is the argument in favor that will appear on the ballot:

    (more…)

  • Will City & County Prioritize Yet More money for I-80?

    Missing funds may continue to compromise transit

    Image001 1699

    Map of what’s planned: : Phase I of Yolo80 widening will only be west of the 50/80 split in West Sacramento- We are missing $265 Mil

    By Alan Hirsch 

    This is a report on the untalked about short falls in funding on I-80Yolo projects (plural), changes to the freeway from Dixon across the Sacramento River bridges for both US 50 and I-80. We are told the freeway here is in crisis (Like the climate crisis?)

    Other have noted the short thinking of funding highway widening continue to “crowd out” funding of substantial transit improvements and that keeps us from addressing climate change and providing travel choices to driving.

    For example, on I80 Yolo the total bill is a jaw dropping $745 million- 40 times the Yolobus budget.

    Caltrans and freeway proponent all through the decision-making process on I80 have not make clear its full cost and long term impacts. They have instead  levered an initial $86 Million federal grant – which we are told we dare not give back – to lock us into spending hundreds of million more. A sum that effectively  crowd out investment in transit.

    (more…)