Candidate Responses to the Sierra Club Yolano Group Questionnaire for the 2022 Davis City Council Elections in Districts 1 and 4
_____________________________________________
Introduction - The Sierra Club Yolano Group is a local Sierra Club group comprising members in all of Yolo and small parts of Solano and Colusa Counties. We can be contacted at sierraclubyolanogroup@gmail.com.
As has been our custom for over 20 years, the local Sierra Club Yolano Group has prepared candidate questionnaires for some local elections in Yolo County. The questionnaire for the 2022 Davis City Council race asked for candidates' views and opinions on a wide-range of environmental issues of interest to our local membership.
The questionnaire received answers from all 5 candidates in the 2 City Council Districts for which an election is held this November. Listed in alphabetical order by their first name, the candidates are:
District 1 (West Davis): - Bapu Viatla, Dan Carson, and Kelsey Fortune
District 4 (East Davis) - Adam Morrill, Gloria Partida
Three questions were asked in the following general categories to which readers can move directly by clicking on each category.
Part 1 - Land Use and Housing Development – Peripheral Development
Part 2-- Land Use and Housing Development – Downtown Core and Student Housing
Part 3 - Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Part 4 - Transportation Management
Part 6 - Toxics in the Environment and Other Environmental Issues
______________________________________________________
Part 1 - Land Use and Housing Development – Peripheral Development
Question #1 - Measure H – Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus mixed use business park
Did you support or oppose the development of the Davis Innovation and Sustainability Campus mixed use business park in Davis on the June ballot as Measure H and why?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - I supported Measure H on affordable housing grounds. I have served on the Social Services Commission for over three years, and Measure H was one of the best affordable housing proposals the Commission has seen over that time. The developer offered to build 85 units, 74 of which would be built onsite; the total number equals about 18.5% of all units, which is above the 15% required by the City. Few of the proposals reviewed by the SSC over the past few years offered to build affordable units at all, opting instead to pay in-lieu fees or pursue other alternatives. In addition, upon the SSC’s request, the DISC developer added units for very low- and extremely low-income families, which would have been an important precedent for future proposals. My job as a Social Services Commissioner was to evaluate Measure H on its affordable housing component, and by that standard I believe it was a step forward for the City.
There were many good reasons to vote no on H; many people whose opinions I deeply value did so. Affordable housing should not be the only consideration when evaluating proposals, and DISC was flawed in many ways, including its traffic impacts and its effect on prime agricultural land. I also think that Councilmember Carson’s actions were a dangerous precedent. The people overwhelmingly rejected DISC, and I respect their wisdom in doing so. It will not and should not appear again on the ballot.
I believe that infill housing should be our highest development priority. With suitable planning, infill can meet the housing need for our workforce, low-income families, and the unhoused. This approach would mitigate the need to develop on top of some of the world’s finest agricultural soils. Infill housing should be dense, affordable, climate-friendly, and transit-linked. We must also be prepared to build up, especially in and near the downtown core. Building up and building dense in a thoughtful, human-centered manner would reflect the strong environmental ethic of our community.
Dan Carson - I voted for, endorsed, and campaigned for Measure H to provide market-rate and affordable housing and economic development needed to support city services in a location that Yolo LAFCO finds a logical and appropriate location for urban growth. However, the voters have spoken and defeated the measure. After the election, I promptly stated publicly that I accepted their decision in keeping with our democratic process
Kelsey Fortune - I did not support of DISC. This project would have exacerbated our current housing shortage and create thousands of new commuters. While the project is sold as sustainable, its reliance on private vehicles and the lack of housing for thousands of workers leads me to question its carbon footprint. In addition, I do not approve of the use of agricultural land by the developers. There is room for the sustainable business activity that was the big sell of which there was no guarantee within the city limits. It’s past time to look at the underutilized land in town and consider redevelopment based on the current needs of our community.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - I opposed Measure H for several reasons.
-
The General Plan has not been updated and no peripheral development (good or bad) should be considered until it is.
-
The developer was only going to pay for a traffic study, not address the current issue or the worsening traffic had it passed.
-
It was not an environmentally sound project and would only contribute to higher GHG emissions.
-
It did not provide for affordable workforce housing.
-
It would have created an isolated island with minimal connectivity to the rest of the city.
-
It would have permanently destroyed prime farmland while causing all the previously mentioned issues.
Gloria Partida - I supported measure H. I believe that we need a diversified tax base support a resilient economy for when a downturn or other circumstance such as the loss of retail trends, pandemics or unforeseen situations happen. Innovation especially in a town with a world class University makes sense. I also felt that the increase in traffic would have been mitigated with the revenue for our roads. Now any infill we do will not have the advantage of these robust improvements. I also felt the sustainability features as ag land mitigations were excellent.
______________________________________________________
Question #2 - New Proposed Peripheral Housing Projects on Covell and Mace
There are 3 new proposed large housing projects on prime farmland in east Davis for which pre-applications have been submitted to the City - Palomino Place, Shriners, and On-the-Curve. All will require General Plan amendments and Measure J/R/D votes by the citizens.
Do you support these projects and, if so, would you require any changes from their pre-application? If you do not support these projects, why not?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - Of the three proposals that have been submitted thus far for the North/Northwest Davis periphery, I prefer Shriners. On-the-Curve and then Palomino have serious weaknesses.
While the Shriners pre-application doesn’t provide details about the affordable mix or percentage, the expressed intention to build multi-family units within the parameters of the Affordable Housing Ordinance is a good start. I also support the intention to price 10% of the units at 70% of the City’s median home price; however, these units should be deed-restricted to stay affordable. The Shriners proposal does not provide enough detail on mitigation of the loss of high-value agricultural land. In short, the Shriners proposal has some promising elements, but I reserve support or opposition until more specifics come forth.
The On-the-Curve proposal’s focus on multi-family housing is welcome. However, the pre-application offers few details on inclusionary housing, affordable for-sale properties, or open space/agricultural land/habitat impacts. There is promise here in building a denser subdivision than is typical in Davis, but there are also major concerns, including with traffic impacts and poor transit connections.
believe the Palomino Place pre-application in its present form could be greatly improved. There is very little in the way of inclusionary housing or deed-restricted for-sale affordable housing in the plan. While I respect the intention to construct workforce housing, I believe the target income mix could be weighted more heavily towards entry-level buyers. In addition, there is little description of mitigation measures for impacts on open space.
Dan Carson - To my knowledge, an official building application has been submitted to the city for only one of the three projects mentioned in this question and the council has not yet discussed whether the city should process any of them should applications for the additional projects mentioned come our way. I note that the council has not been provided key details that would be needed to assess whether we should proceed with these proposals, such as their potential fiscal implications for the city or how or if they are consistent with the city’s housing goals outlined in our draft Housing Element. Until such information comes forward, there is insufficient information to allow me to determine their merit and what if anything should happen with them.
Kelsey Fortune - In general, I am not a fan of peripheral development. I believe that at the very least, all three of these projects need to be improved.
Palomino Place: Developing this land makes the most sense of the three. It is a small area that is surrounded by current development on three side and is adjacent to a grade separated multiuse path that crosses Covell. I do have a few initial thoughts on improvements I’d like to see. While the housing may be “affordable,” there is no provision of “Affordable” housing. The city should be asking for the halfplexes and cottages to part of the Affordable Ownership Housing Program and increased density that includes at least 30% low-, very low-, and extremely low-income Affordable rental units along Covell where lots 1 though 4 sit. Additionally, there is no need for 48 foot wide streets in a residential neighborhood. If we want reasonable traffic speeds, travel lanes of 8-9 feet are appropriate and put parking on only on one side of the street or none on shorter roads creates more human friendly streets. Also, switch from carports to garages - we need to offer secure parking for bicycles. Finally, all peripheral development must be net zero. This means it needs to include a way to offset ICE vehicle VMT on an annual basis. I could get on board with this development with significant improvements.
Shriners: This is a very large project. While it would help address the housing shortage in town, the city should ask for more. The current plan vague, so it is difficult to comment on. It has 15% Affordable housing which should be higher. The 10% of units offered for sale at 70% of market should instead go to the Affordable Ownership Housing Program. It’s difficult to comment further as there is not much detail yet, but all the above comments apply here as well. Then I would consider it. I would much rather see a development on the west of Wildhorse as it adjacent to a shopping center and again surrounded by existing development on three sides. It is unlikely I would support this project.
On the Curve: Again, this is a very large project which is still very vague in its description. I would be difficult in my mind to justify building this disconnected from the rest of town, but if they are willing to provide 30% Affordable housing and sell additional units through the Affordable Ownership Housing Program, as well as providing significant funds to better public transit, perhaps I could get on board. It is highly unlikely that I would support this project.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill -I oppose any developments that are not currently part of the General Plan, whether they are good for the community or not. We can no longer condone patchwork amendments to the General Plan as it will only contribute to urban sprawl. Additionally, we should be looking to develop areas that have already been incorporated in the General Plan before even considering anything else on the periphery. These areas have already been vetted for how they fit into the existing community.
Gloria Partida - Every project that is to be put forward to the voters should meet all our planning requirements.
______________________________________________________
Question #3 – Measure D (Measure J/R) Modification
Do you support any modifications to the recently renewed (2020) Measure D (formerly Measure J/R)? Why or why not?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - I do not support modifications to Measure D. The people have the right to weigh in on land use decisions that entail annexing land to the city, and I think such direct democratic participation ultimately strengths our civic culture. However, if we fail to build affordable housing during this next RHNA cycle (2023-29), I believe we should consider an exception for 100% affordable developments. I stress that this would be a last resort strategy; I am a supporter of the ballot process and do not want to see its scope narrowed except under emergency circumstances..
Dan Carson - I voted to put a measure to renew Measure J/R/D on the November 2020 ballot with only minor adjustments that were acceptable to its original sponsors. I stand by that decision, and personally voted to pass Measure D at the ballot box, but believe the measure could be improved upon.
The City Council added language to the city’s draft Housing Element that calls for considering clarifying improvements to the existing language in Measure J/R/D that, on paper, exempts affordable housing from its local voting requirements, but has never been used because of conditions that make the use of this provision impractical. I believe compromise language clarifying the original language should be explored.
Kelsey Fortune - I generally feel that direct democracy is biased against disadvantaged populations and does not effectively represent the entire community. Additionally, this measure should not be necessary if the public feels they can trust their representatives. However, I understand the distrust that currently exists. As I am opposed to sprawl, I support the current renewal of this measure as it stands. My hope is that we can build a future where this measure is no longer necessary.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - The only modification that I would support would be to remove the sunset date. History has shown that the public wants input on any development outside the city on agricultural land. If opinions significantly change in the future, the law can always be changed.
Gloria Partida - I believe that the community should have an opportunity to weigh in on the measure as it did when it was first adopted. I believe the current residents should be allowed to examine it and have a voice in it’s future.
______________________________________________________
Part 2 - Land Use and Housing Development – Downtown Core and Student Housing
Question #1 – Downtown Core Redevelopment
Do you support increased height of buildings in the downtown core to allow for more mixed residential/ commercial uses as envisioned in the Downtown Davis Plan? If yes, what is the maximum height in structures that you would support?
What do you think should be the maximum height in transitional areas adjacent to the downtown core (e.g. Trackside)?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - Yes. We must build additional housing in Davis for our workforce and low-income residents. We have two options to build additional housing: either pave over some of the world’s finest agricultural land, removing open space and habitat in the process, or densify within city limits. There are very few remaining vacant lots in town, and so densification means increasing building height. The downtown core is the natural place to start. It is the area best linked to transit alternatives to cars, which mitigates traffic concerns and also creates a pathway for parking minimums to be reduced, easing the cost of development. It’s also the area least likely to face neighborhood resistance to taller buildings; shade and viewshed concerns will be less pronounced.
I would support structures up to 7 stories in the downtown core. I also believe 7 stories in transitional areas adjacent to the downtown core is acceptable if it does not raise major shade and viewshed concerns. Three to five stories will often be more appropriate in these areas.
Dan Carson - Several years ago I requested assignment as a councilmember to the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee (DPAC). In that role I regularly participated in DPAC meetings and, when that panel’s work was completed, voluntarily took on the responsibility to work with city staff to ensure that the plan moved forward for CEQA review as well as to ensure its timely forthcoming consideration by the Planning Commission so it can advance to the City Council for final approval. I will await the outcome of those important processes, which include opportunities for further public comment and input on the plan and analysis of key legal issues, before personally settling on all of its specific details, such as the treatment of transition areas and maximum building heights.
But the concept of increased building heights and density set forth in the pending plan is a logical means for the city is to achieve its goals for additional housing and economic development in a way that minimizes environmental impacts and reduces future pressures for urban sprawl. These potential benefits are detailed in the draft Environmental Impact Report for the downtown plan now circulating for public review.
Kelsey Fortune - I am in support of increased height in the downtown core and transitional areas. I would recommend height restrictions only to ensure that historic areas are preserved in the future. I would require that developments work directly with the neighborhood and believe that this is a better alternative to height limits.
In transitional areas, I believe that a height maximum of two stories higher than the adjacent properties is appropriate. This would only act as a backstop, as I do not believe there are cases where neighborhoods would support anything taller.
In the downtown core, I do not believe that height limits are necessary. People want to live near and in downtown, and if we can see more mixed-use spaces, this will benefit businesses in many ways as well as create much needed housing in an area where people will not need vehicles.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - Yes, infill and densifying are preferable to sprawl. It is also necessary to reduce the rent pressures on established businesses and remove barriers to new businesses due high rents. Growing vertically increases square footage while allowing landlords to charge lower rents. Ideally, this type of development will ultimately reduce car use and GHG emissions. As far as a limit in the core area, I think there at least should be step backs so as to not to create a walled canyon to allow green spaces and trees to still be present. In regard to transition areas, I believe that the needs to be active engagement with the residents and businesses in those areas. I would object to anything over 3 stories in these zones, but ultimately their needs to be buy in from those residents and businesses.
Gloria Partida - I absolutely believe that infill will be important to solve our housing shortage and to create more walkable neighborhoods. Maxium height depends on several things. What our infrastructure can support, what public safety can support, and what density makes sense for an area. With regard to transitional area in the downtown core, I believe it depends where the transition is. That said I am supportive of taller buildings.
______________________________________________________
Question #2 - Large apartment complexes rented by the bed
The Nishi, Sterling, Lincoln40, and University Commons apartment projects have been approved that will primarily offer students rent-by-the-bed in predominantly larger apartments with more bedrooms?
Do you support this developing trend of rent-by-the-bed in student housing in Davis and why or why not?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - I do not think the rent-by-the-bed model is a good answer to student housing pressures. However, we must act to reduce housing insecurity among students. The 2017-18 ASUCD-GSA Housing Affordability and Insecurity Survey found that “almost 18% of students experienced either homelessness or some other form of housing insecurity, such as making only partial rent or utility payments, doubling up in rooms without a lease, moving in with others because of financial problems, or moving more than twice during the year.” This is unacceptable. Students are part of our community and both the University and City have a responsibility to ensure that they have safe, affordable housing. We must engage proactively in pursuing developments that offer alternatives to the rent-by-the-bed model, and that means densifying development in city limits, especially by building up.
Dan Carson - A variety of different kinds of student housing, including housing with different types of rental arrangements, should be encouraged to maximize the choices for students as well as for their families, who often help pay their rents. As the parent of three sons who each graduated from a different UC system school, we found that rent-by-the-bed arrangements offered an advantage to families like ours by minimizing the risk that we might be subject to picking up the additional cost burden for a roommate who defaulted on their rent. A rent-by-the-bed situation ensures a family is responsible for paying the rent only for their own student regardless of whether their roommates pay their share of rental housing costs. We experienced additional costs for a roommate of one of our sons in a traditional shared apartment arrangement who defaulted on his share of the rent. By providing a variety of rental arrangements in student housing, students and families can choose the situation they believe best suits them. The good news is that both local projects within the City of Davis and on the UC Davis campus have begun to provide significant additional rental housing for the student rental market which, when fully built out, will give students and the families that support them more choices in their choice of student rental accommodations.
Kelsey Fortune - I oppose rent-by-the-bed housing, as it allows complexes to charge high prices and excludes a significant portion of the renting population; those with partners and families. In addition, it doesn’t provide affordable housing and cannot help us fulfill RHNA affordable housing requirements.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - I do not support this trend as it limits the housing primarily to students and it is a poor use of space. I would rather see rent by the bed designed as more of a cooperative type of living with shared common areas. This would enable more people to live in the same space and reduce rental costs as a result.
Gloria Partida - Rent by the bed on it’s own makes sense for students. Having had students and roommates myself, the dynamic nature of this type of renter needs the flexability so as not to burden individual students with a roommate that leave them with unpaid rent and create stress and instability. The trend of larger apartments with more bedrooms has fulfilled a need and currently going forward I do not think we should focus on larger apartments. Although I know that combined families sometimes find these larger units convenient for their purposes as well.
______________________________________________________
Question #3 – Amount of UCD On-Campus Housing
UCD has committed to building new on-campus housing to meet the UC system-wide goal of housing 50% of students on campus. But UCD will not meet this goal in the foreseeable near future.
What should the City do, if anything, about this proposed shortfall in on-campus housing build-out by UCD?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - UCD has the primary responsibility of building housing for students. Until very recently, the City of Davis has largely had an antagonistic relationship with UCD on housing issues. I believe this has hindered our ability to obtain commitments from UCD on the construction of on-campus housing. I think the City Council should strive to hold monthly high-level meetings—ideally with the Chancellor—to build trust and create a unified housing strategy. Again, I see students as a vital part of our community, and I want to work with UCD to ensure that every student has a safe, affordable place to live in Davis.
Dan Carson - Under a binding and enforceable agreement achieved in 2018 by UC Davis and the City of Davis (as well as Yolo County) about 6,200 new student beds (almost all of them on campus) are being built and the share of students living on campus is growing dramatically. The university has made a lot of progress in actually delivering these units, such as 3,000 students beds that opened in West Village last fall, and at this rate will meet the obligations it made in the agreement in the next few years. The city, UC Davis, and the county have a “2 by 2 by 2” process involving representatives of these three jurisdictions as a safeguard to ensure that the agreement continues to be implemented in all respects.
A more important current concern I believe relates to the shortfall of affordable student housing on campus. Billions of dollars in state funding has been budgeted for affordable housing for California’s institutions of higher learning, including a share allocated to the UC system. My council colleagues and I added language to our draft Housing Element to encourage UC Davis to apply for such funding and provide more affordable housing for students in our community who need it.
Kelsey Fortune - I believe that the MOU between the city and university an achievement to celebrate and that the UC system goal should be used by the city to encourage further commitments from the university. I also believe that the university’s current plan relies too heavily on turning single rooms into doubles and doubles into triples and creating automobile centric sprawl to the west of the core of campus.
I would like to see the city specifically focus on helping the university connect with developers interested specifically in developing affordable housing and developments centered around active and public transportation.
As interdependent entities, the city and the university should communicate and collaborate. This is a relationship I believe needs to be much stronger. I’d like to see the university act faster around housing, and I hope that the city can help encourage this by using the UC system goal and by working to accommodate more housing as well.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - The city needs to still pressure the UC Davis through all means possible to house more students. There needs to be a formal cooperative long-range plan between the city and university for housing of students. Additionally, the city needs to negotiate for impact fees from the university to cover the costs associated with services primarily utilized by students and the impacts on city infrastructure.
Gloria Partida - The MOU worked out with UCD has gone a long way to open a relationship that makes it easer to negotiate on variety of issues. The Healthy Davis Together program was a prime example of this. Continue check ins with UCD to ensure they are meeting the agreed upon goals is important. Asking for an accelerated goal is reasonable if we find that housing continues to be impacted.
______________________________________________________
Part 3 - Energy Use and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Question #1 - Greenhouse Gas Mitigation for New Development
Davis has declared a Climate Emergency and mandated carbon neutrality by 2040. Often 70% or more of a new project's GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions are due to transportation-related impacts which are not addressed in increasingly stringent building standards. Some have proposed that developers pay for mitigation of these GHGs because they cause public harm just as sellers of tobacco pay a tax for their associated public harm.
Do you support in principal a GHG mitigation fee on new developments in Davis and why or why not? If yes, do you have any ideas how such a fee might be assessed or used by the City?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - I’m open, in principle, to a GHG mitigation fee. Regulation to internalize the costs of greenhouse gas emissions is necessary. The atmosphere is a public good, and emissions degrade the quality of that good. Developers should bear some of the cost of mitigation, for example by paying into a climate resilience fund. Such a fund would be earmarked for activities included in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP).
The fee structure of such payments should be determined by the amount of embodied carbon in the buildings, the degree to which the development is linked to fossil fuel-free transit options, and how the imposition of such a fee affects the construction of necessary housing, especially workforce and low-income housing.
I believe that all new development in Davis should strive to be climate-friendly and transit-linked. Increased housing does not have to mean increased emissions. In fact, by densifying our population and increasing the demand for public transit options, new housing can reduce per-capita emissions.
Dan Carson - In March 2019 I joined with my council colleague Lucas Frerichs and an ad hoc group of interested climate activists in co-authoring the resolution declaring a climate emergency and requiring an update to our 12-year-old climate action plan accelerate our shift to carbon neutrality for the City of Davis by ten years to the year 2040. The Davis City Council recently approved a draft set of actions for the update to its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). I joined in voting for this important step to advance our climate plan on May 24, 2022. Action A-6 of that draft plan calls for the establishment of a carbon mitigation fund to collect voluntary and-or mandatory payments to mitigate local emissions activities, with collected funds used to support a range of local climate change-related projects. The inclusion of this action in the draft CAAP means that it will now be subject to CEQA review and the preparation of a more detailed implementation plan by city staff in consultation with a panel of experts and others.
I called for and my council colleagues agree to council action to direct staff and the city’s consultant to identify specific GHG emissions targets for 2030 and 2040 in the CAAP update, and, whenever feasible, score the GHG reduction benefit of specific proposed climate actions. In other words, I worked to ensure that the final CAAP included meaningful accountability measures so that council would know if the plan it ultimately adopted met the city’s GHG reduction targets. That scoring has now occurred, giving city policymakers critical information to write a plan that is meaningful and effective.
Kelsey Fortune - I support limiting emissions from new development through fees. Using a monetary incentive linked to outcomes allows developers flexibility in how they choose to meet the standards we set.
First, I believe these fees should be assessed annually, not one time. Emissions from transportation are not a one-time cost, they are ongoing.
My initial plan to implement a tax on transportation emissions would be to charge a fee per parking spot built for new and existing developments. This would be simple to measure and assess, which is not always the case with transportation related emissions fees. In addition, this would provide ongoing incentive for land use innovation and funding to the City for mitigation and alternative infrastructure.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - I support mitigation fees on new developments assuming that they are not carbon neutral. Fees could be levied via the Assessment District process, that way it is not a one-time payment but an ongoing source of revenue to be used to help mitigate the GHGs that result from the development. However, there should be an emphasis in the design process of reducing GHGs to the lowest possible amount. Another possible option, in addition to minimizing GHGs, would be to allow the developer invest in carbon capture either within Davis or the county to the extent that the investment would offset the GHGs from the development.
Gloria Partida - I support exploring any ideas that will get us to our goal. I am cautious of how these measures will impact vulnerable populations and populations with less means. Understanding how such a fee can be used to be most impactfull is very important.
______________________________________________________
Question #2 - Commercial / Multi-Family Solar PV Ordinance
There currently is a mandatory solar PV requirement for new single-family home and low-rise apartment construction in Davis. However, there are currently no similar requirements for new multi-family housing projects greater than 3 stories or for commercial construction.
Do you support a proposed ordinance mandating solar photovoltaic systems on new multi-family housing, or commercial construction in Davis if not otherwise planned for a net-zero energy use?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - I support a solar or net-zero requirement for all new commercial construction. I would support the same requirement for multi-family housing provided that an independent fiscal analysis does not suggest that this requirement impedes the construction of low-income housing. I would also argue that the City should offer photovoltaic subsidies for multi-family developments exceeding the inclusionary requirement by at least 5%, i.e., that agree to a 20% inclusionary percentage. This would incentivize both the transition to photovoltaics and the construction of affordable units.
Dan Carson - The Davis City Council has adopted a so-called “reach ordinance” that goes beyond state building code requirements to provide strong incentives for solar in commercial and multi-family housing. These efforts would be taken significantly further under the draft CAAP now under CEQA review which I have voted as a council member to approve on May 24, 2022. For example, draft action A-1 of our draft CAAP update envisions a broad effort to transition to high efficiency, zero carbon homes and buildings. Draft Action A-4 requires all-electric for new construction, and specifically calls for continuing to update the city’s residential and nonresidential reach codes to require all-electric new construction. I expect that such requirements will apply to multi-family housing. Notably, council has already reached agreement in development agreements to impose such higher all-electric standards that go beyond the requirements of the reach code for particular projects such as the recent reauthorization of Chiles Ranch. I supported and advocated for this change as a councilmember.
Kelsey Fortune - I support the thought behind a solar mandate. However, as an economist, I generally disagree with command-and-control policies like a solar mandate. Mandates create incentive structures that favor specific technologies, in this case PV, which is not a solution alone. As we increase PV without sufficient storage to cover the afternoon ramp, we require additional combined cycle natural gas plants or vast increases in storage to handle the rapid change in net demand.
I would prefer a requirement for new development to meet specific energy and environmental standards with penalty fees for noncompliance. I believe that a net zero standard is appropriate but believe that people should be able to choose how they get there.
In addition to requirements for new construction, it is increasingly important to incentivize existing structures to retrofit and switch to fully renewable electric energy.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - If feasible (taking into consideration shading and roof orientation), yes PV should be required, unless it is planned for zero-net use. Emphasis should be placed on installing PV in new parking lots, which will also reduce the urban heat island effect. Additionally, installation on commercial buildings should be a priority as most power used during the working hours of the day when the solar energy is available. However, PV is not the entire solution as we still lack an ability to store that energy for later use. So, more emphasis needs to be placed on net-zero designs with performance-based standards.
Gloria Partida - Again I support exploring all efforts. Our future definitely should include PV on all buildings.
______________________________________________________
Question #3 – Other Energy Conservation Measures
What additional steps could be taken by the City, its businesses, and residents that you believe would be most effective in reducing overall energy use and GHG emissions in Davis to meet our climate action and adaptation goals?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - Transportation accounts for 74% of Yolo County’s greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon neutrality by 2040 is not attainable without a wholesale re-imagining of transport, especially with respect to public transit and micro-mobility.
The City can bolster public transit by: utilizing more roadway capacity in Davis for public transit; working to expand bus routes and frequency, especially to shopping centers and other common destinations; creating express buses for commuting between cities in Yolo County; and improving coordination between the various transit providers (Unitrans, Yolobus, Amtrak, shuttle services) to build a highly cohesive countywide network. All public transit vehicles should operate on alternative fuels, and the City can model this change by converting our municipal vehicle fleet as rapidly as possible.
The range of micro-mobility options has expanded in recent years—bicycles, electric bikes, scooters, trailers, and pedi-cabs are all important parts of a clean transit system. The City of Davis should incentivize the use or purchase of these options; for example, a public charging infrastructure for electric bikes and scooters would support the expansion of a rental program. These policies should be implemented in concert with parking and congestion pricing in the downtown core to disincentivize the use of fossil fuel vehicles. All of these reforms must include mechanisms to subsidize low-income residents.
Building energy is another major source of emissions. New buildings and buildings re-entering the sales market should be fully electrified, with appropriate subsidies to assist in conversion, especially for multi-family and low-income developments.
Dan Carson - As discussed above, I voted on May 24, 2022 to approve the draft CAAP actions referenced above. The actions were developed based on the submittal of more than 900 ideas to the city during an extraordinarily successful public outreach effort. Among the promising approaches referenced in the draft plan that I supported were proposals to encourage use of carbon-embedded concrete in construction, update the city’s EV charging plan to accommodate the expected rapid growth in EV vehicles, switch the city to an all-electric fleet, and transition existing homes to heat pumps and away from fossil fuels.
Kelsey Fortune - The most important thing we can do as individuals is limit the amount we drive.
As a city, we need encourage, solicit, and approve development that allows people to live near where the work and play to limit the need for vehicles. Davis is uniquely suited for this type of planning as we already have robust bicycling culture and infrastructure. The city also needs to create incentives for businesses to encourage the use of active and public transit by employees and customers
Additionally, implementing pricing for having a vehicle in multifamily units and street permits would reduce VMT through decreased vehicle ownership while still allowing people to choose vehicle ownership if they deem it
These are only a few ideas that come from my personal experience living in Davis. The most important thing that the City Council can do is create a climate commission to collect ideas from our intelligent and involved citizens, work collaboratively with staff, council, local and regional partners, and push the city forward in an attempt to exceed our goals.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - The city needs to lead by example and take concrete steps to reduce its GHGs emissions before demanding businesses and the public do so.
The city should be installing PV systems on all city property where it is feasible. Most city operations use power during the day, so if the city had a robust deployment of PV systems throughout its facilities, it could offset much of its energy use. Additionally, many of the city’s building are old and energy inefficient. Investments need to be made to retrofit or replace structures that are a continuous drain on the city’s energy use. Also, the city should electrify the majority of its fleet. Most city vehicles are not used continuously and thus could easily be charged through the PV systems as previously mentioned.
Gloria Partida - Most of our GHG come from transportation. Making it easy for people to move to electrified transportation and public electrified transportation will be important. Supporting conversion of residential and business heating to electric would help. Supporting jobs and housing in Davis so that residents do not have to travel out of town is equally important.
______________________________________________________
Part 4 - Transportation Management
Question #1 - Bicycle Use
Davis prides itself on being a bicycle-oriented city with miles of bike lanes and paths throughout the community to facilitate bike use as an alternative form of transportation. Yet, the bicycle mode-share in Davis has dropped in recent years.
What would you propose to make the bicycle a more viable and safe transportation mode in Davis?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - I believe that we should consider measures to disincentivize the use of fossil fuel vehicles, particularly in the downtown core and adjacent areas. Specifically, working in close consultation with downtown businesses and residents, we should explore charging for curb parking in the core and reduce the parking requirement minimums for new development (while assuring that such developments have adequate transit connections). The curb parking funds could be used to create the infrastructure for a range of micro-mobility options, including rental bicycle depots and pedi-cabs.
In addition, 5% of major street stretches lack bike lanes. 95% coverage is excellent, but we should prioritize completing our bike lane network on major streets.
Dan Carson - Our City Council is taking significant steps that I have personally supported to improve bicycle (and pedestrian) safety in Davis and encourage its use. The city very recently completed a grant project to link Olive Drive via a freeway overcrossing to South Davis; is preparing to build a I-80/Richards improvement project that contains a dual-track pedestrian and bicycle crossing of I-80 that will greatly improve bicycle safety; and is developing a potential project to link Olive Drive to the Amtrak station for bicyclists and pedestrians via a railroad undercrossing.
In addition, I have successfully advocated in behalf of an addition of $250,000 to the city budget allocating funding to design a new roundabout at Arlington and Russell Boulevard proposed in the Reimagine Russell plan co-sponsored by the City of Davis, the UC Davis campus, and Yolo County. The idea is to formulate a “shovel-ready” project for which we could seek Active Transportation Program or similar state or federal grant funding. The roundabout would help resolve conflicts in this heavily used corridor among bicyclists, pedestrians, mass transit riders, and motorists that discourage alternative forms of transportation and pose a serious risk to traffic safety. It would without question make bicycling a more viable and safe transportation choice in West Davis, and encourage greater use of this transportation mode.
Kelsey Fortune - When considering funding for road and path improvements, bicycle infrastructure should come first. As I mentioned in the first question, I believe that financial incentives to discourage private vehicle infrastructure and private vehicle ownership is integral. Finally, building dense housing near places of work and play further encourages cycling over private vehicles.
Second, we must encourage the uncoupling of car parking from rent at apartment complexes and institute a parking lot excise tax. This is a simple way to generate income to assist public and active transportation incentives and infrastructure.
We need a robust plan to attack alternative transportation which should have its own funding. The city needs to put money where their mouth is.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - We need to first repair and rebuild the bicycle infrastructure that we currently have and which are crumbling from years of neglect and poor planning. Additionally, we need better traffic enforcement in the city. There are too many people speeding and running red lights and stop signs. If parents fear for their children’s safety due to dangerous drivers, then they won’t let them bike to school or elsewhere. We also need to consider lighting issue
Gloria Partida - Repairing our bike lanes is important. Our polar bear pedal program is award winning and has made our young people continued future bike riders supporting our schools bike infrastructure will go a long way. Ebikes will also increase the number of people that leave their cars at home. Finding ways to give incentives for this would be great. This could be a conversation with Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District.
______________________________________________________
Question #2 - Downtown Parking Structure
Do you support the construction of a new automobile parking structure near or in the downtown core and why or why not?
If yes, where would you like to see it located, how large should it be, and how should it be paid for?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - I do not. Available space in our downtown core is precious, and I don’t believe it should be used to facilitate the use of fossil fuel vehicles. The only scenario in which I would support such a structure is if 1) it replaced and consolidated other parking in the downtown, freeing up lots for dense infill housing; and 2) was built underground with mixed-use developments or public space on top of it. In general, however, I believe we should be moving towards a downtown core that’s built for pedestrians and bicyclists (with appropriate allowances for public transit, first responders, and those with mobility restrictions).
Dan Carson - I do not support such a proposal at this time for several reasons. First, our draft Downtown Specific Plan proposes that any such proposal be deferred until other transportation strategies that could reduce reliance on automobile use in our downtown, have been tested. Second, public funding is not available to build such an expensive project. Third, an existing parking lot near the Regency movie theater complex at Fourth and G often has ample parking spots available on busy weekend periods that is going unused. For all of these reasons the time is not right for such a project, and it may never pan out. The downtown plan proposes that such a project put set aside until other approaches to parking management, and diversion of cars from our downtown, have been tested. I agree with that approach.
Kelsey Fortune - I am not in support of allocating additional prime real estate to vehicles. Downtown businesses pay high rent, and yet we continue to allocate space to vehicles for free. Increased parking will only encourage people further to drive to downtown rather than using alternative transportation.
The only situation in which I would support a new parking structure is if it is paired with the removal of private vehicles and parking from some downtown streets to provide more space for businesses, cyclists, and pedestrians.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - I do support the construction of a new parking structure. While it should be the goal to get as many people to bike to downtown, the reality is that many people will not and if there is not enough convenient parking available, it is the local businesses (and tax revenue) that will suffer. It should be built on top of the current Amtrak parking lot. This is an ideal location as it serves as a multi-modal transit hub. It is frequently full on week days due to Amtrak commuters and as a result, people might be discouraged from taking Amtrak if they are unable to park at the station. Additionally, this location is close to many popular dining establishments in downtown and would help to increase nighttime visitors to the downtown. I would look to SACOG and Amtrak for initial funding and also look into issuing bonds which would be paid for by charging for parking and e-vehicle charging..
Gloria Partida - No I think we should encourage people to bike or use public transportation to go down town.
______________________________________________________
Question #3 – Downtown Parking Meters
Do you support the addition of parking meters on downtown streets or in downtown city-owned public parking lots or parking structures and why or why not?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - I do support a fair parking price policy. I believe it would incentivize individuals to use fossil fuel-free transport, create appropriate pressure for the City to invest in public transit and micro-mobility options (bike shares, electric bikes, pedi-cabs), and make our downtown a more human-centered environment.
I recognize that some downtown businesses and residents may be hesitant to lose free parking. We must conduct an impartial analysis of the economic impacts of a switch to paid parking, and engage in a collaborative process with our business community to design a plan that revitalizes our downtown core.
Dan Carson - I did support a compromise approach to the issue pre-COVID that would have expanded paid parking in certain downtown city parking lots. However that project was appropriately put on hold as the full impact of the pandemic on our downtown businesses became apparent and parking became a non-issue. Downtown business traffic still has not returned to its peak pre-COVID conditions.
The draft Downtown Specific Plan calls for the integration of financial incentives, such as paid parking, to make our downtown a less auto-intensive environment. While the details would need to be worked out carefully – for example, by ensuring that elderly and disabled persons have access to appropriate parking locations -- that seems to me to be a sensible approach.
Kelsey Fortune - I believe that implementing a price on parking is a great solution to discourage driving and create a new funding stream for the city. However, it is politically unpopular and not my first choice to reduce congestion and VMT.
As mentioned earlier, I would first discourage vehicle ownership through a parking space fee for multifamily and commercial complexes, which I believe would have a similar impact on parking in the downtown core as meters and also provide a funding stream for the city.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - Yes, I support paid parking within the downtown core and in city-owned lots and structures. It is an untapped revenue stream that can be used to help fund efforts within the city to improve our environmental footprint. Additionally, it will also encourage those who can bike to downtown to bike instead of drive. My only caveat would be that people with accessibility issues would be accommodated somehow with no or reduced cost parking as in some cases they have no other option but to drive.
Gloria Partida - Yes I think parking meter are good for management of cars downtown.
______________________________________________________
Part 5 - Toxics in the Environment and Other Environmental Issues
Question #1 - Wood Smoke
Small particulate pollution is the leading cause of respiratory disease in the Central Valley. Approximately 50% of winter ambient air particulate pollution is related to residential wood burning and a number of Davis residents have complained of nearest-neighbor wood smoke pollution causing respiratory distress. Davis has implemented a wood smoke ordinance that allows complaints to be filed against wood burning residents if they are producing visible smoke from a non-EPA approved wood burning device. However, the police department and code enforcement) will not respond to complaints during nighttime hours when almost all wood-burning occurs because they do not have enforcement tools or available personnel.
Why or why not do you support this ordinance, and what changes, if any, would you support to it including any enforcement mechanisms?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - I support the wood smoke ordinance. Recent fire seasons have increased public awareness of the dangers of air particulate pollution, especially for children, the elderly, those with respiratory ailments, and those with heart disease. It’s reasonable to see wood burning as a luxury for families in Davis, not a way to meet basic heating needs. This luxury comes at a cost to public health, and Davis residents have the right to request enforcement.
Currently, enforcement consists of a warning on first violation, a $100 fine on 2nd violation, a $200 fine for a 3rd violation, then $500 fines for subsequent violations. I agree with keeping the first violation at a warning, but then immediately ramping up to $500 fines. There is no reason why a resident should be knowingly violating the law and endangering the health of others without penalty.
I respect the capacity constraints that prevent nighttime code enforcement. I suggest that all reported nighttime violations should be logged and a code enforcement officer dispatched the following day to investigate the report. If multiple neighbors corroborate the previous night’s violation, then the penalty should be imposed (after an initial warning).
Dan Carson - Education of city residents of the potential harm that wood smoke can cause others is a potentially useful tool that is available to our city to reduce the problem. We should also continue to pursue funding and subsidies via our local air resources management board to incentive residents to remove or replace conventional fireplaces with substitute devices that do not produce wood smoke. As a member of the city’s legislative subcommittee, I intend to continue to look for such funding opportunities.
Kelsey Fortune - First, I would like to address unenforced ordinances. We need to either enforce these or create an alternative structure which will be enforceable. Having any ordinances that are not enforced undermines the legitimacy of governing bodies.
Particulates are hazardous, and we should limit them unless necessary. Wood smoke and leaf blowers are common causes of elevated levels of PM2.5, PM10, and well as SOx and NOx. My initial thought when it comes to these activities is to institute a permitting process that comes with an appropriate fee to those who feel these are necessary for them. This would include limited the time when use is allowed. Large fines would be incurred by those who do not obtain a permit, and by those emitting these pollutants outside the use times. These would always be strictly enforced.
Pay-to-play permitting will help fund the enforcement of these policies.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - I support the idea of the ordinance, but like all ordinances, for them to be effective they must be enforced. It is unrealistic for the police department to respond to these types of calls on a regular basis. Greater public outreach would be a good first step, especially when “no burn days” are issued by the Air District. I would also suggest that enforcement should focus on those particular no burn days where atmospheric conditions concentrate rather than disperse particulates. Enforcement should be similar to other code enforcement, however it would require an employee to be working after normal business hours to handle these types of calls and that is not the role of police officers.
Gloria Partida - Enforcement is a challenge. We already have other challenges with workload in our police department. Enforcement of wood smoke is not the best use of that resource. I do believe that having woodburning fireplaces phased out should be encouraged and supported with incentives and ordinances.
_____________________________________________________
Question #2 - Pesticide Use Reduction
Several years ago Davis banned the use of pollinator-killing neonicotinoid class of pesticides and phased out the use of the herbicide glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Round-up product). However, the City Council declined to require that only certified organic pesticides be used in the City’s Parks and Open Spaces as recommended by the Natural Resources Commission.
Do you support restricting pesticide use on City properties to only those certified as “organic” and why or why not? If not, do you favor restrictions on where non-organic pesticides or herbicides may be used?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - Pollinator-killing pesticides should not be used. Effective organic pesticides exist to manage our common insect pests, and biocontrol methods are also effective.
Glyphosate is a more difficult issue. The EPA has continued to find that glyphosate poses no significant risks to human or pet health (https://www.fda.gov/food/pesticides/questions-and-answers-glyphosate). Although one international agency has found that glyphosate may be a carcinogen, others—including the UN agencies tasked with food safety and public health—have reached the opposite conclusion.
The precautionary principle applies in situations like this. If a compound may possibly be a carcinogen, it’s wise to seek effective alternatives, i.e., certified organic herbicides. The first step is thus to consult with weed scientists about which organic herbicides would be effective in managing the specific weeds that exist in the City’s parks and open spaces. The City, including the Parks and Community Services Department, continues to be understaffed, and we cannot reasonably resort to mechanical weed management. In certain parcels, uncontrolled weeds represent a fire hazard.
If no effective organic herbicides exist for our context, we should reconsider the glyphosate question. Instead of prioritizing the findings of just one agency, we should survey the entire body of evidence, prioritizing the guidance of the EPA and UN agencies.
Dan Carson - I supported the ban on Round-Up. I welcome the receipt of more information from the Sierra Club and NRC on what is described as “certified organic pesticides” and how the implementation of such a change would affect management of city parks and recreation and open space lands whose use of is great benefit to the public.
As council has discussed in the past, I believe that some pre-emergent pesticides are needed in areas like road medians and remote infrastructure locations like stormwater drains because of the extraordinary and costly emergence of weed problems our city is facing due in part to weather and other factors. However, I do not favor their use in areas such as public parks that would pose a potential risk for children and pets and any use should occur in keeping with a well thought-out integrated pest management approach Part of the solution here is for the city to try again to overcome difficulties it has experienced in hiring the experts needed to fully implement the IMP policies it adopted in 2017. Several efforts to hire such experts have failed in recent years but we must try again. In the interim, city staff is implementing IMP through collaborative efforts by multiple staff members.
Kelsey Fortune - One of the main purposes of open spaces and parks is to be a safe place for native plants and animals, as well as for the public. The City Council needs to listen to the community and figure out what it takes to make the public’s recommendations work financially. The public’s recommendations should be the starting point for City Council decisions. The NRC has more collective knowledge on this than the Council, and I would suggest we reconsider this matter as soon as possible.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - I oppose the use of pesticides as a first line tool. The city funded an Integrated Pest Management position, but has not yet filled it after several years. The city needs someone who is knowledgeable of IPM best practices to manage this program. The city should absolutely ban any pesticide that has been documented to have serious detrimental effects on non-target species and water quality. However, I do not support utilizing only “organic” labelled pesticides. What I am for is a truly integrated pest management approach. This will deliver the best outcome and minimize both environmental and monetary costs.
Gloria Partida - I support pesticide reduction and use of organic pestisides. I also would ask that we not inadvertently cause potential harm to our tree canopy if there is not an effective way to manage a particular pest. We have seen the effect of weeds since the ending of roundup with out the proper support needed to maintain our parks. This creates more weeds in peoples yards who then use roundup. All effects should be thoroughly thought through.
______________________________________________________
Question #3 – Resiliency
Davis will face threats to infrastructure, operations, and quality of life as climate change impacts become more apparent including extreme heat events and drought, or excessive precipitation.
What would be your strategy for making Davis more resilient in the face of coming issues related to climate change?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - Our planet is in a state of climate emergency, and we can no longer take half-hearted measures. The City of Davis is currently formulating an ambitious Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040. We must prioritize the ideas in the plan that specifically address the question of resilience.
For example, the ongoing drought has illustrated the importance of water conservation. The City can offer utility bill rebates and technical assistance to property owners willing to convert lawns to drought-tolerant landscapes, upgrade to drip irrigation systems, install smart controllers and rain barrels, and implement graywater systems. Incentivizing new developments to build rainwater catchment systems to increase infiltration and minimize runoff would also impactful.
In addition, micro-grids distributed throughout the City can increase our local renewable energy generation capacity while maintaining resilience in the face of power grid failure.
We can use green spaces to reduce heat island effects. As climate change progresses, average temperatures will increase. The effect will be exacerbated in urban areas, where building materials and roads trap heat. Davis can lean into its long tradition of protecting open space, parks, and urban forests to create cool green pockets across the City.
Many of the ideas in the CAAP will require funding support. A Climate Resilience Fund, modeled on the Housing Trust Fund and financed by modest carbon taxes linked to home and car fossil fuel use—with exemptions for low-income families—would ensure that the CAAP becomes a concrete reality, not just an aspirational vision.
Dan Carson - One important climate adaptation proposal that surfaced during our CAAP outreach process, and that is reflected in our draft CAAP update for which I voted on council, is to establish a resiliency hub at a city facility, presumably powered by solar and backed up by battery storage, as a place to assist persons in our community who need assistance in extreme heat events, power cutoffs due to wildfires, and other disruptive events. A regional study, in which the City of Davis was a partner, specifically predicts that extreme heat events are going to become much more frequent in the coming decades. Grant funding may be available for planning and implementing such community projects, so the council directed our staff to begin to pursue such funding options. I supported this council action.
Kelsey Fortune - The most important thing we can do is layout our responses to various increasingly likely events. In situations of heat and drought, there are many policies that can be set up to automatically kick in to reduce our use of electricity and water. We should create these proactively, so we don’t have to waste time when these situations are upon us.
As a city, we can also invest in energy storage as well as EV2Grid infrastructure to utilize the incredible amount of electricity storage that already exists in Davis in the form of electric vehicles.
In addition, we must create resilience centers across the city, centers that can disconnect from the grid and run on their own solar and storage systems. We should begin with grocery stores so that we do not see the food waste we have seen with previous blackouts. I would suggest we then work with our local faith communities to outfit places of worship as resilience centers.
I would begin by formalizing a climate commission. We need to act fast on this.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - First, the city needs to take a proactive approach to repairing and rehabilitating our current infrastructure. Much of our infrastructure is crumbling and failing from years of neglect and poor planning. Additionally, we need to investigate the feasibility of innovative approaches to managing our stormwater to prevent flooding. Also, we need to do what we can to reduce our urban heat island impacts. We need more shaded parking lots (ideally with a combination of PV and trees). We also need to properly manage our urban forest so that it continues to provide valuable shade and carbon uptake. We also need to make sure that we are planting trees that are resilient and can withstand climate change impacts. The city also needs to look into how it might be able to utilize grey water, particularly in summer months when our surface water allotment is less and we have to rely more on our impacted groundwater.
Gloria Partida - We must budget for warming and cooling centers and require new structures to be resilient. We should partner with the state and county to help our residents with weatherization of their homes. We should make sure our workers that must work outside are properly supported and trained in heat related tactics.
______________________________________________________
Question #4 – Other Environmental Related Issues
What are other environmental or climate change-related issues facing Davis and how would you propose the City address these issues?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - We must transition to an entirely fossil fuel-free economy. Clean power supply is an important part of this transition.
In 2018, the communities of Yolo County launched Valley Clean Energy (VCE), our local non-profit electricity provider that makes renewable energy available to the grid and delivers it to consumers. A significant percentage of VCE’s energy is already renewable and carbon-free, but the City can take even more powerful steps towards total decarbonization by building community solar arrays and batteries, as well as offering incentives to improve energy efficiency and enhance electrification in residential and commercial buildings.
Dan Carson - In my roles as a board member and chair of Valley Clean Energy (VCE), I have supported the approval of long-term contracts that will shift our local energy system to 85% renewable power by 2024. If reelected I promise to work collaboratively with my VCE board colleagues to accelerate our transition to 100% renewable energy ahead of our current 2030 target. In addition, VCE must grapple with important power capacity and energy conservation efforts needed if our clean power agency is going to help the City of Davis and other VCE partners (Woodland, Winters and unincorporated Yolo County) to decarbonize our transportation and building systems. We are already examining how VCE can meet those future needs and move our city and our region closer to carbon neutrality.
Kelsey Fortune - Over two thirds of our emissions as a community are due to transportation. I believe we have not done enough to address getting people out of their private vehicles.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - One step to reduce car trips and increase residents’ sense of ownership of our parks is to relocate the city gardens, where feasible, to our neighborhood parks. This would enable more people to utilize this resource while also bringing it closer to them.
Other things related to transportation and GHG emissions would be reducing traffic on I-80 through Davis. Idling cars contribute excessive amounts of pollution in a localized area. We need to find a solution to address this. Additionally, I would lobby for light rail service from Davis to downtown Sacramento. While Amtrak is a good service for those commuting to the Bay Area, it is not for those going to Sacramento. Light rail is also cleaner than buses or conventional trains.
The city also needs to work with local non-profits to develop resiliency hubs within our communities so that neighbors can work together to address environmental issues at the local level.
Gloria Partida - Water shortage is going to be an ongoing issue. I support more incentives for grey water systems and water recovery systems. Maintaining our tree canopy and transitioning it to a canopy that is more well adapted to a changing climate will be important. Education and staying ahead of best practices must be a priority.
_____________________________________________________
Part 6 - Waste Management and Financial Contributors
Question #1 - Recyclable or Compostable Take-out & In-Restaurant Food and Drink Containers
Davis has adopted a Zero Waste Resolution striving to achieve zero waste by 2025. As part of this program, all food service industry tableware and drink containers must be reusable, recyclable or compostable including a ban on all Styrofoam containers. All waste must also be segregated by organics, recyclable, or landfill but few fast food or other restaurants are currently doing so.
What should the City do to enforce this Ordinance?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - Contamination monitoring (lid flip, cameras on trucks, or other container monitoring technology) and periodic bin inspections would help identify businesses who violate the ordinance.
The first response to violations should be noncompliance outreach; businesses should have an opportunity to remedy their behavior. Subsequent infractions should be met with gradually increasing fines.
Dan Carson - The city is now in a much stronger position to ensure diversion of organics materials from the waste stream through its implementation of SB 1383, which includes penalties for entities that do not comply with its requirements. In addition, the city, in coordination with Yolo County and other neighboring cities, is moving forward as state law mandates to divert food waste from our county landfill. I supported city action to move forward with these compliance actions.
The plastics waste issue will be addressed I believe much more effectively than a local ordinance ever could by a new California law requiring all packaging to be recyclable or compostable, significantly cutting plastics use. The legislation strengthens the state’s recycling system and shifts the burden of plastic waste from Californians to the plastics and packaging industry. All packaging in the state must be recyclable or compostable by 2032, plastic packaging must be cut by 25 percent in 10 years, and 65 percent of all single-use plastic packaging must be recycled in the same timeframe.
In my role as a member of the council subcommittee on legislation I have supported legislation such as this that makes it easier for cities to comply with state requirements to reduce the amount of materials going to landfills, such as by providing state grant funding for implementation.
Kelsey Fortune - I would first suggest encouragement campaigns. The best thing the city can do is provide free positive advertising for those businesses that comply. The public is supportive of these initiatives, and I believe that they will choose to support businesses in compliance.
Second, I would suggest engaging businesses in conversation about these requirements to see if there are things that need to change for them to successfully comply. In speaking to business owners, I have learned that many with shared receptacles find it difficult to recycle and compost because bins are already full. We must address these issues.
Third, I would issue a warning to any noncompliant businesses. Warning businesses that significant fines are coming will provide additional incentive to comply with this ordinance.
Finally, I would resort to recurring monthly fines on businesses that continue to remain noncompliant.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - As an employee partly responsible for enforcing this ordinance, I can say that SOPs are already in place for enforcement. Much of the guidance for enforcement and education is prescribed in state law and city employees are well versed in these laws and regulations. Additionally, Recology conducts regular waste audits of businesses, restaurants and multifamily residential.
Gloria Partida - The city has a plan to audit our not only our business but also our residents to ensure compliance with SB1383. Education and outreach is always important. Understanding takes much of the resistance out of new endeavors.
______________________________________________________
Question #2 - Proposed Commercial and Multi-Family Recycling and Food Waste Collection
The City of Davis waste management plan also now requires mandatory commercial and multi-family segregated recycling and segregated food scrap collection but this City has yet to roll-out these mandatory programs on a widespread basis.
Do you support these measures and why or why not. If yes, how should the City go about rolling them out and enforcing them?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - Yes, I support these measures. For commercial businesses, the first infraction should trigger noncompliance outreach. Subsequent infractions for commercial businesses should result in a gradually increasing fine. There is no realistic way for the City to monitor and enforce this ordinance over the individual residents of multi-family developments. Instead, the City should mandate that developments which are in violation must adopt best practices in behavioral change outreach, e.g. redesigning their recycling and food scrap collection facilities, providing positive reputational or monetary incentives for residents with a record of compliance, and expanding signage.
Dan Carson - Actually, the city is actively implementing SB 1383 on a widespread basis under an ordinance initially approved by council on November 16, 2021. I voted to adopt the ordinance. The state legislation mandates organic waste diversion and recovery of food waste and requires the implementation of penalties for noncompliance.
In my role as a member of the City Council’s legislative committee the City of Davis has successfully partnered with other cities to advocate for substantial state grant funding that is critical to the successful local implementation of SB 1383. I have consistently and repeatedly supported the city’s SB 1383 implementation measures as the council has considered this matter. .
Kelsey Fortune - I support the proper disposal for waste to limit the amount we contribute to landfills as well as maximizing the amount recyclable material. Offering complexes positive advertising for compliance and instituting recurring fines as with businesses for noncompliance. I also believe that encouraging compliance through increasing the rate differentials for various refuse container sizes to match our priorities will be helpful across all users. For example, a 35 gallon garbage bin is only $5 cheaper than a 65 gallon bin. Allowing customers options for less frequent pick up to save on fees could also create better incentives and create cost savings.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - As an employee partly responsible for enforcing this ordinance, I can say that this program has already been rolled out to commercial and multi-family housing and that SOPs are already in place for enforcement. Much of the guidance for enforcement and education is prescribed in state law and city employees are well versed in these laws and regulations. Additionally, Recology conducts regular waste audits of businesses, restaurants and multifamily residential.
Gloria Partida - The city has a plan to audit our not only our business but also our residents to ensure compliance with SB1383. Education and outreach is always important. Understanding takes much of the resistance out of new endeavors.
______________________________________________________
Question #3 – Financial Contributors
How much money have you collected overall to date and from which unions, developer or real estate interests, or other entities doing business with the City of Davis? Will you accept all contributions from any of these interests?
Responses from District 1 Candidates
Bapu Vaitla - We have collected $13,500 to date, none of which has come from unions, developers, real estate interests, or other entities doing business with the City of Davis. We will accept money from union members, but not from developer or real estate interests or other entities with a financial stake in City of Davis policy
Dan Carson - I have not accepted funding for my council campaign from Davis developers.
Kelsey Fortune - My donors are all individuals. I have excepted zero funds from unions, developers, real estate interests, or any entity doing business in Davis. I am working with local business owners to build to them up as I campaign, but these partners are providing their services at their normal prices.
Responses from District 4 Candidates
Adam Morrill - I have collected approximately $2200, $150 of which is from DCEA. I make no promises to any individual or group. I present the same platform to everyone I meet. If they chose to support me financially, that is their choice, but that does not change what I believe should be priorities for managing the city.
Gloria Partida - I have collected $2000 dollars to date. None from any unions, developers or real estate interests that I am aware of. I will accept all contributions.