In Sunday’s paper, Tanya Perez writes a spirited and mostly reasonable defense of the Davis Enterprise, but she doesn’t quite get it.

Lamenting the loss of eagle-eyed editor Debbie Davis, AP news stories, and the like, Perez writes:

The Enterprise aims to give you the information you cannot get elsewhere. We know you have Google, so you can look up the recipe sections we no longer carry. You can Google comic strips you miss, or AP News stories or national headlines.

 We are trying to give you context for local issues. And we are working to tell you what people in our immediate area want to know. That is our core mission [emphasis added].

Right on.  This is certainly why I subscribe to the Enterprise – why I subscribed as soon as I moved here and why I continue to subscribe.  I am always a little baffled when people say they don’t read the local paper.  I think it’s important to know what is going on around us, even more so than what is going in the state or nation.

Where I think she misses one of the core missions of a local paper, however, is where she writes:

There are important lessons to be learned from the case of the bald eagle.  The Endangered Species Act (ESA) – now under threat itself – is important, but as the bald eagle shows, we have to use all the tools available to us at the local, state, and national levels to protect endangered and threatened species.

The iconic bald eagle is considered a success story of the ESA, although the truth is a bit more complicated than that.  Before the ESA was passed in 1973, the bald eagle was covered by preceding legislation such as the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.  Two other actions are considered crucial to the recovery of the bald eagle in the U.S.: the banning of the pesticide DDT in 1972 and the subsequent importing of eagles from Canada to the U.S. in the 1970s.  Together, these protections and actions allowed the bald eagle to be removed from the list of endangered species. 

Although the bald eagle still has some protections within the U.S., its delisting under the ESA does present some challenges; for example, prime bald eagle habitat can be developed on without facing legal challenge.  Thus, we should not rest on our laurels too much, even for a success story like the bald eagle.

Moreover, at the national level, the ESA is under attack.  As the New Yorker summarizes:

On Saturday, July 21, I had the opportunity to join five other UC Davis-affiliated women to swim the Trans Tahoe Relay.  The Trans Tahoe Relay serves as a fundraiser for Keep Tahoe Blue, but we also swam to support the  Tahoe Environmental Research Center (TERC) and the Center for Watershed Sciences (CWS).  The day was sunny, the water was cool, clear, and refreshing, the mountains ringing the lake were beautiful.  It was an exhilarating, fun, tiring, and fulfilling day.

Just to give a sense of size of the lake and its surroundings, here I am with my guard poodles at a Lake Tahoe overlook in August 2014.

The Trans Tahoe Relay is a race that crosses the northern end of Lake Tahoe from east to west at a part of the lake where it is 10 miles wide.  (The lake overall is approximately 22 miles long and 12 miles wide – it’s a very large and deep lake!).  Teams are composed of six swimmers each, with a support boat.  (We owe big thanks to TERC for providing us with a boat and to TERC’s director, Geoff Schladow, for piloting the boat).  The rules are that each swimmer swims for 30 minutes, and then takes turn swimming 10 minutes each, until the 10 miles is completed.  On our team, after our first leg each of us did two 10-minute legs, with two members of the team doing a third 10-minute leg.  So, we didn’t break any speed records, but we were happy with our result anyway!

Davis has a well earned reputation for being concerned about safety......why, we even invented bike lanes in Davis! And many other towns have copied us.

But we started bike lanes DECADES ago when the town had a much smaller population and much less traffic.  How are we doing these days?  How are we doing in 2018? 

Is Davis considered a safe town to ride a bike in?  To be a pedestrian?  To be a pedestrian if you are a Senior Citizen? Or a child?  How ARE we doing?

I am prompted to ask this by an article I read in today's LA Times about traffic flow and safety in LA, the Land of the Automobile.  Here's the article:  http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-speed-trap-20180722-story.html

This is probably not the combination of words you were expecting.

By Carey Ann Hunt and Colin Walsh

Leif in Motion and Shamaniclown.net are holding their first free Playshop titled Begin Big Change!. It will be Sunday July 22^nd, 10:00am to 12:00 at Davis Holistic Health Center. 1403 5th Street, Suite B.

You read that right - Shamanic Clown.

Should the idea of a healing shamanic clown experience even be taken seriously? Yes and No and that, folks, is exactly the point.

Effective today, July 1, 2018, Yolo SPCA is no longer contracted with Yolo County Animal Services. As many of you know, as a rescue organization, we have pulled many dogs from YCAS over the past 3 years and during that time, we have gotten to know the programs there very well. For those who don't know, Yolo SPCA has been contracted with YCAS for many, many years so this change is a major event to happen at YCAS. Yolo SPCA is it's own organization, a non-profit, just like us, who has partnered with YCAS, the county operated shelter, to provide a variety of services. The services primarily provided by Yolo SPCA include operating the behavior modification program, managing the shelter intern program, posting all the rescue pleas for at risk animals, facilitating adoptions, and a myriad of other services. They also supported the shelter run foster program and volunteer programs. These services have been critical in increasing the live release rate at the shelter and are all programs are widely promoted and supported by the No Kill Equation which aims to save the lives of treatable animals. Any rescue who has worked with this shelter has encountered Yolo SPCAS staff. Anyone adopting a dog from the shelter has more than likely worked with Yolo SPCA staff. The impact Yolo SPCA has had on saving lives in Yolo County is immeasurable. Anyone who has encountered the Yolo SPCA staff knows how hard they work and how instrumental they were in getting the shelter to where it is today.

We know this is long but it's a story that needs to be told. We've been sitting on it, trying to come up with the right words to say to convey how upset we are and how very much we intend to do everything possible to right this wrong, and we feel it's time to speak out.  We ask that you read the entire post.

At its November 7, 2017 meeting, the City Council voted to change its Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policy, as well as ban the use of neonicotinoids (implicated in colony collapse disorder in bees) and a phase-out of glyphosate (often sold as Roundup, listed by the State of California as a probable human carcinogen). The decision was a mixed bag, containing some good elements and some bad.  This article describes some of the events that led up to that decision.  I write now because, with a new Council just seated, I hope that some of the bad process chronicled here can be avoided for future decisions.

This piece will of necessity be a bit lengthy.  And that is part of my point.  It took far too long for this issue to come to the City Council for a vote.  At every turn certain staff members[1] sought to delay and subvert the will of commissioners, of citizens, and even of City Council members.  As Jon Li says, sometimes one has to ask, “who is in charge in Davis?”

By David Jacobin

Royal Guest Hotels is the greediest and most ruthless development group I have experienced in the town of Davis. Let me tell you a story of a group called Third Space Art Collective.

By Greg Rowe

The recent Davis Enterprise article about UCD’s 2018 Long Range Development Plan going to the Regents for approval on July 18 warrants rebuttal. UCD proclaims the LRDP builds on the success of the 2003 plan “…and charts ambitious sustainability and housing options…”  But this statement ignores that the 2003 LRDP expected that 36% of total enrollment of 30,000 students would live on campus by 2015-16, but in reality UCD missed the mark by 1400 beds, with only 29% of the 3-quarter average of 32,663 students that year living on campus (most in freshman dorms which they had to vacate for sophomore year).   

In addition, a Board of Regents student housing report issued in November 2002 expected UCD would house 38% of its students by 2012 (with a goal of 40% living on campus) but by 2015-16 only 29% lived on campus, translating to a shortfall exceeding 1800 beds. While UCD’s new housing goals seem ambitious, it obscures the fact that UCD has consistently surpassed enrollment projections while under-producing the housing needed meet the needs of its expanded enrollment.  The previous Chancellor’s overly ambitious “2020 Initiative,” which aimed to boost enrollment by 5,000 more students than required by the Regents, significantly exacerbated the student housing shortage.

Last Tuesday, the subject of public comment procedures was on the City Council’s agenda. Incoming Mayor Brett Lee had proposed some potential changes such as limiting general public comment to 45 minutes, with remaining speakers coming back at the end of the meeting, and shortening individual public comment from three minutes to two and a half minutes.

The intention of the changes was potentially to try to expedite the meetings in the spirit of greater efficiency. However, there were a number of citizens’ emails sent to Council objecting to the proposed changes and around a dozen citizens testified, urging the Council not to make these changes. It was clear that there was a Council majority who wanted to try alternative methods to the proposed changes to manage public comment. These alternative methods, including use of the 1-,2-,3- minute method for public comment when there are many speakers (that is, encouraging commenters to speak for only one or two minutes, instead of the full three allowed, and giving those speakers priority in the queue), served as a great relief to many people whom expressed concern about the original proposals.  But it was helpful for the issue to be discussed with the public, explaining the unintended consequences that would result from forcing people to return at the end of the Council meeting to testify, particularly when an item they wanted to comment on likely would have already been voted on.

Kern County Public Health Department has launched a new voluntary informational program for people and families dining at Kern County restaurants.

Restaurants can seek to qualify as 'Certified Healthy" if they meet several specific criteria including:

Program criteria

Here is the list of criteria that restaurants must follow to qualify for the Certified Healthy program. These can be met either as part of the regular menu or with a lite menu.

• At least six menu items under 500 calories
• An option for fruits and/or vegetables as a side item for meals
• At least one salad option
• Whole grain bread as a side option
• At least six menu items with less than 30 percent of sodium
• Meal items with less than five grams of saturated fat
• No meals exceeding 2,000 calories
• Offers at least five vegetarian meal dishes
• A non-fried fish option
• At least four items containing 10 grams of fiber.

Check it out here!

By Tom Owczarzak

When I was in college I drove tomato trucks during the summer to make money for the year. It’s one of those crazy jobs where you work sixteen-hour days, every day, for about 80 days.

At the time, I thought I was making good money – I wasn’t.

But the real hook was that you were working so much you just never had time to spend it – you ended up saving a big chunk of dough – even, if like me, you suck at saving money.

And that is huge for a college student.

It was just a miserable job.

I have always had a thing for jobs that pushed me beyond some limit.

By Nancy Price

I'm glad for Chris Jones' alternative vision. In my opinion, the process has been hijacked by special commercial interests, outside planners, the Planning Department and the City Council. Having attended two meetings, seems to me the community is being railroaded by the process, stirred up by the dream that downtown redevelopment that will cure Davis' ills, especially the economic "problems," and be the city of the future.

Though the process appears to be democratic and fully participatory, the outside consultants were rude, didn't answer questions honestly and without bias, and dismissed others...treating many participants as lacking the requisite "credentials" and education on planning to participate meaningfully. How many of our tax dollars are being spent on this process?

Yes, the town square concept described by Chris Jones has historical, traditional roots with major state institutions clustered around the square or central commons: church, school, administrative and judicial offices, financial institutions, etc. But let's be honest, cities all over the world are made up of neighborhoods that replicate the same concept on a smaller scale.

Here I offer another alternative. Why create a downtown that is a central place in the economic/social hierarchy? That's how we in Davis have always thought of the downtown - the "Main Street." In fact, after a few of us "saved" Central Park from being a three-tiered shopping mall, we created the first Core Area Task Force..maybe that was 1987 or 88 or 89. We have always had a very protective attitude toward the "core" and tried to ensure peripheral malls would not compete with the core.

In the development process in Davis, is there an elephant in the room (or the City Council chambers)? Source: https://www.santoro-london.com/en/products/Fruity-Scooty-Notebook-Elephant

The following letter was submitted by Todd Edelman to the Planning Commission for its meeting tonight, July 11, at 7 PM.

***

Dear Planning Commissioners,

First of all I would like to say that I consider it very unfortunate that the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee (DPAC) meeting is scheduled at the same time as the Planning Commission (PC) meeting. Tomorrow's Bicycling, Transportation and Street Safety (BTSSC) meeting has been cancelled, but - again - it was planned as simultaneous to that night's DPAC meeting.

***

Second - just so you know - the BTSSC is not apparently seeing this project. I am not clear why this is the case. Aside from their individual unique perspectives and goals, there is a welcome overlap in the scope of what the BTSSC and PC look at in regards to mobility. It seems that this will be missing from this evaluation. I write here on my own behalf.

***

JUMP down the page for my suggested SOLUTIONS

***

Analysis

Nugget is by most accounts a great company that treats its employees well and offers great service and products (though so far the seeded watermelon on sale this year needs some help...). But the mobility profile for their retail locations bears no relation to our City's goals in our Council-approved Beyond Platinum bicycle plan from 2014: While the goal for bicycle trips for shopping is 30% by 2020, my multiple non-scientific visual surveys over the past 18 months at Nugget on E. Covell show a share between 2 and 4% at best. Even if a large, automobile-oriented market is informally considered to only be responsible for a 15% goal, this location only fulfills a fraction of it (and, by the way this 15% would need to be balanced by other destinations shooting for 45%!).

Dear Downtown Plan Advisory Committee, 

 

I would like share with you a video presentation I created outlining an alternative vision for public space in downtown Davis. 

 

 

I am submitting this video as comments on the previous workshop summary documents and in preparation for the workshops this week. I understand that the comment period is closed, but I was unable to summarize my comments in format provided. 

 

The presentation is extremely critical of the consultants’ “Plan A” to create an eventual square on third street. I outline a large number of intrinsic problems with this plan, including feasibility, cost, the selling off of viable public spaces to developers, poor design, lack of support for existing businesses among other obvious problems. 

 

If you want to preserve your right to speak in general public comment at City Council meetings, come to the City Council meeting today (Tuesday, July 10) at 7:15 PM and express your concerns about the proposal to shunt some of general public comment to the very end of the meeting.  Maybe you’ve never spoken at a Council meeting.  Maybe you don’t think you would. But it’s exactly when our concerns are the greatest that we find ourselves doing things that we didn’t expect we’d do and when we most need to preserve our right to speak.

Although I’ve spoken at Council meetings a number of times, I don’t believe I’ve ever spoken at general public comment at the beginning of the meeting (exception: my first time when I didn’t understand how things worked).  But I have heard others give general public comment.  They speak of issues that the Council might not yet know about or has yet to take up and place on the agenda.  Or they speak to items that are on the agenda, but for which they cannot stay to speak. They speak with passion and conviction.  Maybe the issues aren’t important to me.  But they are important to the speaker.  In a democracy, all voices should be heard, even those we disagree with or those who speak about things that we ourselves do not care about, because when it’s our turn, we will want to be heard.

Mike Webb, City Manager

For the past few years, the City of Davis staff has completely manipulated the Davis City Council.

By Jon Li

The worst current example is the Downtown Plan “participatory workshop” process, where the expensive outside consultants DICTATE the new city policy as previously agreed to with city staff.  City staff is determined to lock the future of the Davis Downtown on one particular course, and nothing else is to be considered, let alone discussed and evaluated.  All the discussion is between the expensive outside consultants and city staff.

In the first Downtown Plan “participatory workshop,” the expensive outside consultants and city staff allowed 10 minutes of public discussion.   While the public kept making points of difference from what the economic consultant defined as Davis economic reality, there was no time for discussion, because the “historic preservation” LECTURE was scheduled, and that is so important that the 20 people who wanted to discuss economic development were cut off.

Last October 16^th, when Mike Webb laid out this absurd plan, I asked what if the public discussion isn’t good enough?  Mike Webb was shocked that anyone would dare question a claim by the city manager.   You, Mike Webb are a product of the Downtown Plan Process, which is all you know.  Davis talks about design, even sustainability, as the traffic builds up at Richards, and the relationship with UCD remains at an all time low.

The city staff is trying to get away with what UCD is doing: pretend like you are going through a public engagement process so that it is approved without public evaluation.

The participation has been a reflection of the hideous excuse for outreach by the special consultant whose claim included that she went to Chico State so she knows Davis.  The outreach postcard has print so small that you need a magnifying glass to find out what time the LECTURES on new Davis policy are.  As far as the outside consultants and the city staff are concerned, it doesn’t matter if anybody comes to the events, they just need to claim to the state that there was a public process.

The city needs to talk about economic development.  Not one person on city staff has a clue about economic development.  Rather than hire someone, the city invented the title of business policy communicator, gossip.  No one in the city staff could lead a discussion about economic development, which is what Davis needs.

The downtown is a product of the entire city economy.  The problem is that the general plan only wants housing, so Davis is suburban, and only does housing design.  There is nothing about economic development in the second Downtown Plan “participatory workshop” – it is all fantasyland design stuff that will never happen.  A million dollars and a year wasted.

You should go to the second Downtown Plan “participatory workshop” Tuesday evening.  Because the outside consultants are so important, the only time they have available to do the workshop opening presentation is the same time as the first meeting of the new Davis City Council.

Will ANY city staff be at the opening “participatory workshop” LECTURE?  Will any member of the Davis City Council be there, even Lucas Frerichs who is the one who provided the political cover for this little adventure?  The publicity was pathetic, and with UCD summer vacation and the college students mostly gone, no one is in town anyway.  But it is even better to staff the fewer members of the public who even know the Downtown Plan process is happening. 

Staff sold the city council a year ago on this Downtown Plan when the opponents to Trackside wanted the city to live within the design guidelines.  This will override the guidelines, and then the city staff can go back to telling the city council what to do.  There will be no other changes in the plan for the future of Davis.

The city staff prohibits public dialogue because they will lose what little domination they have over the city council’s agenda.  Innovation and buy-in can only happen with public dialogue.

City Staff does what it wants to do, and it tells the City Council that is reality and they have to live with it, and then city staff parades around and if you question then they put “THE CITY COUNCIL” in your face and they do what they were going to do anyway.  The City Council should figure out “policy governance.”

Dear Mayor Lee and Davis City Council Members,

We are pleased to see our new city surveillance ordinance being implemented. Last Thursday night we saw the first staff reports on surveillance technologies being used in the city. As our first attempt as a city to lead the way in public disclosure of use of surveillance technologies, we want all parties to contribute to fully meeting the spirit and requirements of the ordinance. To that end, we offer both questions and suggestions regarding the Police Department staff reports.

Short answer, he may have. Long answer, if he did he probably violated it in more than one way.

By Colin Walsh

Yesterday Council Member Lucas Frerichs made an enthusiastic endorsement of an upcoming development project on his Facebook page and tagged every other member of City Council and several members of the Planning Commission. It was covered on the Davisite here.

Council Member Lucas Frerichs’s post declared the new project is “Coming soon!! Welcoming the new corporate headquarters…”