Closing the Circle: Examining City Employee Contributions in 2008 City Council Elections

In my field of study, Political Science, researchers often work with intricate and complex mathematical models to determine the link between campaign contributions and public policy. The search for influence was often muddled by preexisting partisan and philosophical ties between interest groups and public policy makers. Part of the complexity also arises from the large number of contrary interests pressing policy makers in seemingly opposite directions. In some ways, the pattern in local politics seems much more simple.

As Rich Rifkin pointed out in several columns leading up to the 2008 city council election, there is really only one group of public employees that was active in the council elections--the firefighters. Indeed in our examination of the Form 460 (Campaign Statements from the City Council Candidates), we find only a few very small contributions from city employees who are not firefighters. A Davis Police Officer and head of the Davis Police Officer Association made small contributions to incumbents Stephen Souza and Don Saylor, and the union itself made only a $100 contribution to candidate Sydney Vergis.

Compare that to the enormity of the contributions from the Davis Professional Firefighters Local 3494 and you see any influence is quickly dwarfed.

In the chart below you will see contributions by Local 3494 members cross-referenced with their 100K Club ranking. In the image below you only see top 20 members of the 100K Club. If you click on the link below you can see the entire list along with their city of residence. Thanks to Rich Rifkin for help with some of the data, along with yet another public records request from the city of Davis.

• CLICK HERE for the full list of Campaign Contributions by Local 3494 Members

The direct contributions total $12,000 to exactly three candidates--Incumbents Stephen Souza and Don Saylor and challenger Sydney Vergis. They are contributed in increments of $100 per Davis campaign finance regulations that limit individual contributions to $100 per person, per campaign cycle. The members of the Local 3494 union have found a way to bundle the money in an effort to increase their influence. This is part of the complaint against them in the Yolo County Grand Jury report.

As we know however from the campaign, direct contributions are not the end of the story. Independent Expenditure Committees in Davis must report their activity in the California Form 496 and their committee is required to fill out Form 450. Unlike direct contributions, there is no limitation in terms of their spending activities. Thus as we know, the Davis Firefighters launched two different IEs in favor of their preferred candidates. According to their filing from May 12, 2008, the Davis Firefighters spent $6070.46 on the Print and Design of the brochure featured in the link above. For the entire six month period ending on June 30, 2008, they report $8245.63 which includes expenditures on a door hanger they report as $373.03 per candidate.

The combination of direct contributions and independent expenditures totals over $20,000 for the period. A reported spending that actually seems a bit on the low side.

Nevertheless, this expenditure is in fact unique for city employees in Davis. No other group of employees have organized in this manner to attempt to influence the city council election outcome. And from past elections, we know that this is not unique.

The question now comes to what exactly this influence buys the Davis Professional Firefighters. Here we revisit our findings from the 100K Club of Davis article.

As we see from these charts, the Davis Firefighters emerge as the "top dawgs" in terms of both base salary and salary plus overtime...



The first chart shows that the Davis Fire Department makes the highest average base salary of any Davis city department outpacing the City Manager's Office by a good $15,000 and outpacing their fellow public safety department, the police, by over $20,000.



However, that advantage increases tremendously when overtime salaries are factored in. Even, given the fact that roughly 17% of the overtime salaries are reimbursed by the state of California, these statistics show that by far, the Davis Firefighters are the best paid workers in the city. And again, it is not even close.



Here you can see their overall slice of the pie, just looking at base salaries.

And what we discovered yesterday is that even with respect to other locales in the county, the city of Davis' employee scales are skewed.



Where does that leave us? Unfortunately it leaves us right where we started--an unsustainable situation for the city of Davis where the rising cost of employee salaries are threatening to throw the city's budget out of whack.



So we end this circle where we began--the Davis tax revenue has not kept up with the rising cost of employee salaries. We spent a good deal of time this spring talking about pensions--the cost of pensions for the city of Davis was just $900,000 in 2000-01, this year it's almost $6 million. And the bubble of retirements with the current 3% at 50 arrangement have not hit yet.

What is the cost of these rising expenditures, one needs to look no further than the front page of yesterday's Davis Enterprise for the answer. In there was an article about the inability to repair some of the Davis bikeways because the city lacks the funding. This by itself is a safety hazard. People talk about the fact that the fire department is responsible for protecting lives--there is no doubt that is true, even if the actual number of fires is fairly low compared to other service calls. However, as I have stated before it is unclear to me that we are less safe paying folks a strong wage of say $70,000 compared to a wage of $109K. It is less clear to me that we are more safe now, unable to pay for crucial road and other infrastructure repairs than we would be paying the firefighters a bit less, and keeping the overtime under control.

What the city calls unmet needs is really a budget deficit. It is a deficit between what the city needs to spend and what it can spend. And unmet needs are insidious. Failure to make repairs now, means more expensive repairs later. Failure to make repairs now means possible safety concerns down the line. The pattern here is quite clear. The residents of Davis who are concerned about taxation, need to watch this much more closely. The residents here concerned about quality of services need to watch this more closely as well. At some point, the city will need to figure out a way to finance this and it means taxation, development, and possibly cutback on services.

Stay tuned to future Vanguard articles as we explore other aspects of the city council finance records.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Incumbents Wins in Council; Saylor New Mayor; Stunners in Assembly and Supervisor

It was not a good night either for me or the Progressives in the Davis City Council Election. Don Saylor was the top vote getter, meaning he is Mayor Pro Tem and will be Mayor in 2010. Stephen Souza finished a close second. Sue Greenwald was re-elected to a third term but finished a rather distant third. Sydney Vergis was fourth. Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Rob Roy wrapped things up.

We will have a more thorough analysis, but Sue won by finishing third in an all-incumbent vote in a number of precincts as well as heading up the more traditional progressive vote in the core, although her coat tails were not there. Sydney Vergis was the true third vote for Souza and Saylor, never finishing above third in any precinct.

Frankly, the bigger news was in the Assembly, where Mariko Yamada who looked down and out just a month ago, surged late to a narrow but decisive victory over Mayor Christopher Cabaldon who had managed to attract the support of most of the Democratic officeholders and the three predecessors at Assembly However, Mayor Cabaldon who had a large war chest and an even larger support from EdVoice, may overplayed his hand. Meanwhile the unions came in, spent half a million, and then just plain out organized the seemingly well-organized Cabaldon machine.

Mariko Yamada won in both counties by over 3%. She won almost all of Davis and surprisingly almost all of Woodland while Cabaldon won in his hometown of West Sacramento. Around three weeks ago I started to hear residents who had been supporting Cabaldon grow concerned with the large amount of mailers being thrown around. Yamada's IEs went on the attack. And when EdVoice responded with largely false attack ads it seemed to backfire. When Yamada was ahead after the absentee count it seemed all over (and it largely was).

Meanwhile equally stunning was the victory by Jim Provenza over two candidates. The shocker here was not that the former school member finished first, that seemed a foregone conclusion given the way the last few weeks worked out. What was really stunning was that he could get over 50% in a three-candidate field and avoid a costly and heated November runoff. But he too had over 50% in the absentees and stayed that way throughout the night, finishing a seemingly safe 50.5%.

Provenza was by far the best known of the candidates entering the race, but John Ferrera seemed to have seized the momentum early this year. He outraised Provenza. Beat him out for support from the Capital. But the one thing he could not do was get key labor endorsements. Provenza was able to close the gap on money and then the IEs took over and dumped a huge amount into the race. Kennedy finished at a respectable 15%, about where we thought given her stature.

So Jim Provenza represents the big victory for the beleaguered progressive left in Davis. It is hard to figure if Yamada's victory is a blow from the progressives, many of who were angered by her stance on county growth. And the Council race was a huge disappointed despite Sue Greenwald hanging on for a third term.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Growth, Growth, Growth

There are actually a lot of issues in Davis that do not involve growth directly. But as the city council campaign winds down, in the end it is all about growth.

How is Davis going to grow, where, and how fast? To answer that let us look at the key questions from this council and before the next council.

Measure J Renewal and Measure X

The first answer toward that is the question of Measure J's renewal.

Two former Mayors and a Former Davis Councilmember, Ken Wagstaff, Julie Partansky, and Stan Forbes, each who sat on the council that would put Measure J on the ballot weighed in on that yesterday in the Davis Enterprise.

They write:

"No on X proved we need to keep Measure J: The obvious demonstration of Measure J's merits was the Covell Village/Measure X election in 2005. Having approved a subdivision of more than 1,800 homes, the council was required by the Measure J law to have the project ratified by the voters.

Most of the homes to be sold by the project would have been unaffordable to the average Davis worker. Traffic on Covell Boulevard would have been 'intolerable,' according to the environmental impact report. Despite the developer outspending the citizen opposition by more than 10 to 1, the voters rejected the project by a 60 percent no vote.

Had there been no Measure J, a massive project the public did not want would have gone forward. The only way the community could have stopped it would have been to create an organization to gather thousands of signatures and force a referendum vote.

Some say the public should not have the right to vote on growth issues. We disagree. Growth fundamentally affects our quality of life. It affects the taxes we pay. It is vital that citizens have the insurance that Measure J provides.

Moreover, it is evident that City Councils do not always act consistent with the public will. Even after their approval of Covell Village was soundly rejected by the voters, at least two members of the council, one of whom is seeking re-election, tried to justify what they did by saying the public just didn't understand the project. After countless public hearings, and after the Covell Village developers spent more than $500,000 trying to 'educate' the public about their plans, this attitude is condescending and insulting to the voters.

The next council will determine whether Measure J is left intact or gutted. We believe the reasons Measure J was necessary when enacted remain unchanged. Indeed, given the experience of Covell Village/Measure X, the necessity of Measure J is even more manifest."

The differences on Measure X/ Covell Village among these candidates is clear. Sue Greenwald, Rob Roy, and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald opposed Measure X in 2005 and will oppose a new iteration of it if it comes forward. Don Saylor and Stephen Souza led the charge for Measure X and would likely support a new version of it. Sydney Vergis claims she also supported Measure X and would support a new version of it.

1% Growth Guideline

There are really two issues here--one is how fast we grow and one is where we grow.

The council recently renewed the 1% growth guideline. During the Measure X debate, we were told repeatedly that if we did not meet the mandated growth demands, Steve Gidaro would come in and impose growth on us whether we liked it or not.

Now the message coming from Souza and Saylor is that the 1% is a cap and a target, not a mandate. They cite our relatively growth rate the last four years. Sydney Vergis has been advocating a broad range of new housing to meet our housing needs including development on the Nishi property.

Sue Greenwald, Rob Roy, and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald have suggested that 1% is too fast to grow. We should look to approve housing based on the projects not based on some artificial growth cap. Moreover, the RHNA mandate is for considerably lower than 1% to meet our internal housing needs.

What is clear is based on Housing Element Steering Committee's report, most of the growth in the next decade or more can be met with infill development. Both sides somewhat agree on that while disagreeing on what infill is. Both Wildhorse Ranch and Nishi would require Measure J votes, but some have suggested given their locations that they are really infill. Then again, they have called Covell infill as well. None of them meet the true definition of infill.

There are basically two key components of infill. First, it must take place within existing communities or established areas of the city. It could be a vacant lot or a piece of land with dilapidated buildings. Second, they must have existing city services and infrastructure. Neither Nishi, Covell, nor the Horse Ranch fit those definitions. They all currently have agricultural uses, none of them are within the city, and none of them have existing city services already within them.

Regardless, of the definition of infill, we have heard constant rhetoric about as Saylor puts it, "canaries in the coal mine," the danger signs of lack of growth. Souza laments the number of students who have to commute into Davis. Sydney Vergis talks about the need for a range of housing so that generations can live together in Davis.

All of them suggest that while they do not support sprawl (Covell is not sprawl to them apparently), they are concerned that people who live and work at UC Davis have to commute to Davis.

Frankly I think everyone is concerned about this issue, there are a range of solution to it being offered.

However, when they start talking about only 44 new housing permits, it begins me wondering about something. There is an argument that the cost of housing in Davis is so high because of our slow growth policies. They are argue that these policies are making Davis an elitist exclusive town. And that the answer to affordability is of course to build more houses.

A few weeks ago, we showed a data analysis that suggested that there no relationship between the number of residential permits and the cost of housing. The cost of housing in Davis trended almost exactly with the cost of housing in Sacramento.

One of the reasons Measure J passed is that in 1998 there 1013 new housing permits followed by 954 in 1999. That's roughly a 3% growth rate based on current figures.

What Souza and Saylor do not tell you is that they have overseen a period with among the slowest growth in Davis for the past several decades. In 2002, we had 307 new housing permits followed by 277 in 2003. In 2004, the year they took office we had 135, then 250 in 2005, 104 in 2006, and just 44 last year.

What happened? Some will say this is a manifestation of our slow growth policies. But what really happened is that they pushed for Measure X/ Covell Village in 2005. When that was rejected by the voters, they had no back up plan. They put all of their eggs in the Measure X basket.

When Souza and Saylor complain about the lack of growth in Davis, they are as much to blame as anyone. They backed a Measure J project that was too large and the public did not buy and then had nothing else to offer for two years. So despite a 4-1 pro-growth majority from 2004-2006 and a 3-2 pro-growth majority (which is really all you need to pass things in Davis anyway) from 2006-2008, the Souza-Saylor led council has resided over one of the slowest growth periods in Davis history.

It is therefore somewhat ironic when you hear people like Sue Greenwald or others pushing some of the infill development plans and people are skeptical that they will ever get built.

The best opportunities for growth that actually meets our internal needs rather than feeding more commuters as Covell Village would have, rest in projects around the core of Davis and also with the university. The university houses among the fewest students on campus of any university. They have the most available land to expand student housing and that would alleviate the 1% apartment vacancy rate in the city of Davis.

I have heard Souza and Saylor complain about that rate at almost every council campaign forum, yet no one ever asked them what they have done during their four years on the council to address that. Covell Village certainly was not going to address that.

My own preference for growth would be to look toward some of the infill sites and put in smaller units--duplexes, condos, and town houses. Put them near the core of town so that people do not have to drive to downtown. Work with the university to help provide housing for students and new faculty members. If you are concerned about families with children moving into Davis, the best thing we can do is provide housing for young university employees who are most likely to have families. I do not see a need to build outside the current boundaries of Davis for at least the next general plan period. Smaller, more affordable units, can accomodate much of our so-called internal housing demand and if we do it right, we can meet those needs within the current boundaries of our town.

Getting Back To Measure J

The three strongest candidates on preserving and maintaining Measure J are Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Rob Roy. Both Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis have suggested looking at possible changes to Measure J. Ms. Vergis in particular has suggested it is long, cumbersome, and complicated and wishes to make non-substantive changes to streamline it.

The problem with that approach, as we showed a few weeks back is that Measure J is long but it is very straight forward in terms of its language.

The framer's of Measure J were very thorough in their work to insure that there were no loopholes to the ordinance. However, the language itself is simple, direct, and to the point. Any attempt to streamline the ordinance would actually weaken it greatly.

For that reason, for those who view Measure J and a key component of our land use policy and a key feature of the democratic nature of this city, ought to support those candidates who would continue the measure in its current form and seek to make it permanent.

Preserving the Character of Davis

Everyone talks about the character of Davis. For me it is about the charm and atmosphere of this city. You walk through the core of town and there is a unique feel. Of all the things that have happened under the current city council, one of the moves that I disliked the most was the B-Street Visioning Project.

That old neighborhood directly east of campus between A Street and Russell is one of my favorite places in all of Davis. As you walk down third, you really feel that you are in a college town. You have the shops, the students, the old cottages, and you just have a feel for it. It is the part of town when I first visited in 1993 prior to becoming a graduate student, that I fell in love with and one of the reasons I applied to come to school here and eventually made it my home.

I understand the need for more density if we are not going to grow beyond our current borders. But you also have to do it while maintaining the character of Davis. At times in this city, we have done a great job with the concept of adaptive re-use. Taking an existing structure and adapting it to a new use. I have been less of fan when we tear down an old structure and build a new one. There are a lot of ways we could have revamped B-Street while maintaining the character of that neighborhood. This was not one of them.

Some have questioned the feasibility of the PG&E site. But there is so much that it has to offer while maintaining the rest of downtown as the walkable, bikeable, small town feel.

Regardless of what happens tomorrow, there are many issues with which this city has to wrestle with and the Vanguard will continue to be on the front lines of those issues.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Greenwald and Escamilla-Greenwald Receive "A" Grades from the Sierra Club

In a press release dated May 16, 2008, the Sierra Club Yolano Group issued grades of the Davis City Council candidates.

"Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sue Greenwald rated an “A” grade based on answers to the three questions. Rob Roy, Don Saylor, Steven Souza and Sydney Vergis all received “B” grades."

On April 30, 2008 the Sierra Club Yolano Group and the Davis Neighborhood Coalition submitted 10 questions to Davis City Council candidates. In addition to the candidate forum, each candidate submitted written answers.

"The Management Committee “graded” the candidates based on their responses to the questions that related to the environment. The Sierra Club Yolano Group spent much time deliberating regarding the relative grading of the candidates for this 2008 City of Davis City Council election cycle. In general, the management committee believes that the educational value of the candidates’ answers to the questions - both for the voters and for the candidates is the most valuable portion of this process.

The three main issues discussed in the grading process were: Measure J, Wastewater and Surface Water Capitol Projects, and the future of wood burning in the City of
Davis.

Each candidate received the range of grades available and the final grades that we are presenting are the average of the management committee's votes - not a unanimous grade. This is not a Sierra Club endorsement of any of the candidates."

Vanguard coverage of the candidates forum can be found by clicking here.

You can find excerpts of the answers on both water and Measure J there.

On the issue of residential wood burning, an issue that has not been discussed much on this blog but is becoming an increasing concern in the city due to its impact on air quality, here are some of the highlights of the candidate's answers.

Sue Greenwald:

"I am in favor of looking into an ordinance for banning wood burning."

Cecilia-Escamilla Greenwald:

"As councilmember, I would like to look toward alternative means by which to heat homes—including Natural gas fireplaces rather than real wood or ideally, more energy efficient building designs to better utilize the winter sun, better keep heat (or cool temperatures in the summer) in the home, and solar power as an alternative means by which to heat one’s home or augment other available energy sources.

I would consider a possible ban or limitation of wood burning pending further study by the city and other experts."

Rob Roy:

"We already have the voluntary “Don’t Light Tonight" program in Yolo-Solano air quality management district. We must inform our fellow citizens about the program so they may now when air levels are at unhealthy levels. Expand the conscious of our citizens be more aware of any negative environmental impact is a good thing.

Collecting a voluntary city-wide email list serve to convey this type of information would be a good thing start on."

Don Saylor:

"While I want to withhold judgment until hearing from the NRC, I think we will probably see a combination of further restrictions on burning using specific appliances, incentives and rebates for purchases of cleaner EPA appliances, and more awareness of the issues pertaining to wood burning and the environmental effects."

Stephen Souza:

"There are already restrictions in place on new construction and new installation of fire-places or wood burning appliances. The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District's Rule 2.40 requires the use of pellet fueled heater or EPA certified heaters. We should also require that at the time of sale, remodel or a certain date that all fireplaces that do not meet Rule 2.40 be replaced or rendered inoperable.

We can also promote a self-imposed program of “Don’t Light Tonight” whereby residents do not use their fire-places or woodstoves when air pollution is approaching unhealthy conditions."

Sydney Vergis:

"The Model Fireplace Ordinance include two primary components- Voluntary curtailment of wood-burning on low quality air days, and a mandatory upgrade to EPA Phase II Fireplace inserts or fireplace removal upon house sale or remodel.

I acknowledge that the voluntary components of the model ordinance or a Spare-the-Air day will not result in full compliance- I am hopeful that good outreach and coordination between the City, local organizations (Yolano!), and the Natural Resources Commission can pay dividends."

While the Sierra Club did not make endorsements in the city council race, the grades provided are a good guide as to which candidates were stronger on specific environmental positions than others. The Sierra Club did make endorsements in both the County Supervisor and the State Assembly race. (See here for full story). Jim Provenza obtained the endorsement in the 4th District County Supervisor Race and Christopher Cabaldon received the endorsement in the State Assembly Race.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Signs, Signs, Everywhere are Signs

Last week, Rich Rifkin wrote a piece on political signs. It was an interesting piece that covered a key aspect--the visibility and effectiveness of signs. And while it misses out on a key point about brand identification, the issue of readability and clarity of signs is an important one.

However, for my money, the key issue is where signs are located--on whose property and who are these people. That tells us who and what types of interests are backing the various candidates.

An interesting tidbit is that if you drive around Davis, you will find many Judge Fall signs, but very few if any James Walker for Judge signs. Judge Tim Fall is an incumbent who is being challenged by James Walker for the Judgeship. While the Judge is a Republican, he is viewed as more moderate that James Walker. If you leave Davis and go up north towards Woodland, you see an increasing number of James Walker signs. What looks like a landslide from the aspect of Davis, look much closer as you head to the north.

Speaking of telling signs, as you head out of Davis on Lake and toward County Road 99, you see a big huge Mariko Yamada sign on the corner of County Road 99 and County Road 31 (Covell Blvd). There is another one near the hospital.

What is telling about these sign locations, is who owns that land. Because that is the Northwest Quadrant. The Northwest Quadrant including Oeste Ranch were the subject of a political battle last year as the county, led by County Supervisor Mariko Yamada, pushed for development in the Northwest Quadrant. The owners of some of that land are now backing Mariko Yamada in her race for State Assembly. That cannot be a coincidence, can it?

More locally, as you go around town you see on virtually every apartment complex signs for Souza, Saylor, and Vergis. Stephen Souza probably has the most on these properties, but Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis are right on his heels. Many of these properties are owned by Tandem Properties, the property management company owned by John Whitcombe of the Covell Village fame. But it is not just Tandem Properties that is backing the developer trio. All the major property owners are. Not that there is anything wrong with that, right?

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Council Candidates Differ on City Budget and Fiscal Situation

To their credit the Davis Enterprise is running a series of questions and answers from the city council candidates. They limit the responses to 100 words each but print the responses verbatim. This is a good way for the public to get a sense about where the candidates sit on seven topics.

Aside from the issue of growth, one of the more interesting points of divide is on the budget.

The claim made by Stephen Souza, Don Saylor, and Sydney Vergis is largely that the budget is balanced, we have a 15% reserve. We have unmet needs though in the future that will require additional taxes. They would also like to expand the economic base of the city.

The claim raised by Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald (my wife) and Rob Roy is that unmet needs constitute part of the budget deficit.

Sue Greenwald raised the point that the problem is more on the expenditure side than the revenue side.

"Our revenues have increased a healthy 60 percent in seven years. Our problem is that expenditures have risen faster."

For her the solution is:

"We should emphasize controlling expenses by phasing in certain large capital improvement projects and controlling salary/benefit costs of management and highest-paid employees."

Cecilia is also concerned about placing much of the burden on the tax and ratepayers of Davis.

"Davis residents face several new taxes in the future on top of large rate hikes for water. The voters just approved new parcel taxes for the library and the schools. With the schools facing a budget crisis, voters may have to approve another parcel tax. We need to look toward other ways to balance our budget."

Everyone would like to see additional revenues. It is not even clear that six candidates differ that much on the type of revenue. For example, although Don Saylor supported Target, he has said at candidate's forums that he thinks that is sufficient to meet the retail needs of the city.

On the other hand, and more problematically, Mr. Saylor has suggested that there are "long-term labor contracts in place." In fact, nearly all of the labor contracts expire next year including the fire contract. His statement is simply untrue.

At the recent meeting as cited in the Davis Enterprise:

"Labor negotiations will reopen during the 2009-10 fiscal year, [City Budget Director Paul]Navazio said"

Conversations during the budget meeting last week, underscore the very tenuous nature of the "balanced" budget claims.

"The city funded benefits under a pay-as-you-go method until last fiscal year, when it added an extra $500,000 to the payment. To fully fund the program, which would save millions in the long run, the city would have to pay in about $4 million per year, Navazio said.

'Given the level of benefits and the cost of benefits, we need to be setting aside 6 percent of our employee salaries, and that percentage is pretty high compared to other cities,' Navazio said. 'That's also a reflection of the city's benefits, which are pretty high, and how that's packaged.'

'We have got to find the means to fund that,' Councilman Stephen Souza said.

'We are fully intending to deal with it, we're just not dealing with it fully in this fiscal year,' Navazio said."

We have balanced the budget on paper. However, the amount of unmet needs faced by this city is growing. We are talking about things that really need to be done. We simply lack the revenue to do them. Moreover, the employee benefit system looks like a train wreck waiting to happen.

As Sue Greenwald remarked at the meeting the other night:

"We're not in better shape than we've been in years. That's just not true. We are locked into a 3% at 50 retirement for the next 70 years for public safety employees and now 2.5% at 55, early retirement for all miscellaneous employees. That's got to affect our longterm budget situation. We have a $42 million post-retirement, unfunded employee retiree health liability. That's huge. That's coming due in only 15 or 20 years..."

And once again, the number of taxes and fees that the citizens of Davis will be asked to pick up in the next few years is actually rather staggering.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Why is Nishi So Heavily Mentioned by the Candidates

At each of the debates thus far this election cycle, someone has promoted the Nishi Property as a good place for future development.

It seems that Sydney Vergis has consistently promoted the property as a good place for infill development. The problem is that Nishi is not infill development. It is a Measure J project and specially in fact laid out in Measure J.

Don Saylor has suggested that it is one of two future Measure J projects possibly coming down the pike.

And at the last debate, Stephen Souza promoted it as a location that could serve the student population while at the same time helping to bolster the downtown due to its close proximity to both the campus and the downtown.

Not coincidentally the project's chief sponsor is John Whitcombe from Tandem Properties, a strong supporter of that trio.

There is indeed much appeal for the 44-acre property that is located adjacent to both the UCD campus and the core area of town. As currently promoted, it could provide anywhere from between 400 apartment units to over 1000. And were it not for one very serious drawback, it would indeed be the prime area by which to develop.

In fact, the property appears not once but twice in the General Plan Housing Element report. In one iteration, it appears as the 17th rated property (Green light) and in the other as the 22nd rated property (Yellow light).

But the very reason Nishi has two iterations is the very reason why it is probably not a good site to develop at this point in time.

The reason that Nishi is a questionable location is that it has but one route into the core of the city via motor vehicle and that is along Olive Drive. Now the problem with Olive Drive is that it feeds into the heavily congested Richards Blvd. That is the most congested area of town and to put a location with a minimum of 1150 beds on that route is begging for trouble.

That is why the higher rated project does not even have access to Olive Drive. It would have vehicle access only through the university. So now you are putting a likely student development next the university which has no direct access to the city via motor vehicle.

The promoters of this project suggest this as a great way to enhance pedestrian and bike traffic from this site into the core of downtown. I do not knock the ideal of such a set up. But the fact that we would have to go through all of this just for a development leads me to question the usefulness of this development.

The HESC report suggests a number of things are needed in order for this arrangement and site to be explored. First, it would require UC Davis involvement which included granting access via car to campus. You would then have to analyze traffic, mitigation, and car management strategies for traffic toward campus. Remember we are talking over a thousand cars potentially being funneled through campus. We would have the relinquish the existing access easement to Olive Drive.

Do not get me wrong, none of these are deal breakers. Even the worst aspects of Nishi aside from the poor vehicular access to the core--noise from the railroad and the freeway and the fact that it is prime agricultural land--are not deal breakers.

However, the question remains whether student housing, and that is what we are talking about with Nishi primarily, student housing, would not be better utilized at a different location on campus.

We all have dreams about encouraging people to use alternative forms of transportation. This is not encouragement. This would be literally forcing people to do just that. If want to develop close to downtown, the PG&E site and an area just on campus would make far more sense than Nishi. Neither of those sites are encumbered by lack of traffic access and yet, because of their proximity to the downtown they would do the same thing.

Intentionally designing areas that are cut off via motor vehicle from other areas is asking for problems.

The real question is would these areas be promoted if they were not Whitcombe sponsored projects? Many people have questioned a decision not to accept money for developers, but the nice thing about not accepting money from the developers is that there is no question in anyone's mind about the promotion of one property over another. Sue Greenwald can promote the PG&E site because not only is she not taking money from a developer, but there is no one actively promoting it.

People are concerned about student housing and housing overall. The question is really, where is it best to develop. I think we need to look within our current borders to achieve our housing needs. I also think that we need to work with the university as a means to meeting the needs of students. UC Davis has one of the lowest on campus housing percentages in the UC System. And yet at the same time, UC Davis has a lot more land available to meet those needs than the city.

Creating an area in the city, cut off from the city has inherent problems. That's why this centrally located site only rated 17. Having it connected to the city, presents more problems. At this point, developing Nishi has too many drawbacks. There are simply other areas, more conveniently located, that would do the same thing as Nishi. And yet, because it is associated with John Whitcombe, Nishi will always be on someone's radar.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sacramento Bee Endorses "New Political Dynamic in Davis"--Sue Greenwald, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald, and Don Saylor

In a stunning surprise, the Sacramento Bee yesterday endorsed a "New Political Dynamic in Davis." Actually since they endorsed two incumbents--Don Saylor and Sue Greenwald, the only new political dynamic they endorsed is Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald (my wife but no relation to Sue). But if those three were to win, that would mark a new council majority.

For me this comes just over a week after both criticizing the Sacramento Bee for their lack of coverage, their lack of understanding of Davis politics, questioning whether they should even be making an endorsement in this race.

I was both correct and it turns out incorrect in my read on the Sacramento Bee. I figured that the Sacramento Bee would support the pro-growth elements in the race and look little beyond that.

The Sacramento Bee does indeed support pro-growth policies as they acknowledge in their editorial:

"While we remain in agreement with the pro-growth candidates on issues of housing and development, the public in Davis has made its views clear."

At the same time, they seem surprisingly conciliatory to the community having a say in its own land use policies, which is a striking departure for a paper that thought the idea that Davis would vote Covell Village and Target was ludicrous.

Instead, the Bee looks past those issues and towards on big issue: the firefighters.

"Meanwhile, other important issues have emerged: city finances and the influence of public employee unions, and race relations and the police department."

The Bee has seen the damage to city finances that out of control wages and pensions to city employees can do.

They continue:

"Davis firefighters are among the top campaign contributors to pro-growth candidates, a dangerous sign. The firefighters' contract expires next year. Given the current housing slump and the lack of a retail base in Davis to generate sales taxes, it is important that this city hold the line in the next round of bargaining."

The firefighters--their wages and their attempt to influence the outcome of the election--become the top issue for the Bee rather than development.

I remain no less surprised today than I did yesterday.

They claim they narrowly chose Don Saylor over Stephen Souza:

"Of the three pro-growth candidates on the ballot, we narrowly chose Saylor over Souza. Souza is hard working but has a testy personality that has contributed to the incivility at council meetings. Saylor is more steady and has wider experience."

Finally they encourage the slow-growth candidates to follow through on their promise for infill development:

"The slow-growth candidates we've endorsed all say they are committed to infill development. It is essential that they follow through on that commitment. Davis is a city that has priced out its working-class citizens. Whoever is elected must make a better commitment to build affordable housing for people who work in Davis."

Given the Bee's views on Davis and Davis' growth policy this was a huge surprise. But the firefighters involvement in this race has really changed the dynamics here.

Full text of the endorsement:

This year, as in previous Davis City Council elections, growth and housing (or the lack of both) are major issues.

The city had a showdown on growth with its 2005 vote on Covell Village, a proposed housing development, which this page supported as did four of five members of the City Council. Despite that support, the citizens of Davis rejected Covell Village.

This election pits moderate pro-growth candidates who supported Covell Village against slow-growth candidates who did not.

On the pro-growth side are incumbents Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, and challenger Sydney Vergis. On the slow-growth side are Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald and challengers Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald (no relation to the mayor) and Rob Roy.

While we remain in agreement with the pro-growth candidates on issues of housing and development, the public in Davis has made its views clear. Meanwhile, other important issues have emerged: city finances and the influence of public employee unions, and race relations and the police department. On the basis of their positions on those issues, we endorse Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sue Greenwald.

A UC Davis graduate and longtime student and city activist, Escamilla-Greenwald is the former head of the Davis Human Relations Commission. In that capacity she was instrumental in exposing legitimate concerns from African American and Latino residents of a strong perception of police bias. Her efforts led to the resignation of the city's former police chief and the hiring of an ombudsman to handle citizen complaints. Even though she is a labor representative in her professional life, Escamilla-Greenwald has been forthright in her concerns about the generous pay raises and retirement benefits given to Davis firefighters that threaten city finances.

Greenwald was also a strong supporter of police reform. As a member of the council she has been a forceful and vocal opponent of overly generous firefighter pay raises and retirement benefits. As a result she has not gotten the firefighters union endorsement or their contributions.

Davis firefighters are among the top campaign contributors to pro-growth candidates, a dangerous sign. The firefighters' contract expires next year. Given the current housing slump and the lack of a retail base in Davis to generate sales taxes, it is important that this city hold the line in the next round of bargaining. Greenwald can be counted on to resist union pressure.

Roy declined to sit for an endorsement interview with The Bee, so we have no way to evaluate his qualifications.

Of the three pro-growth candidates on the ballot, we narrowly chose Saylor over Souza. Souza is hard working but has a testy personality that has contributed to the incivility at council meetings. Saylor is more steady and has wider experience.

The slow-growth candidates we've endorsed all say they are committed to infill development. It is essential that they follow through on that commitment. Davis is a city that has priced out its working-class citizens. Whoever is elected must make a better commitment to build affordable housing for people who work in Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Pro-Development Candidates Not Forthcoming on their Growth Positions

Sacramento Bee Coverage of the Davis City Council Race

The Sacramento Bee had a pretty interesting spread on Monday laying out various positions by the Davis City Council candidates on growth.

Given that the Sacramento Bee had limited space and that this will be their only article on the race, they did a good job of getting to the core of the issues and the differences between the candidates in a campaign where many of the candidates sound the same even though they have pretty divergent policy goals.

To start, the happenstance of alphabetical order served to dramatize this point. The first three candidates in the alphabet opposed Covell Village. The last three supported it. That happenstance creates an appearance of stark differences between the candidates.

Measure J and the one percent growth guideline have been covered here. You can see more clearly here that Stephen Souza diverges from his colleagues on his side of the matrix on Measure J, but you can also see that that is the only place that he really diverges from them on.

The point also needs to be made again that Measure J is indeed a lengthy document, but it is really straight-forward and not complex. A non-lawyer or even a non-planner can easily pick it up and understand it. On the other hand, one of the reasons that it is so lengthy is that the drafters of the Measure J went to great lengths to define their terms and define explicit exemptions to avoid loopholes. Any attempt to streamline it will re-open some of those loopholes and thereby weaken the measure.

Question 2 is one that really has not been asked or addressed in forums to do that. So I am going to go through those answers, since they are brief.

The question is would they support a renewed effort to develop the Covell site?

The first three candidates Cecilia (my wife), Sue Greenwald, and Rob Roy give various versions of "no."

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald:

"I do not support developing beyond the borders of the city. We have enough land available within the city's boundaries."

Sue Greenwald:

"I just think it's way too soon to consider that."

Rob Roy:

"We have to focus on infill development. Building out is the wrong direction. Davis will sprawl and lose its character."

The next two candidates Don Saylor and Stephen Souza do a nice job of dancing on the issue.

Don Saylor:

"I haven't seen a revised Covell Village plan. I'm not going to say never, and I'm not going to say I'm all for it."

Is the first part of that answer honest? John Whitcombe's group has been meeting through out the city. I know quite a few people that they have met with to outline their plan for Covell Village. They even met with Cecilia. Are you telling me that they have not met with one of their biggest allies on the council but they met with Cecilia? I kind of seriously doubt that. The honest answer here would be "yeah, I'd consider it." Instead he tries to dance on it.

Stephen Souza:

"If a proposal at Covell Village came forward, I would be interested in looking at it and discussing it."

That's at least a better answer than Saylor's.

Sydney Vergis:

"If the neighboring Hunt-Wesson property is developed, we might want to look at mater-planning that whole area and do it right."

Either Vergis is more pro-growth than Souza and Saylor or she's less shrewd politically, but I think she puts on the table the view that the pro-development side of the ledger sees--a way to develop Covell alongside the Lewis Properties.

For a table that has four very brief answers, in many ways this tells people all they need to know about growth. And then it depends on which side you come down on the issue.

LAFCO Draws Out Differences On Growth--Souza and Saylor Abstain

I take this time to draw on Tuesday's vote yet again, because it seemed to get lost in the complexity once again.

There are two elements to the City Council's Sphere of Influence vote.

First, the need to revisit it was fundamentally due to City Planning Director Katherine Hess' misinformation to council about the meaning of the sphere of influence.

LAFCO lays it out very clearly that the sphere of influence intends to define all the lands to be developed for urban uses. Katherine Hess tried to argue that the city simply would control the land in the SOI whether it was developed or not. That clearly was not true last year when the county tried to study development of land inside the SOI on the edge of Davis. Stephen Souza at the LAFCO meeting tried to argue that there are multiple types of urban uses for land, but he quickly recognized after discussions at LAFCO that this was not the conventional view and that having an overly large SOI might open the process down the line to inclusion in the General Plan and thereby do the opposite of what was intended.

The second intrigue in the meeting is Lamar Heystek's motion removed all of the large peripheral parcels from the Sphere of Influence. Mayor Sue Greenwald seconded this motion.

The argument here is that there is no compelling reason to add more land that could become targeted for growth when there is no protection afforded to the land by being placed in the SOI. It simply signals LAFCO that there is an intent to develop these lands for Urban uses.

Ruth Asmundson opposed the removal of the peripheral parcels, as we would expect.

What no one expected is that Councilmembers Don Saylor and Stephen Souza abstained from the vote. This demonstrates their fear of on the one-hand offending their developer friends, some of whom were in the audience asking to be included in the SOI. Obviously they felt that there was some benefit to being in the SOI.

On the other hand, they did not outright vote against the measure to belie their pro-development colors. They have tried to walk this fence for a long time. They supported Covell but argue that it's good smart growth planning. They support the 1% growth guideline, arguing that this represents a low growth rate and that we are not growing at one percent anyway.

Because of the two abstentions, for the first time ever, Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek's two votes carried the day by a 2-1 margin. In order to not expose their true intentions on growth prior to the election, Souza and Saylor were completely silent on one of the most important growth issues for the LAFCO SOI for Davis.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Christopher Cabaldon and Jim Provenza Endorsed by the Sierra Club

This week Assembly Candidate Christopher Cabaldon and Yolo County Supervisor Candidate Jim Provenza earned the endorsement of the Sierra Club, one of the seminal environmental organizations in the country.

The organization cited Cabaldon's role in the development of the SACOG Blueprint Project. He has also sat on the Central Valley Water Board and consistently has taken strong positions to protect water quality.

Christopher Cabaldon wrote on his website:

"Our district is unique in how much we value our special natural heritage, open spaces, farmland, rolling hills, creeks, and the Delta, and how committed we are to environmental protection and sustainability, as well as clean air and water.

That's why I'm so proud to report that the Sierra Club has now endorsed my candidacy."

He went on to say:

"The Sierra Club only grants its endorsement in a handful of legislative races, and only after a grassroots vote of confidence by the progressive environmental activists working at the local level inside the district."

Delta Protection is one of the most important environmental issues in this district, along with transportation emissions, and protection of agricultural land.

"They know how important it is that we win our fight to rescue the Delta, tackle the causes and impacts of climate change (including my national battle against the Bush Administration on vehicle emission standards), stop pollution of our air and water, put an end to sprawl and the disappearance of our rural legacy, and make trains, transit, biking, and walking real alternatives to more time in our cars. And they know I will continue to be an environmental champion in the Assembly."

For the Yolo County Supervisors race, the Sierra Club acknowledged that both candidates have demonstrated a strong environmental commitment.

The deciding issue revolved around a proposed initiative for Yolo County to protect agricultural land and to continue to limit development to existing cities.

Jim Provenza was a strong advocate against the proposed developments on the periphery of the city of Davis. He opposed Covell Village. And strongly supports Measure J. He vowed to support an initiative at the county level similar to Measure J, according to the Sierra Club.

It is nice to see that land use policies were used as the basis for a Sierra Club endorsement. Too often the protection of agricultural land and defense against peripheral development are overlooked. But from an environmental standpoint, once you pave over farmland, it is lost. I was talking to someone the other day who was raised in what was known as the Santa Clara Valley before it became known as the Silicon Valley. Some may remember that those were some of the best soils in the state and they are now permanently lost by urbanization and sprawl development.

It is a bit disappointing that the Sierra Club apparently will not be endorsing in the Davis City Council race.


Sydney Vergis endorses herself

Could not resist adding this here. This one jumped out at me last night. There is an organization known as the Yolo County Young Democrats. It is a small group that has little to no background. Sometime at the end of last year or the beginning of this year, Sydney Vergis became the President or Director, not sure which, of this organization. There is no web presence so it is difficult to ascertain just how many members there are of this group, but I've heard there are six including the chair.

In the Enterprise last night, Sydney Vergis announced that she had obtained the endorsement of the group that she heads up. I should hope so. Next thing you know, Cecilia will be sending out a press release saying that the Vanguard has endorsed her. Maybe people have not heard, I am married to Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald. Oh and despite what the Davis Enterprise said last year, I am not married to Sue Greenwald.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

League of Women Voters Hold Candidates Forum Last Night

Last night, the League of Women Voters held their candidates forum at the Davis Community Chambers. It was an interesting format in that they allowed for an opening statement of three minutes, three prepared questions, and then after a break, five one minute questions from the audience.

This time instead of recording the entire forum and then transcribing portions of it, I took notes throughout. I have few quotes, a lot of observations and paraphrasing.

The opening statements by the candidates are pretty much the same statement each time. Don Saylor went first, he laid out his professional background, his arrival at Davis and then a litany of accomplishments. One thing that really struck me this time, that I had not quite picked up on before was a line in his statement: "we brought to the voters the first test of Measure J." This was listed in a long string of accomplishments by him. The first test of Measure J was Covell Village that was rejected by a 60-40 margin.

Sydney Vergis talks about her background and her passion for land use planning. Within that she cites herself as someone "who has the land use and community consensus building experience" and that she is "offering the community [her] professional background as a land use planner." She says it as though she had twenty years of experience in it rather than less than one.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald talks about her values. The fact that she was raised in Chico, the changes that have occurred in Chico since she left, and her commitment to preserve the character and small-town feel of Davis.

Stephen Souza cites his back ground and offers for the voters his platform of green, safe, and smart. One the accomplishments he has cited is an annual balanced city budget. He says that they have had four years of a balanced budget with a fifteen percent plus reserve. As we shall see, this is disputed by three of the candidates.

Sue Greenwald talks about her love for city planning. She is driven by that love rather than aspirations for higher political office. She cites her background in a variety of other cities and states that she is happier in those cities that have a sense of community, accord, and a center. She sees this as a great town that she wants to maintain. Her goal is to bring jobs closer to housing and housing closer to jobs. She would like to see a major infill condo development at the PG&E property. Finally she wants to break from the sense of being a sprawling bedroom suburb from the 1950s that recent peripheral developments have created such a feel.

Rob Roy is also worried that Davis not become more of an anywhere USA. He stood against Measure X as a student. Was a student coordinator on No on K. Helped on Measure L--Choice Voting, and want to continue and renew Measure J as a means to protect open space and agricultural land. He believes that Davis has for too long rested on its laurels as a great progressive community. He stands for renters rights and bike safety and wants to increase bike riders from 14% to 25% where it was in the 1990s. Finally he wants to keep Davis unique with businesses and what we do.

The first question asked the candidates to describe their experience working with large budgets and multiple departments and also how might their budgetary experience help with meeting rapidly rising prices for gasoline and goods needed to run our city?

Sydney Vergis went first she said this was something she feels passionate about as a professional financier. Wants to bring the kind of perspective and experience that we need to meet financial challenges. There is a tenuous nature of sales tax which is heavily reliant on automobile sales and gas sales tax. She wants to Work to diversify tax base, but this is only one piece of the puzzle. She claimed, “Currently our budget is balanced.” Range of long term needs that we need to start thinking about specifically capital improvement and transportation. We to think about about longterm.

Cecilia cited her experience as a representative for state workers in 53 different departments. She has a growing concern about the wage and benefit scale among high level employees and management in city government. The city has agreed to sign on to very generous contracts with a number of these top level employees and the resulting contracts along with generous pension plans are threatening to break the system.

The city of Davis provides its residents with a high level of city services. Given the current structure of these salaries, the city faces the prospect of tax increases to its residents. Already in 2006, the voters of Davis approved a parks tax. In the coming months and years, they may be asked to shoulder more of the tax load with the possibility of an additional public safety tax, a sales tax, and other taxes—this on top of a recently approved parcel tax for the schools and one for the libraries. This fall, the school district which is in fiscal crisis may ask the residents for additional help through another parcel tax. These possible additional taxes may occur on top of a rate hike for water as the result of a new waste water treatment plant and water supply plan.

As councilmember, she is not opposed to taxes, but it is clear that we cannot continue to rely on the generosity of our resident to bail us out of past fiscal mistakes.

Stephen Souza cites his experience working wit the city budget. He claimed the general fund portion of the of the budget was balanced and that they have put aside money into a reserve. "We have a strong fiscal budget, but we do have unmet needs that we started planning for two years ago with quarterly meetings." He described those needs and talked about looking into ways to deal with those unmet needs. Suggested that we need more revenues--all cities do. Not just by taxes but by economic growth as well. Looking toward a green technology plant to produce high paying jobs and revenues. However, also listed some other forms of revenue generation through fees and taxes--9/11 fee; property generation tax; .25 cent sales tax.

Sue Greenwald made a passionate argument that experience itself is not the most important question that we should ask. She then cited numerous examples of leaders and budget directors who had tremendous experience and yet led their cities, counties, or companies into ruin. She argued that rather than a balanced budget we have an all-fund deficit of nearly $1.5 million. We have unmet needs. We have basically used a shell game to claim that we have balanced the budget. She flatly stated that she disagreed with her colleague on the shape of the budget--"it's in bad condition."

Everything is called an unmet need rather than part of the budget. There is no capital replacement fund--she thinks that is a time bomb waiting to go off. She says she had the courage to stand up to political pressure and special interests. Voted against lowering retirement age of desk workers to 55. She saved money when opposed demands for pay increase to fire fighters. The plan provided for no new fireman and yet would have cost $400K.

Rob Roy is also concerned about the benefit packages for city employees--specifically the fire fighters. Does not believe that the lack of increase to the wage and benefits package will reduce either the quality of service or our competitiveness. He supports the living wage for the lower level employees. On the other hand, he believes the fire fighters should earn a comfortable wage but points out that they are public servants and that that wage should not harm the city's ability to meet the needs of its citizens. For many state and city employees, their retirement benefits are 2% at 55 or 60, but for fire fighters it is 3 percent at 50. This is one of the reasons that Vallejo recently declared bankruptcy. Talks about the term unmet need as another word for deficit. He said that if he doesn't get enough money to live by his means, and decides not to pay rent this month, he has an unmet need, which means he gets kicked to the curb.

Saylor cites his budgetary experience in the workforce and as a school board member. He also claims we have a balanced budget--a balanced budget and a 15% reserve. Yes there are things that we are not spending money on. When he came into office, we had a $2.2 million deficit, we don’t have that today. We have taken steps to take that away—budget reforms, quarterly budget reviews, personnel cuts. He believes the budget can be balanced in the future with money from economic development. He hopes to have some new state revenues—barring state budget cut. We will face the expiration of parks and sales tax will need to be removed. He argued per capita sales tax revenue is in bottom third statewide.

The next question asked about cannery Park and the prospect for a housing development.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald expressed her concern that development at Lewis Properties might facilitate development at Covell Village. Overall there are several aspects of residential development at Cannery Park that are appealing. First, it is already paved over, so we would not be developing on prime agricultural land. Second, it is located within the current city limits, which means there would be no Measure J vote necessary. Third, it is in a location that is relatively near the core of downtown.

That being said, any new development, in order for me to support must have several key components. First, it must pay for itself. Second, it must be on the cutting edge of green building urban design. Third, it must be extraordinary. To use the words of one of my fellow candidates—there needs to be an extensive “wow” factor along with it. "We need housing that meets the needs of the middle-class and workforce citizens." We do not need a continuation of past sprawl developments that cater to the wealthy by building McMansions that could be found in any city.

Stephen Souza said Cannery Park’s proposal is going through the process of determining whether it is a site for high tech use. The plan that he has seen has a third of it which is a business park development that will enable high tech development. He spoke about the loss of high tech jobs. In order to have revenue from a high tech project which will have housing next to it, we need to make it environmentally friendly.

Sue Greenwald said while there are nice features of the housing proposal see wants to keep it zone as high tech. She was responsible for that land use designation to begin with. Cited the loss Genotech who is building a research facility in Dixon, halfway between Davis and Dixon. Would have liked to have Hunt-Wesson as a possible location for high tech. She has concerns about the cost of the land which she said no one will lower the value of the land as long as they believe they can get housing which would be more lucrative. Wants to turn Davis into a high tech center.

Rob Roy was against Measure X but he understands the need for development of housing communities that live and work in Davis. With Cannery Park they can put housing in. We need to put pressure on Lewis to avoid $641,000 housing and call it affordable. Wants to put housing in back of a high tech facility. He believes we should have enough space for both. He believes that we should have community driven, not developer driven housing.

Don Saylor sets about in general his vision for when we have housing some of which includes it must address true community needs, the benefits outweigh the costs, no costs to existing residents, mitigate traffic costs, it must be green and good affordability. The housing element committee determined Lewis met some desirable elements including a close proximity to downtown. They ranked this site 21 out of 37 which put it in the middle, but it was the second highest preferred site that was 25 acres of more. Saylor also cited problems: traffic is a problem; land locked with railroad tracks on one side and empty field on the other, and it has limited bike access. Saylor never committed either way on this issue, he simply stated his general principles.

Like Don Saylor, Sydney Vergis never stated her actual view on the issue. She laid out a bunch of general principles and wants to study it to see if it viable. "Good opportunity here to meet a range of housing needs and business needs."

The final question was one of civility. The moderator introduced it by citing numerous examples in this community of non-civil discourse.

For Stephen Souza he said when 11 pm strikes at the council meeting there tends to be a shortness with all of the council and there becomes a disconnect between the civility that all carry in their everyday lives and the activity on the dais. There is a tendency to think that each and every one of us has the truth on growth. This leads us to denigrate the opinions of others. We need to at times agree to disagree. All of us love this town. We cannot ask of others what we cannot ask of ourselves—how can we ask people to get along when we cannot get along on this one issue basic to humanity on all issues. How we get there—that’s the age old question—first and foremost he says 'I respect what you may believe and we may have differences.'

For Sue Greenwald she believes we have actually come a long way toward civility. That there have been rougher times and democracy has survived. We need to avoid lecturing since that has the implication that my behavior is good and yours is bad. The public can make up their own decisions about who is right and wrong. Each of us should concentrate on our own behavior. She is proud of fact no complaints about shoving and hissing when citizens come to the microphone. It is important that we find that balance between carrying out a vigorous debate and not carryover it over to personal reactions. She also believes that it is important to question staff very hard--that's the tough part of job but they get paid very well. We need back and forth debate when there is disagreement. The important thing at end of day is to separate personal from political.

Rob Roy joked that the Enterprise and Bob Dunning might be supportive of a less civil council since it would sell more papers. He says that there are passionate folks in Davis and he tries to get along with everyone. They all have their theories on how we get along in our community but at the end of the day we need to get along even when we disagree. He then cited common ground with each of the other candidates.

Don Saylor argued that this was an extremely important topic for our community. He wrote an op-ed piece a year ago on it and he had tremendous response to it. Never had that kind of response and agreement. He said he was humbled that in the Davis Enterprise endorsement that it cited his attention to civility. Then cited two books to read. He feels that this is a different world than 100 years ago, and that we are very isolated in our every day life. We need to improve the tone and interactions in council chambers. People should not be afraid to speak one's mind.

Sydney Vergis believes that civility in community needs to start in the council and really with the council race. She has run a clean campaign with no ad hominen attacks. Cited her professional experience as extensive experience working with diverse interests.

Cecilia believes one should always treat everyone with polite deference even in the face of disagreement. She intends to uphold the best standards of conduct, as epitomized by the behavior of Councilmember Lamar Heystek, a strong supporter of mine.

The candidates then took a brief break. They answered five brief questions. I will briefly outline the candidates positions and when possible refer people to other sources of information.

The first question was on improving the downtown parking situation. Sue Greenwald argued for the mixed-use redevelopment parking lot on E and F between 3rd and 4th. Rob Roy agreed with that and also liked the idea of timed parking lot in the E Street Plaza. For Don Saylor, this was a long process that may bear fruit down the line but he favored a parking structure across from the railroad station with access from Olive Drive. Sydney Vergis did not want to make parking more accessible because she wanted to avoid the incentive to do more parking and instead wants alternative forms of transportation. Cecilia cited her proposal for a multilevel parking structure by Design House which could go over the tracks. It would take traffic from going under the Richards underpass and put pedestrians within a few blocks of all of downtown. Stephen Souza looking toward UDASH, a shuttle between the university and downtown during the lunch hour as a means to reduce traffic in the downtown.

There is a better discussion on water in the forum that was posted yesterday. The one minute format did not do justice to this issue.

They were then asked about choice voting. Saylor believes most people in town have difficult time understanding what choice voting is. We have a lot more work to do to define and how it will work. The education of voter is a critical factor. He is not sure that problem will be fixed by choice voting.

Sydney Vergis was not in favor of choice voting because it would lead to us becoming a charter city. She was concerned with this since it might remove prevailing wage and competitive bidding requirement.

Cecilia said that once she understood choice voting, she supported it. Saw it as the will of the people. She would ensure to minimize the impact on binding arbitration and prevailing wages.

Souza has been a strong supporter of choice voting for years. Cited numerous examples of its successful use. Sees it as the next step in the democratic process.

Sue Greenwald favors district elections with instant runoffs--a form of choice voting. She was skeptical of choice voting, she joked, until she had two Greenwalds on the ballot, now she felt this would force people to look through the ballot more than once.

Rob Roy favors choice voting and believes we can educate people about how we operate rank preference of voting.

There is a fuller discussion of bicycling in the previous forum.

The last question was about housing. I tie in her a statement that kind of struck me during the closing statements, Sydney Vergis suggested that if people want zero growth, she is not their candidate. What struck me about this statement, is that while some of the candidates opposed adding housing on the periphery of Davis--namely the two Greenwalds and Rob Roy--none of them talk about no new housing.

Sue Greenwald talked about utilizing existing cites and likes the PG&E site and talked about on-campus location at Toomey Field as a bookend counterpart. Cecilia talked about looking to meet our housing needs within our current boundaries but also toward expanding on-campus housing, working with the university to provide housing for students and faculty. For Saylor we cannot have affordability with only 44 units and he seems to disparage Sue Greenwald's plan as interesting but neither cheap nor easy.

Sydney Vergis during her comments talked about having community discussion on the detrimental impact that occurs from limited growth. She wants to ease the no growth demand. However, she does not favor sprawl.

There is a clear difference between the candidates on the issue of housing and growth, that I do not know is accurately or adequately treated through these discussions. Everyone it seems wants or at least talks about a compact urban city, smart growth, and new urbanism. No one is for sprawl. No one is for zero growth. Or so they say. Three candidates supported Covell Village, three opposed it. For me and many others, Covell Village is sprawl, aligned with what we saw at Wildhorse or Mace Ranch. There are competing visions for growth--one of which looks at more housing at a rate of 1% per year and a willingness to consider peripheral projects. The other offers a slower rate, looks toward our existing boundaries to fill our immediate housing needs. In the end the voters must decide which is for them.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Sierra Club and Davis Neighborhood Coalition Candidates Forum

Last week, the candidates for Davis City Council participated in a candidates forum sponsored by both the Sierra Club and the Davis Neighborhood Coalition. For a variety of reasons it has taken an unusually long amount of time to compile the answers from this forum. The group asked very detailed, very tough, and very penetrating questions that required lengthy and thoughtful response. [One note, since I am pulling out what I found interesting, do not assume that a short answer or quotation reflects lack of detail by the candidate on a particular issue. Due to the length of this entry, I have divided the debate into sections so that readers can more easily jump to issues that are of most interest to them].

Measure J

Measure J is a question that will likely be asked at each and every forum. There is a basic alignment on this issue where four of the candidates: Mayor Sue Greenwald, Councilmember Stephen Souza, Rob Roy and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald all basically favor retaining Measure J as it is written.

Within that there are some differences.

Stephen Souza still would like to see some sort of sunset:

"The duration of Measure J should be consistent with the time horizon of the General plan update horizon."

Cecilia has consistently argued for Measure J's permanence:

"I am in favor of keeping Measure J in its current form and making it permanent."

Sue Greenwald discussed why it is not permanent:

"The reason that Measure J is not permanent is that at the time Measure J was written, our City Attorney felt that it would not stand up in court if it outlasted our General Plan. This is the reason that a sunset was written into the measure. I would be interested in obtaining other and more current opinions on this matter."

Both Don Saylor and Sydney Vergis want some sort of modifications to the policy.

For Ms. Vergis:

"I am also supportive of transparent government and feel that the document itself is cumbersome - My suggestion is that we take a look at Central Valley versions of Measure J, that convey the same information, mandates, policies, and objectives- but do it in a more efficient and succinct way. My position is that if we can non-substantively make any of our public documents more readily available for community dialogue, we should do so."

Don Saylor:

"By the time this ordinance sunsets it will have been more than ten years since its drafting. In considering the language of the successor measure, we should thoughtfully review our experience over the past decade and the potential for changing needs of our community. It is possible that the community may want to strengthen the language in some manner."

As the point was raised earlier, the writers of Measure J wrote it in such a way that it would be difficult to find loopholes, that's one of the reason that the document is lengthy (but I would argue not technically complicated). Any attempt to streamline the process would likely result in a weaker document that is more easily circumvented.

Neither Saylor nor Vergis seem to favor making Measure J permanent.

Saylor:

"I think there is wisdom in the initial concept of a sunset of Measure J and in having it its successor tied to the timeline of the next General Plan."

Vergis:

"On making Measure J permanent- we have only had one exercise of Measure J. I am interested in seeing its application more than once before passing deciding that in its current form that it is ready to stand the test of time."

City-County Relations

City and County relations formed the backdrop of another question. Here the candidates discussed past problems with the county and the pass-through agreement. This is an issue where there is more agreement than disagreement reflecting the unity that we saw last year among the council on the issue of county imposed peripheral growth on Davis' city edge.

Vergis:

" there have been concerns that the existing Pass-Thru-Agreement, passing on a portion Redevelopment funds generated by property taxes in South Davis and Downtown that would otherwise be used for various improvement projects, to the County as a way to provide a financial disincentive for the County to develop on the City's periphery) do not provide enough incentive to protect the City sphere from County controlled commercial/residential growth- these concerns were heightened when the County considered looking at land use "Study Areas" within the City sphere of influence.

As the County struggles with its own finances and takes on new, unexpected State-mandated costs (like parole costs)- it is important the City leadership work closely with the County to reach solutions that benefit all."

Souza:

"During the County’s General Plan Update the relationship between the city and the county was strained to say the least. What I liked about this process was that the city’s concerns were heard. What I would not like to repeat is the lack of good communication through both the city/county 2 x 2 and staff to staff about both bodies’ concerns. We could have worked jointly to create constructive solutions for the county’s need to finish its GP update and the city’s need to determine the destiny of what happens to land next to the city’s borders. There is always a need to have engagement through dialogue before action is taken. We have 2 existing means of exchanging information but those meetings have not been taking place on a regular basis."

Saylor:

"A backdrop for City/County relations over the past four years has been the County’s work to update the Yolo County General Plan and the ongoing struggles the County has faced with mandated services and diminishing revenues. In the course of this update, several sites were considered throughout the County for residential, commercial or industrial development. Four of those sites were located within the Davis Planning Area and were identified as “joint study areas”. This situation presents the clearest example of competing underlying interests over the past four years; the County’s interests in revenue generation and reconsideration of some land use planning policies came into conflict with the City’s interest in controlling our own future within the planning area.

After considerable public input and deliberations, these four sites were removed from active consideration. However, it is clear that similar issues of this sort will continue to emerge. It is essential that we strengthen the ongoing communication between the City and County on these and other critical matters."

Sue Greenwald:

"It was distressing to see the county talk changing its general plan to include growth on the borders of Davis. This was a violation of the terms of the City-County pass-through agreement, which is a legally binding document. If the county were approve that general plan change, we could have kept about $50 million dollars of redevelopment agency tax increment and, as I said at the supervisors’ public hearing I politely pointed out that we could sure use $50 million, but it would put us in a very adversarial relationship."

Rob Roy:

"I would rather not see the great periphery scare of 2007 repeated. The county needs to uphold the statutes of the “pass-through agreement.” Essentially we pay the ransom of a couple million dollars in tax revenue so the county needs to let the city of Davis do the planning for urban development and not pressure us with invasion. I do not want to see something like the Mace Ranch debacle of the 1990’s repeated, except this time on Davis’ Northwest quadrant.

The city must work with the county to be sure that our sphere of influence is respected. I am of the camp that believes Davis only needs to go as fast as the demand we have from within. We should not build just because we can. Slow and steady wins the race and the race is to be the best city we can be."

Cecilia:

"I believe that the relationship between City of Davis and Yolo County was unnecessarily strained. Davis and Yolo County have signed the pass-through agreement which transfers over $2 million per year from the city’s redevelopment agency to the county in exchange for the county to leave all land use decisions—particularly development decisions—in the hands of the city. I strongly support the pass-through agreement and the principles behind it. The county did not communicate with the city about their intentions or what was meant by the term “study area.”

Water

An issue that had a great deal more disagreement was the issue of water--water supply and waste water treatment. The Souza, Saylor, and Vergis position is that we need to embark on a waste water treatment facility and the water supply project simultaneously.

Souza:

"The major challenge is meeting the strict regulations set forth in the current 5 year permit without excessive customer rate increases or consumption of natural resources. The water standards have been established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. These standards are established in order to protect birds and aquatic habitat. If we fail to meet these standards with the needed wastewater plant and water source upgrades, we could face fines or regulatory action against our city.

We currently do not meet the standards when it comes to bacteria and discharge into the Willows Slough and the Yolo Bypass. In order to meet these bacteria, salinity and selenium standards, the city needs to upgrade to a tertiary treatment method. This cost is a challenge but the Regional Board does not take the cost into consideration. The main source of our water is intermediate aquifer wells. These wells are old and need to be replaced with deep aquifer wells. At the same time we are proceeding with acquiring surface water rights."

Vergis:

"With regard to water- our trade-offs will be the decision between significant cost versus the risks relating to groundwater capacity, future costs of construction, time (it has taken the City over 15 years to get to this point- how long will it take to get back here again?), and probable increases in permitting costs and complexity."

Saylor:

"Provision of clean water and compliance with waste water discharge requirements are core service issues that have reached a critical point in history on our watch. There are several variables at play in this set of issues. I believe that we must ensure that the water supply for our city is reliable and meets acceptable quality standards. We must ensure that the water we discharge meets minimum standards set by state and federal agencies and does not harm wildlife habitat or endanger downstream human users. These state and federal standards have become more and more stringent based on scientifically valid assessments of the contaminants. We are on a timetable to meet the current standards and would face severe financial penalties (fines calculated on a per day basis for each type of violation) if we fail to advance toward a compliant process.

Water conservation programs are a central component of these efforts and are part of the plans under consideration. Finally, we must work to contain costs for rate payers and be sure that they have complete information about these projects. Davis is not alone in this. Cities throughout the valley are facing similar needs and costs. In fact, the Davis ratepayers currently enjoy some of the lowest rates in the region and will not be out of the range even after these improvements are implemented."

On the other hand, Sue Greenwald, Rob Roy and Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald are also concerned about the costs to the public and the need to embark on both projects simultaneously.

Rob Roy:

"Yes these are interrelated. We need to work on educating Davisites about how to have drought tolerant landscaping. Lawn maintenance uses an excessive amount of water. I think it is going to be expensive to buy all those water rights. We need to treat this problem with preventative steps and not with an expensive cure. There is nothing wrong with bringing back the old “if its yellow let it mellow” policy. I look at a place like Australia that is facing severe water shortages and they are facing a draught after they guzzled up their pristine water sources on bad irrigation and swimming pools. We need to educate our citizen, encourage conservation, and reward those that do so by using a tiered pricing scale for water use.

While some may say that we are put in the tough position that we must act before the costs rise eve more as we at a projected $300 million. We also have to figure out our options. We have to understand that technology may improve so if we go ahead with this project haphazardly will be stuck with a $300 plant that is already an antiquated system.

Our aquifers have never failed so this push for more water supply is the wrong direction. We need to curtail demand. As a councilmember I will not be voting yes on anything that drastically increases water demand."

Sue Greenwald:

"About 20 years ago, the city built a wastewater treatment facility that no longer meets regulatory requirements. Hence, we must build a new wastewater treatment facility – we have no choice. We are, at the same time, planning to proceed with a project to import surface water. If the city of Davis goes forward with both the water and the wastewater projects, the costs are currently estimated to be over $360 million, and climbing. This cost is staggering. It will double, or perhaps triple, our current sewer and water bills. Compare a $1,300 to $2,000 dollar annual increase in our water/sewer bill to a school parcel tax of $200 a year, or a public safety tax of $150 dollars a year, and you can see what I am talking about.

Paying water/sewer fees this high will severely hurt the ability of our schools to pass the taxes that they need, and the city the pass taxes needed to maintain a high level of city services.

First, I fully understand with and sympathize with our public works department’s commitment to undertaking these two staggeringly expensive projects. Their job is the provide us with the best possible sewer and water service. But our job as City Council, and a time of fiscal crisis, is to make hard decisions and prioritize.

I have talked with leading University experts in surface water, groundwater, water conservation reuse and water economics, and a top government official in water rights and wastewater permitting. I posed the question: would it be possible to phase in the two projects, i.e., postponing the surface water project until the wastewater project is paid off. The reaction that I got was that this option would certainly be worth exploring, if the ratepayer is really looking at project costs of over $360 million."

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald:

The City of Davis is facing the unenviable task of having to deal with a water supply issue and a water treatment issue. These two projects will be very costly to ratepayers down the road; therefore, it is incumbent upon the city to study all available options. I have been concerned at the current trajectory of talks and the implication that the city will undergo a water treatment capital improvement at the same time that it develops a new water supply system that diverts water from the Sacramento River to the city of Davis."

Cecilia wants to see:

"The feasibility of deep well aquifers as an interim solution to prevent the simultaneous expenditures to hit ratepayers."

She continues:

"There are serious concerns about the water supply issue. The current quality of water is problematic not so much on the supply end, but on the discharge end. However, there are also problems with the Sacramento River solution. It may not be available at all times, and certainly not in dry months, and perhaps not at all during dry years.

That means that this may be an illusory solution. The amount of water we would have under ideal conditions would be enough to water a city twice the size of Davis, which makes one wonder if the goal here is to accommodate future growth beyond current needs."

Fiscal Issues Involving the City of Davis

There are also considerable differences on the view of the city's fiscal situation.

Sue Greenwald:

"What has happened to the school district could happen to the City. We need more straight talk about the city’s fiscal situation. Davis currently faces a $1.5 million budget deficit, in addition to a $6 million shortfall in identified unmet needs, including over $2 million in annual roadway, bike lane and sidewalk maintenance.

Revenue generating options are important, but are limited -- even cities dominated by freeway malls are facing fiscal crises. The net sales tax revenue between Davis and Vacaville is under $100 per household per year– a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,500 per year or greater increase in our sewer and water bills year if we go forth with the wastewater and surface water projects. And remember, we couldn’t be Vacaville even if we wanted to –the market isn’t there.

We have to start prioritizing our expenditures, and making responsible decisions. And sometimes, we have to learn to say no, even if it costs us a few votes in the next election."

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald:

"I am very concerned about the financial situation of the city of Davis. Contrary to claims that we have balanced the budget, we are running large deficits in terms of the overall budget and also in terms of unmet needs. Sales taxes will not solve all of these problems. Most concerning is the growth in pensions and other funds that are producing a structural deficit.

The city is looking toward a series of new taxes which will coincide with rate hikes in water and new parcel taxes for the schools and library.

The city has rising needs for law enforcement and fire protection, and public safety is a top priority to keep our city safe. The city has made a continuing commitment to keep our parks, and continuing commitment to provide good city services. Something has to give at this point.

We cannot continue on our same trajectory in terms of new spending without finding additional sources for revenue. As a councilmember, I will be very reluctant to continue to ask the tax payers of Davis to pay more in terms of taxation. "

Rob Roy:

"The obvious challenges are the retirement packages of city employees. We are going to have to negotiate a new deal that we can afford so we don’t turn into Vallejo.

Sales tax leakage is not a fatal problem for our city While I want diversification of retail to increase sales tax revenue I still have the Target project on my mind. It is a sad state of affairs for our unique city that a bigbox store was used as the catalyst to declare victory on retail diversification."

Don Saylor argued that if re-elected:

"I will continue to be a voice of fiscal responsibility on the Council, insisting on another tenet of sustainability: living within our means."

Furthermore:

"The primary role of the City Council is to assure that our basic city services are operating effectively. We have a strong appetite for high quality city services and must pay for those services. Over the past four years we have devoted significant energy to making sure our city works and I am heartened by the strong satisfaction levels shown in our recent survey of Davis residents.

Our city’s continued fiscal stability hinges on increased economic vitality consistent with our community identity as the home of a world class research university and a great place to live. As a community, we have made conscious decisions to forego many of the common approaches cities in California have taken to generate revenues. The ongoing challenge we have is to generate sufficient economic activity to sustain our service levels."

Meanwhile Souza argued that:

"We have adopted budgets that begin to address these unfunded unmet needs. Some of the options are: restructuring of departments, economic redevelopment, high tech business recruitment, options for park tax renewal/replacement with Real Estate Transfer Tax, 911 fee, renewal of sales tax as is or with a ¼ cent increase for streets, roads and bike paths, Municipal Service Tax, Public Safety Tax, program cost recovery, and excess fund set aside."

Finally Sydney Vergis:

"Currently, our budget is balanced; which means that under existing assumptions, the City will be able to provide the services this year that it provided last year with expenditures not exceeding revenues. However, the City has a range of unmet needs including: transportation and bike infrastructure upgrades, public safety service staffing and infrastructure needs, required upgrade to our wastewater treatment plant, and probable need for new water infrastructure as conjunctive use is explored."

For her the solution lies here:

"The most 'obvious solutions' are in the form of our upcoming renewals of the Parks Tax and Half Cent Sales Tax; examining all of the City's internal operations and determining how to make use of existing resources more efficiently prior to asking the community for more money; and compliance with recent changes in reporting law- GASB 45 requires that governmental entities include a valuation of unfunded retiree health liabilities at the start of next year- the City has implemented GASB 45 early. Raising our internal awareness of our unfunded liabilities (our obligation to provide payments or benefits – but have no funds for all or part of those obligations) will help us to better plan for future expenditures."

Historic Preservation

The candidates were also asked to create an ordinance relating to historic preservation and creating incentives to avoid demolition by neglect.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald:

"One of the biggest problems we saw during the debate on the Anderson Bank Building, which was ultimately saved from renovation that would have destroyed its historic integrity was the use of deterioration of the building as a reason to justify renovations. This is akin to awarding property owners for allowing their property to degrade. We do not have much in the way of historic buildings left in Davis."

Sue Greenwald:

"With the exception of the tank house, which was not built to the same standards as our other structures, I don’t see evidence of demolition by neglect. The cottages that are in bad shape could all be rehabilitated. I would prefer to see an ordinance forbidding the demolition of specific older structures."

Rob Roy:

"All property owners must maintain their homes. Preserving the charm and architectural culture of Davis is very important to me. I do not want the city to become a gentrified Anywhere USA.

The loss of the Terminal Hotel was a severe blow to the preservation of cultural history in Davis. The building itself containing the mural of the original Davis arches as an attempt to mitigate the loss of the actual arches. The Chen building, while not horribly unappealing with his mix use and second story set backs."

Don Saylor:

"I am reluctant to create an ordinance from whole cloth.

Our community has a number of historically significant structures. We have sound policies in place at the local, state and federal levels for review of the use and adaptive reuse of those structures and we have a very strong process for review of any proposed demolition or relocation of such structures. We also have a very strong code enforcement ordinance in place.

While some general discussion of the phrase “demolition by neglect” has occurred within our community, the Historical Resources Management Commission has not to my knowledge actually defined this or considered alternative approaches. I would look to that Commission and the Planning Commission for advice on whether an additional ordinance would be helpful in this area."

Stephen Souza:

"Balancing historical preservation, property rights and environmentally progressive planning decisions is a complicated act.

Consensus can be reached if our entire community is aware of the trade-offs involved in these difficult decisions.

To issue a blanket code for the preservation of structures that may not be historically relevant nor adhere to the spirit of environmental progressivism would be a mistake. However, there is a place for minimum maintenance in the context of voluntary neighborhood associations, deed restrictions, Historical Resource Commission designated structures and rental units."

Sydney Vergis:

"One of the difficulties with implementing a Historic Minimum Maintenance Code for the City of Davis is that enforcement would be based on complaints as opposed to pro-active City efforts to nurture budding historic communities. One of my overarching interests is in how a local jurisdiction, how the City of Davis, can provide incentives for individuals to move in positive directions- whether it be encouraging residents and businesses in a greener, more energy efficient direction, or in other policies such as historic preservation.

I propose an alternative that strengthens the City's existing policies on historic properties- The Mills Act is legislation that allows cities the power to enter into agreements with property owners of historic buildings. The Mills Act encourages preservation, maintenance, and restoration of designated historical properties through property tax savings. An Agreement has a minimum term of ten years and specifies what preservation, maintenance, and respiration efforts will be made by the property owner; and the County Assessor determines what the property tax relief will be."

parking, street safety and transportation

The next question asked about parking, street safety and transportation. Each candidate had their own focus.

The most interesting debate here was over the issue of street safety on fifth street.

This led to a discussion about re-striping of fifth street.

Sue Greenwald's discussion of the issue triggered an interesting exchange between herself and Don Saylor.

"I would like to see synchronized traffic lights at all intersections on 5th street, with pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian and perhaps bicycle traffic lights. I favored restriping 5th Street for a trial run. I carefully read the consultant’s report, and the consultants determined that the restriping would not slow down East-West traffic."

She went on to say that she had voted for restriping but the measure failed.

Don Saylor then said that he too had voted for restriping but Sue did not remember him doing so. Don Saylor was adament.

That night, I received multiple emails to check on this assertion since it did not gibe with people's recollections from that meeting. Someone sent me the minutes from the meeting and according to the minutes from the meeting in July of 2005, Sue Greenwald proposed restriping fifth street and received no second to her motion.

Decline in bicycling

The candidates were asked as well to address the issue of the decline in bicycling:

Don Saylor:

"I believe that this reduction in the percentage of work commute trips by bicycle is correlated with an increase in the number of work commute trips overall and an increase in the percentage of commute trips involving people driving from Davis to destinations in other cities and people driving from other cities to work in Davis."

Stephen Souza:

"Since the early 1990’s, Davis has had more growth farther away from the core than any other time in our history. At the same time, the percentage of those who both live and work in town has decreased. Many argue that our bike culture, that we hold so dear, has not been successfully passed on to new residents. While that may be a contributing cause, we must also consider the overwhelming success of Unitrans.

According to Geoff Straw, General Manager of ASUCD Unitrans, yearly per capita (of enrolled UCD students) ridership has increased from 58.52 in ‘90/’91 to 141.55 in ‘06/’07. Although students may be riding their bikes less, that does not translate directly into more car trips. We now have a successful transit system in place that has replaced some bike ridership.

However, there is still work to be done to get our residents out of their cars and onto bicycles. We must do a better job of convincing Davisites that it is possible and safe to take care of household and family errands and tasks on a bicycle. Part of this cultural shift begins with the city. The bikeway system in our community is continually being improved (a new bike and pedestrian tunnel under Covell Blvd to Mace Ranch has its Grand Opening on Friday!) There is still much work to be done in the city including double striping a majority of bike lanes around town."

Sydney Vergis:

"Bringing the Bike Back is one of my personal passions... To re-establish biking in Davis, we could focus on these three areas: Educating, Encouraging, and Enabling bike usage."

Her plan looks toward safety, access, and celebration.

Rob Roy:

"The obvious answer to this question is that the Mace Ranch and Wildhorse subdivions are more likely to cater toward “bedroom community” individuals that work outside of Davis. It is a shear mathematics’ problem: if the population expands with a disproportionate amount of people that live in but do not work in Davis then the cited statistic in this question is going to keep decreasing. If this trend keeps going, at one point will we have to change the city’s logo?

Our bicycle culture is following the same trend as our environmentally innovative developments and rejection of nation change, we blazed the trail, rested on our laurels, and now other communities have usurped us. I do enjoy the new Covell pedestrian/bicycle underpass and I already see many Harper Junior Highers using it on days that I work on that campus. I still believe that bikes are treated as an afterthought as to how our roads are designed."

Sue Greenwald:

"As we have grown in a suburban fashion, it is not surprising that we have more auto trips. The further people must travel, the more likely they are to use autos. Manys residents are commuting to work. I believe that we could do a lot more to make calm our traffic and to make street safer for bicycling. I would like to see a safe routes to schools program, and more driver and bicyclist education. We need more bicycle parking and continued investment in our bicycle infrastructure. At the Yolo County Transportation Board, I have been advocating for the Woodland/Davis bike lane for better bicycle connections between Davis and Sacramento. I need to finish the green waste line striping and to enforce it.

In our land use decisions, we should build more houses near our jobs and more jobs near our houses. Currently, I believe we have two good options for achieving this goal. One is to keep the Hunt-Wesson site zoned for high-tech, residential- compatible zoning, as it is in easy biking distance of so much of our housing... The best current site is the PG&E site at 5th and L Street. This large 27 acre parcel could bring a lot of much needed high-density urban housing to downtown in biking distance to campus, without harming the character of the historic sections of downtown."

Cecilia:

"As councilmember the first thing I would do to promote bicycling in the City of Davis would be to make a concerted effort to maintain what we have—bike lanes, bike paths, and greenbelts. These are the pride of this community and a priority to maintain.

As previously mentioned, creating easy access to key locations in town and linking them up will encourage more people to bike rather than drive.

I have a concern about our green waste dumping into bicycle lanes. This creates havoc for cyclists who have to both dodge potential hazards from tree clippings and potential hazards from motor vehicles. Unfortunately the green containerization pilot program drew widespread complaints from citizens in affected areas. Most communities have already gone to a containerization program. I will work with the residents of these affected areas to find a good compromise. The double lined bike lane is a good start, but there is more that we can do and bicycle hazards are not the only reason for containerizing our waste. However, as councilmember, I will never impose things on residents and neighborhoods. People have put their hard earned savings into their homes and we need to respect that...

As councilmember I would work to have additional bike loops added to encourage cycling by having various loops such as the Green Loop (5 miles) and the Red Loop (3 miles) and the Blue Loop (1 mile) added to the existing, approximate 12 mile Davis Bike Loop."

neighborhood shopping

Finally the candidates were asked about neighborhood shopping.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald:

"As a neighbor of the West Lake shopping center, I have experienced first hand the loss of a neighborhood grocery store. For many, Rays and Food Fair were poorly run and small grocery stores with high prices. The owner of this facility allowed the shopping center to degrade and has since tried to use this as an excuse to change the square footage and put in a convenience store rather than a grocery store. Once again, we cannot reward people who allow their properties to degrade and then complain that businesses cannot succeed.

The loss of this store has meant more trips two miles away to Safeway. More car trips. More gas used. More carbon released. From a human perspective it takes a minimum of half an hour to do a simple trip to the store that could have been done in ten minutes before with a brief walk—even when there is only a handful of items needing to be purchased.

As councilmember I would strongly support not only maintaining our neighborhood stores, but encouraging more neighborhood stores as a means by which people can do at least some of their shopping for key items. I believe that grocery stores can succeed in West Davis if they are well-run and fill a niche. I believe the same can occur in other parts of town, such as East Davis and Central Davis."

Sue Greenwald:

"The City has limited options. We can refuse to rezone the land, and hope that the landlord lowers the rent and recruits actively and succeeds in finding a grocer, and we can help, to the extent possible, recruit. I believe that the council should not rezone the current grocery store site unless the West Davis neighborhood decides that this is the right thing to do.

I am interested in listening to ideas that the West Davis neighborhood might have concerning how to bring shopping to the area.

I have tried to be pro-active, but obviously have not had much success...

The profit margin is small for grocery stores, and they have to do a lot of volume to survive. When the city approved so many larger supermarkets, it was clear that it was likely to hurt the peripheral markets. I am looking for good ideas that might lead to a solution."

Rob Roy:

"It is very important that every Davisite should have access to local grocery shopping. Grocery shopping is a task that can be done via bicycle easily if the distance is not too vast. No part of Davis should suffer at the expense of another and it is frustrating to see West Davis loose its grocery store and have their junior high sitting in limbo on the cutting block while everything is shiny and new on the on the side of town. When West Village there is going to be a big demand with a desire for easy access to grocery shopping so it is pertinent that the council help to bring the supply. Trying as best as we can to follow the community written general plan is my policy.

I’m still upset that State Market left its last store in University Mall as it left people living on campus practically far from grocery stores and leaving many to resort to Rite-Aid. Allowing neighborhoods to go without grocery stores is a bad sign for the community orientated and bike friendliness of Davis. While the folks near the Davis Manor shopping center are relatively close to the Nugget or the Co-Op the folks in West Davis are high and dry.

There are issues with current landlord at Westlake and the council should work closely with him to be sure that his property upholds the city’s zoning and contain grocery stores. The city’s governance should not let prime space sit idle. If a rising tide lifts all boats then the businesses sitting next to blighted empty space unfairly sink and this harms the neighborhood, and therefore the community as a whole."

Stephen Souza:

"Under direction from the City Council, City Staff and the Business & Economic Development Commission we should continue to work towards fulfilling the intent of the General Plan’s neighborhood grocery store policy.

More funds should be directed toward a robust market analysis that would help determine exactly what types of stores, and goods sold therein, would be profitable in each location. The determination of realistic lease terms for these spaces should also be considered. That analysis could then be used to lure and convince the right business to begin operations.

The City must also make it uncomfortable for owners to sit on an empty store site and neglect its upkeep. It has recently come to my attention that the owners of Westlake Shopping Plaza filled in their grocery store loading dock with dirt. They may have also violated the City’s Nuisance and Abatement code by neglecting the parking lot and lighting. I have asked staff to look into this matter. I have also expressed to staff in the clearest terms that if violations of our municipal code have occurred, the offenders should be fined the maximum amount until they are in compliance. This process should be standard operating procedure in all neighborhood grocery centers."

Sydney Vergis:

"These centers not only offer us a sense of community and diversity, but also can help us lead greener lifestyles. As energy prices rise due to peak oil, proximity to basic services such as grocery and retail stores will become more and more valuable as a way to reduce our vehicle trips, carbon footprints, and consumption of non-renewable energy sources. We need to ensure that our neighborhood centers and downtown core remain viable and vital.

We need to plan for the future- consumer interests are already shifting away from vehicular travel as a preferred mode of transport- but as a community, we need to ensure that we have the infrastructure to promote and support alternative transportation modes (walking/biking). Neighborhood shopping centers are a vital component to supporting a more environmentally conscientious future.

The City Council can play an important role in fulfilling the intent of the General Plan's neighborhood grocery store policy. The neighborhood shopping center in West Davis is struggling without a grocery store anchor. This is one of my main areas of interest."

Finally Don Saylor:

"Westlake is the site of three failed attempts to operate a small supermarket. Various factors contributed to these failures, including store management, poor location of the center with little street traffic, competition from larger stores in Davis, and customer loyalty to other stores in Davis. At any rate, it is arguable that the market does not support a small supermarket.

That does not mean that a grocery store would not be possible at this location. I agree with many that a store larger than a convenience store and smaller than the failed stores has not been given adequate consideration."

---Doug Paul Davis reporting