The following letter from Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser was sent to the Davisite this morning for posting.

Dear Davis City Councilmembers and Commissioners,

As you know, Agenda Item 06-B on the Dec. 3, 2024 City Council agenda presents the latest proposal by Mayor Chapman and Councilmember Vaitla to control how items are placed on city commission agendas. It is, in our view, an improvement over prior versions of their proposal, in that it creates fewer opportunities for violations of the state’s landmark open meeting law, the Brown Act. However, it does not completely take care of that problem, and it contains other crucial flaws. In particular, this proposed change would improperly and unwisely attempt to micromanage deliberations of the corps of volunteer experts on our city commissions. They have long provided invaluable expertise and perspective free of charge for the benefit of our citizens.

Accordingly, we again urge the full City Council to reject this proposal and adopt an alternative approach we outline at the end of this letter. An approach that we believe would foster a sense of community and collaboration between the Council and its commissions, rather than one that will come across as controlling and condescending.

Unfortunately, this continually-evolving and still-vague proposal was publicly released by Mayor Chapman and Councilmember Vaitla on the city’s website just before the long Thanksgiving holiday weekend was beginning. It is likely that many affected commissioners are unaware of this new proposal. 

But we note that prior versions of this plan were roundly rejected by most of the commissioners who were asked to review it during a series of public hearings held in September, and with good reason.  As detailed in a prior message we shared with you, one commissioner after another voiced their concern the proposal would result in delays that would stifle their ability to conduct the public’s business and render them unable to provide the very advice the council assigned them to provide.  Commissions that meet less frequently could have their ideas sidetracked for months. They would be less likely to bring their ideas forward.  Proposals that were time-sensitive in nature, such as consideration of city budget issues, would die by default.

By Dan Carson

On Monday, Davis community radio station KDRT began airing an half-hour radio program by local journalist Bill Buchanan examining a proposal by Davis Mayor Josh Chapman and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla to change the current authority that city commissions have to set their own agenda and send proposals forward to the council for its consideration.   Elaine Roberts Musser and I have publicly called for the proposal to be rejected because it is neither legal nor good government.

Buchanan says, “This week’s subject is narrow, but contains a question worth considering. It involves one of the ways that ideas emerge and ultimately shape public life in Davis. This specific path involves the Davis citizen commissions that advise the City Council on subjects including city spending, planning, police accountability, and several other areas.”

The show will air periodically on KDRT over a two-week period. A link to Buchanan's description of the show and a recording that can be heard at any time can be found below:

https://kdrt.org/audio/davisville-nov-11-2024-deciding-what-davis-citizen-commissions-should-talk-about

Please feel free to share this information with other Davis residents so that they can hear firsthand what is being said on both sides about this controversial proposal that we fear will damage an important aspect of Davis democracy, its system of volunteer experts who serve on city commissions.

By Dan Carson and Elaine Roberts Musser

This fall, Davis Mayor Josh Chapman and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla asked our city commissioners for feedback on a proposal they offered for “clarification of how items are placed on a commission meeting agenda.” Their plan, which may come before council in the coming weeks, would empower even a single councilmember to sidetrack any commission-initiated proposal he or she didn’t like, for any reason.

Commissioners pushed back against the proposal in a recent series of commission hearings:

David Sandino, Fiscal Commission: “The danger of this is [it] is pretty bureaucratic … I would personally be comfortable with the chairperson working with staff to craft agendas, and not have to have additional review by a council subcommittee or a council liaison…It seems to me too many cooks in the kitchen… I’d hate to stifle commission thought and initiative because you had a few major examples that have ruffled some feathers.”

Mitchell Marubayashi, Fiscal Commission: “I don't really understand… the problem that this is solving…”

John Reuter, Climate & Environmental Justice Commission: “This is something the whole city is going to have to live with… If someone has to check on every agenda item, this is a logistics nightmare…an outrageous effort and waste of time…. I think we should be allowed to set [our] own agenda… If you go down that flow chart…where does the commission’s point of view come in?”

Today's article is a video against Measure Q.  This was going to be my testimony before the Davis City Council, but they didn't meet last week.  Or the week before that.  Or next week.  What do they think this is, summer break? 

Here's the three-minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mXBTMCgRo

Of course, as always at Al's Corner, other subjects welcome!  ;-)

Davis Citizen  (sung to the tune of "Witchita Lineman" by Glen Campbell)

I am a citizen of Davis
And I bike the main roads
Searching in the street for another pah-ah-ot hole

I hear far-lefties call “more taxes!”
I can hear the fire fighters whine
They say the City budget
Is still on the line!

You say we have to save the planet
Cuz it don't look like rain
And the more we subsidize housing
The more the budget won't stand the strain

You say you need Q more than want Q
And you need Q for for all time
But this doubling of the local sales tax
Is all a lie!

Vote NO on Measure Q, Mildred!

(Original Glen Campbell version:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8P_xTBpAcY )

Part 2 – Recent Salary Increases to the Firefighters

By the No on Measure Q Campaign

Introduction

We recently reported that the City of Davis used flawed and misleading data to award excessive compensation increase to the City Manger. (See https://www.davisite.org/2024/10/the-city-council-used-misleading-comparisons-of-compensation-from-other-cities-to-award-excessive-sa.html). They did so by using compensation data from 12 regional cities against which to compare the Davis City Manager's compensation. Claiming this data showed our City Manager was under-compensated, in July of 2024 the Davis City Council awarded him a 2% annual salary increase retroactive to January 1 of this year, an annual 3.0% bonus retroactive for 2023 and another 3% bonus for the uncompleted 2024 year. 

However, in that article we showed that if the comparative compensation data from only 6 regional cities of comparable size were otherwise used, our City Manager earned between 3% and 30% greater than the City Managers of any of those six comparable-sized cities in 2023 - and this was before the Council awarded bonuses to our City Manager for both 2023 and 2024.

In May, 2024 the Davis City Council similarly approved a 6.0% increase in base salary for all firefighters retroactive to July 1, 2023. The ostensible reason given for the salary increase was that the total compensation for the average Firefighter II position was 6.0% LESS than the median total compensation earned by Firefighter II-equivalent positions in twelve regional cities and fire protection agencies; and thus a raise to ALL firefighters was appropriate to keep their compensation competitive. However, the Council again based their analysis on misleading data.

Unfortunately, similar to the comparative analysis of compensation of our City Manager, the Davis Firefighter II compensation was also compared to that in ten purportedly “comparable” local cities and two fire protection agencies in the region.  However, many of those ten cities are much larger than Davis, and include Sacramento (population of 525,000), Roseville (population 190,000), and Fairfield (population 119, 000).  Davis’ population is only about 67,000.

An Alternative Fair Comparison with Comparable-Sized Cities

Part 1 – Recent Salary Increases to the City Manager

By the No on Measure Q Campaign

Introduction

On July 9, 2024 the Davis City Council approved a 2.0% increase in base salary for the City Manager, Mike Webb. This salary increase was made retroactive to January 9 of this year. He was also awarded a retroactive bonus of 3.0% for 2023 and another 3.0% bonus for 2024.

The ostensible reason given for the 2.0% raise was that Mr. Webb’s 2023 salary was 2.8% LESS than the median salary earned by City Managers in nearby cities, and thus a raise was appropriate to keep Mr. Webb’s salary competitive. However, the Council based the City Manager’s salary increase on misleading data.

Mr. Webb’s salary was compared with City Managers in twelve purportedly “comparable” local cities in the region.  However, half of those 12 cities are much larger than Davis, and include Sacramento (population of 525,000), Roseville (population 190,000), and Fairfield (population 119, 000).  Davis’ population is only about 67,000.

An Alternative Fair Comparison with Comparable-Sized Cities

(From press release) Throughout the campaign cycle, Dillan’s team arranged four meetings with the leadership of Davis Firefighters Local 3494. During these meetings, union leaders expressed their operations were in disarray as a result of the sudden departure of their longtime past president. Notably, there was neither a formal interview with union members nor a questionnaire for candidates, standard practice for union endorsements. If the candidates were properly interviewed and assessed, it would have revealed that Linda Deos, the endorsed candidate, has no substantial record of standing up for the right to organize, and has not presented serious plans for addressing the persistent labor rights issues that exist in Davis.

When 3494’s new leadership called the campaign to communicate their endorsement decision, they shared that union leadership already promised it to Linda in a “backroom deal” months prior. This undermined the endorsement process, which should be based on thorough evaluation. This diversion sidelined Dillan, the candidate who’s worked in solidarity with unions his entire adult life, for a candidate who’s most extensive labor experience is working as an attorney for the state correctional officers union to represent prison guards accused of wrongdoing.

As someone whose entire adult life has involved solidarity with organized labor, Dillan finds the sloppy & blatantly biased engagement in this council election troubling. It undermines the interests of 3494 members, and betrays the interests of the broader labor movement.

Preface to thinking about Measure Q Tax and council election

By Alan Hirsch   

I write this having attended more City Council and Commission meetings than all current council members, and all but a few community members.

For years now, I have seen city government fail to harness our community’s education and social capital wealth since the failure of the 2014 R&D Business Park initiative.  The community has not leveraged its charmed geography—a unique rural area highly accessible via I-80 & rail service between the Bay Area & State Capitol. And proximity to UC Davis, a major research university that brings billions in grant dollars to our community. We are ideally located to incubate a wealth of startups and attract businesses. This should be giving us a robust tax base and providing a rich offering of city services.

Instead, we are failing. So, we now need to raise our sale taxes and we seem to have been forced to site new affordable housing next to the freeway, land that should have been used for new startups and businesses to build our city’s tax base.  I note council decided not to site housing on Russell at a redone Trader Joes Mall across from the University this year. And Community resistance to student housing on Russell Fields 6 year back, close to our downtown, forced students to live in dorms in West Village 1 mile from our downtown shopping area- where they don’t feed out sales tax base.

It used to be noted at council meetings that Davis’s greatest asset is its involved and educated residents. No longer. Instead, city staff and council, though their actions, indicate they don’t believe this anymore. It used to be residents could express their insight and expertise by being involved in an independent city commission.  Full commissions used to bring up new ideas, and even vote to disagree with the council, even over ballot measures. No more.  People volunteering for commissions are told by staff that their role is to serve the current council’s policy, even though this contradicts the not-yet-updated official Commission Handbook that recalls the old way: “Commissions are independent.”

Four Davis City Council Members Accepted Large Campaign Contributions from the Firefighters Union and its Members that Preceded Excessive Salary Increases

By the No on Measure M Campaign Committee

I. Large contributions were accepted by current Davis City Councilmembers’ campaign committees over 2 election cycles from firefighters and their union.

All current Davis City Councilmembers, except Donna Neville, have accepted substantial bundled contributions from individual firefighters and Davis Firefighters Union Local 3494. Additionally, in Gloria Partida’s and Bapu Vaitla’s case, the firefighters’ union also printed and sent out a mailer for each of their campaigns, as well as door hangers. These door hangers were then distributed by firefighter volunteers on behalf of the campaigns in 2022.

Following is a summary of the total contributions accepted by the 2020 campaigns of Will Arnold and Josh Chapman from the Davis Firefighters Union and their members, and by the 2022 campaigns of Gloria Partida and Bapu Vaitla. See Appendix A for a full detailed listing of the contributions as reported on the City of Davis’ and the California Secretary of State’s campaign finance  reporting portals.

Open to all topics of course, but this month we'll focus on cutting off the City Council's allowance money!

To highlight this month's primary topic, here is my testimony sing-a-long from last night's City Council meeting (2 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsy-s6viEaU

Here are the lyrics:

Spend On (sung to the tune of "Dream On" by Aerosmith)

Every time that I look at the budget
All these lines on the books, they try to fudge it
The money's gone
It went by like a unwatered lawn
Isn't that the way?
The City always spends more than it can pay, yeah

I know, nobody knows
Where the money comes and where the money goes
I know it's the City Council’s sin
You've got overspend in order to win

[ kazoo bridge ]

Half the spending is on bottomless budget pages
Ladder trucks, zip lines and climate changes
You know it's true, oh . . .
All this spending, come back to you

Spend with me, Spend through the years
Spend on the soccer field, and on housing crisis fears
Spend with me, not just for today
Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take the City Debt, away

But until then . . .

Vote No, Vote No, Vote No
Vote No on Measure Q!

Vote No, Vote No, or Spend On!  Spend On!
Vote No!, Vote No!, Vote No! - Waaaaaaaaa-oooooooo!

[ kazoo piano fade ]

Let's set the record straight regarding the position the No on Q speakers shared at the recent League of Women Voters Forum.

No on Q stated that Interfaith Housing Justice Davis (IHJD) is urging residents to vote for Measure Q because the city is planning to direct more money to homelessness. They implied that the city has already committed to funding new programs addressing housing. While IHJD supports Measure Q, the city has not promised anything other than that housing is on the list of possible recipients of funding along with other legitimate city needs including replenishing the General Fund reserve, and infrastructure. The city has not promised to prioritize housing issues or indeed any particular recipient because Measure Q is a General fund tax and therefore by law, they can't.

No on Q stated that a plan for the City to spend money on homelessness is in the staff report. A review of the 6/4/24 staff report clearly demonstrates a wish list of projects "including urban forestry, climate action, affordable housing and social services, and infrastructure ". No commitments were made (nor can they be made!!) about where funds may be used.

Yes, IHJD supports Measure Q because we hope revenue will be generated sufficient to fund housing related issues. But we understand that passing Measure Q is only the first step. When the council begins the budgetary process after the election, IHJD will advocate for a commitment to address affordable housing and homelessness.

Ellen Kolarik, co-chair IHJD

by the No on Measure Q Campaign Committee

This article factually analyzes and discusses patently false claims made by the Yes on Measure Q campaign in their ballot statements presented to voters.

Introduction and Background

This article is the 3rd in a series presented by the No on Measure Q campaign committee about the significant problems associated with 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. The 2^nd article (see here) gives additional reasons to vote No on the tax measure, discussing the mismanagement of city finances by the current administration.

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 be 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!  

In the Past Decade, City of Davis Revenues and Expenses Soared Far in Excess of the Inflation Rate or Population Growth.

Mismanagement of City Finances by the Davis City Council

by the No on Measure Q Campaign Committee

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 2^nd 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.

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).

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?

By 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.

By Roberta Millstein

A 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

Time to enforce the Law at Oakshade Mall?

By Alan ”Lorax” Hirsch

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.

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.

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.

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! 

About these "Closed" Requests: 500 5th, next to ex-Hibberts - Overgrowth, remedied as it it's Downtown?; 909 5th St - a downed tree, initially moved only out of the traffic lane into bike lane; 1111 W. Covell, referred to police as it was from private property and a code violation, but still was not removed for about six weeks.)

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, [email protected], [email protected],[email protected].

* Ask the League of American Bicyclists if Davis deserves its "Platinum Bike Friendly" rating: [email protected] (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: [email protected].