By Twanda Thirkill
I’ve been a regular bicyclist for as long as I’ve lived in Davis. It’s a hobby, mode of travel, and way of life for me and many of my friends. If my bike had a bumper sticker, it might say, “I bike, and I vote.”
Transit policy is a major interest of mine. It determines my ease of access and my safety. I also happen to think that multi-modal transit oriented development creates healthier and more sustainable cities.
I’ve looked into the arguments for and against Measure A. I believe the people on both sides of this campaign believe in what they’re doing and want what’s best for Davis. But when I look at this campaign from the perspective of someone whose lifestyle is heavily centered on bicycling, there’s no comparison. Measure A goes above and beyond for bikers, whether they live or work at the Nishi Gateway or not, and that’s why I will be voting for Measure A.
The upgrades to Richards and Olive are probably the most immediately important to all Davis bikers. Measure A creates a separated bike path on Richards that will protect bikers from heavy congestion and even isolate us from the dangerous Interstate 80 off ramp.
I’ve read a lot about Nishi and not enough attention has been brought to this separated bike lane. Multiple studies have shown that separated bike lanes reduce crashes, and one study even indicated that they can increase bike ridership by up to 20%. There are multiple types of bikers divided by comfort level and skill. Some of us, confident in our abilities and aware of our right to share the road, will ride our bikes on almost any road we’re legally allowed to.
Others will stay off the busiest streets but feel very confident on roads with sharrows. Others will only use side streets and for long distances down busy roads, opt for the car instead. A separated bike lane, even on the busiest street, helps make the experience feel much safer because it is much safer. This is even more true at Richards, because it immediately feeds into sparsely driven campus routes, the Davis Bike Loop, the Arboretum, and the downtown grid where bikers are the kings and queens of the road.
I’m really worried about what would happen if Measure A fails. For a city our size, $16 million tax-free to improve Richards and Olive is a lot. We’ve known Richards is a problem for as long as I’ve lived here, and this knowledge hasn’t been enough to make inroads (or should I say out bike paths).
There are people who mistakenly think defeating Measure A will keep things the way they are. They’re wrong. Defeating Measure A would make things worse, preventing the upgrades we need on Richards and leaving us unprepared for the growing demands on the university from commuters.
The other ways Measure A helps bicyclists go beyond safety to provide convenience . Nishi puts a cap on peak hour driving, making biking attractive for financial as well as lifestyle reasons. The property includes hundreds of bicycle parking spots, and many of them will be shaded. It builds into the bike loop and its position next to downtown, the Arboretum, and the broader campus makes car travel unnecessary for most residents’ daily needs. If anything, I wish Nishi had fewer parking spots, but I recognize a good compromise when I see it.
To my fellow bicyclists, think about what you’ll be getting if Measure A passes and think about what will be denied to our city if Measure A fails. As I said, I bike and I’m voting for Measure A.
I’m about to sound like I’m against. Nishi. I’m not. I’m just not sold on voting for Nishi because of the bike infrastructure promises. I transport myself around Davis by bike as well (and from South Davis, even), and there’s nobody who wants to see improved bicycle infrastructure more than I do.
If I could be enjoying the grade-separated access to the Cannery, I’d be more impressed about what is promised for Nishi at this stage.
And I mean that seriously. Yes I have seen the pretty renderings of wonderful bike/ped connectivity (just as I did with Cannery). Yet nowhere in any of the Nishi business do I see a guarantee that this grade-separated bike path will be built, nor how nor where. And while connectivity is just as important as the path itself, I have no idea about how it will be connected if it is built. The drawing I have seen dumps the north-bound riders onto the west (on-coming traffic) side of the Olive intersection. If I wish to end up in town on E, F or G, there’s still no clear connection for cyclists (same as today, and the reason that I often ride in the middle of the road through the tunnel)
I am also not confident about just how the entire interchange will be redesigned for car traffic. I do have confidence that some money will be thrown at the mess that current exists at the Richards/Olive intersection. But what that money will end up buying us, nor who it will ultimately benefit is not clear. Is there information out that about what is guaranteed to happen under contract, or are we all depending on the artists’ renderings that don’t hold anybody to anything?
The Richards/Olive intersection is likely about to get much bigger with multiple turn lanes on both roads. Dumping cyclists from South Davis into a larger intersection that’s optimized for motor vehicles is not what I’m looking for.
As well, I need to point out that we currently have a grade-separated bike/ped facility today that goes under HWY 80, and delivers cyclists from South Davis directly to Nishi. So I’m not sure that adding a new one that first delivers cyclists into our busiest intersection is a compelling reason to have Nishi.
I just want to throw this out there for arguments sake. Why would a developer want to get too specific as to precisely where everything is going to go, knowing full well wherever they choose and however they do it will result in endless criticism from various detractors who will look for any excuse to bash the project? Just saying…
>> Why would a developer want to get too specific <<
Yes, I understand that aspect of showing all the cards. And I know from direct experience how answering all questions does nothing but give ammunition for the “other side” to tear you down. However, I do have an answer for why a developer would (should?) do that: To more easily allow suspicious people like me to vote yes for the project.
In my comment, I concentrated too much on the “precise” aspect of where everything would go. What’s needed is more generally a guarantee that properly vetted infrastructure would, in fact, be built. Besides some images, I don’t see anywhere that this separated bike facility will need to be built with this project. Is it written somewhere that this bike facility is a requirement for the project?
You both acknowledge those points and then go on to dismiss them. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot reasonably expect perfection for your interests when there are so many other competing interests. If you do then you are an extremist and prone to pursuing your brand of perfection at the expense of the general good.
No Vanguard comment is complete without being called an extremist by Frankly.
And here I was *that* close to thanking the gang for such a high level of reasoned and caring discourse. Damn.
I am extremely sensitive to extremism and sometimes use extreme rhetoric to challenge it.
Hey darelldd,
It is written in the project baseline features that “the proposed circulation system for the Nishi site consists of new local streets, along with a system of pedestrian and bicycle “greenways” that would connect the site with the West Olive Drive subarea to the northeast and the UC Davis campus to the west. This system would provide enhanced connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and automobiles via new multi-modal roadway connections and linkages to existing greenways along the historic Putah Creek corridor.” What’s more, the construction of the barrier-separated bike and pedestrian path along Richards in addition to the bike paths on-site are identified in the EIR as part of the project’s traffic mitigation measures. This project is legally required to complete all of the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR (such as creating the bike lanes and paths) before occupancy permits can be issued, so you can rest assured that if approved, Nishi will create safer and an expanded network of biking options for people traveling between campus and downtown and South Davis.
The lack of grade-separated access at the Cannery is entirely the fault of the City and specifically the two members of the CC who negotiated the Development Agreement. Had grade-separated access been a priority, we would have it.
One of the individuals who negotiated the developer agreement was out-voted on the issue and subsequently voted no. I find it difficult to believe that you put this on Krovoza.
I purposely chose not to name specific individuals but instead referred to their positions representing the City (had I done so, I would have named someone other than the one you mentioned). My main point is that we should not blame the developer as has been common on this site. The fault should be directed towards (in order of importance) the City, the CC, and the individuals who negotiated the deal. If grade-separated access had been a priority to these folks, we would have it.
Mark’s point is accurate as far as it goes, but it is not complete. On May 13, 2014 the City Manager and North Davis Land Company signed an MOU that stated the following:
Subsequently, three members of the Council chose not to ratify the signed written commitments in the MOU, abandoning the City Manager’s legal commitment. It is highly unlikely that the Cannery developer was not involved in that Council decision to pull the rug out from under the City Manager.
So…. do we know which part of this development agreement will include proper bicycle infrastructure and connectivity through this intersection? If it exists, I have not seen it, and would very much like to see it. If it does not exist – and this is what some people are basing a vote on – it seems there’s significant chance for disappointment, according to our history.
The connectivity disappointment (trying to tone down the drama from what was “disaster”) of the Cannery deviates so far from our general plan that you can’t even see it from here. Let’s just say that my trust in the system has been significantly eroded. I know many who voted for Cannery because of the promised grade-separated connectivity promises. Going forward, I need more assurances than a concept rendering can provide.
“My main point is that we should not blame the developer as has been common on this site.”
I disagree with the unilateral nature of the blame placement here. The developer surely knew, just as did city staff and City Council that a grade separated crossing would be in the best interest of the community and the residents of The Cannery. It was solely for their own profit ( in my opinion) that the developer chose to withhold this benefit. I do not deny their right to act in their own interest nor to make a profit. What I object to is their attempt to sell the project as of benefit to the community and then opting to only benefit themselves. This smacks to me of duplicity and dishonest business practices. I favor neither.
No. There is a limit to the number of bells and whistles that can be demanded of a development project. The City prioritized having a toy farm on the property (among other things) rather than the bicycle connectivity. The blame is entirely on the City’s part and there was no ‘withholding’ involved. If bicycled connectivity had been a priority for the City, we would have it, plain and simple.
Darell raises some very good points, some of which were raised to me by a very nice No On Nishi supporter who came to my Farmers Market table on Saturday. The graphic below shows the conceptual plan for the Davis Arch solution to the connectivity issues on the north side of Olive Drive at the tunnel.
While thinking outside the box, I came up with another “tweak” to the bicycle connectivity to the south of Olive Drive on Richards, which would massively reduce the number of bicycles approaching the Olive/Richards intersection from the south. That idea of mine is shown on this next graphic.
We would have a much better transportation situation if we can put those two bike/ped infrastucture enhancements together with the work-in-process effort to enhance the South Davis Bike Path as shown below, connecting that path to the existing bike/ped tunnel under I-80.
Matt is the first (and only to date) to show me some thinking beyond the inappropriate concept of “all bike infrastructure is good bike infrastructure.” Finding a way to *best* route cyclists to their destination is a huge part of “connectivity” of course, and Matt’s idea shown here is compelling. The original concept forces all people who use the proposed facility to become part of the congestion at the Richards/Olive intersection. Matt’s plan funnels those people off in advance who have no need to be part of that mess.
This is a great example of why I ask, “what will we really get?” We don’t need bicycle infrastructure. We need *good* bicycle infrastructure. Pennies spent on that will return dollars in reduced congestion at our favorite intersection.
I agree that if bike routes are provided that are safer and convenient, people will opt out of using their cars and bike more. I wish there was a separated bike route to Woodland. I think that more people would bike between Davis and Woodland if it wasn’t so dangerous.
So do we all. There is already a plan done to the details created by a Woodland businessperson who wanted to see it move forward. And then the so-called Yolo Rail Relocation insanity loomed, and there was a float that the railroad could be turned into a bike path. That probably-never-maybe-in-fifty-years-fraud derailed a possible plan of rails and trails. We would be somewhere down the road if Davis and Woodland staff spent the time on a bike path instead of on “rail relocation”, and if we pursued a grant on a rail and bike right-of-way student instead of a stupid “economic development” (cheerleader) study on so-called rail relocation.
How are you calculating this number?
My understanding is that Nishi’s contribution toward Richards/Olive is limited to approximately $2 million, which will be credited back to the developers if Nishi is approved.
“Defeating Measure A would make things worse, preventing the upgrades we need on Richards and leaving us unprepared for the growing demands on the university from commuters.”
Spot on!
I understand that Nishi’s (only) contribution to Richards/Olive is limited to approximately $2 million, and will be credited back to developers if Nishi is approved. (This $2 million apparently goes toward widening Olive Drive, which is not needed if Nishi is rejected.)
Nishi would contribute $3 million toward an improved freeway interchange. (I’m not sure when these funds would actually be collected.) Regardless, I understand that most of the funds needed to improve the interchange are from other sources (e.g., previously-collected developer fees, and developer fees expected from the hotel/conference center at Richards/Olive). Of course, Nishi would add its own traffic to that interchange, as well.
It is “debatable” (to say the least) if providing another motor vehicle access point (which has not been planned for, or approved by the University), along with 1,732 parking spots at Nishi itself would “improve” the existing intersection at Richards/Olive.
While I understand your opposition to the project, and you may well be right with regards to the traffic, it’s really disingenuous to say “which has not been planned for, or approved by the university,” for several reasons that have been previously pointed out. The timing is such that while it has been included in the latest preliminary proposal for an LRDP, the process is still ongoing and ultimately it’s not the university but the regents who will approve it. But if UCD puts the plan in there – why do you think the regents would oppose? And as I pointed out earlier this week, and you acknowledged, the developers are not going to spend money on building buildings unless they have assurances the access point is going forward.
So make the case that you have – the plans are not enough to mitigate the kind of additional traffic that Nishi will produce. I’m not saying I agree with that position, but it is defensible and not hyperbolic.
It’s not disingenuous at all. The University has made no plans regarding traffic flow, additional parking, or new (traffic-generating) development on the University that may be facilitated by the new motor vehicle access point. (Again, this additional motor vehicle access point to the University is a major “benefit” to reduce traffic/congestion problems – according to the developers.)
I don’t think I acknowledged this. In any case, supporters cannot realistically and simultaneously state that approval is a “sure thing”, but that the developers will nevertheless wait for formal approval (for years?) before proceeding with construction. If it’s a “sure thing”, but construction cannot proceed prior to approval, why not obtain that approval before presenting the proposed development to voters?
Also, I realize that work has to “commence” on the University connection before proceeding with development at the site, but I’m not entirely convinced that the “commencement” of the connection requires University approval (if limited to Nishi property). (I’m not sure if this will be a concern, at some point.)
Thank you. Your statements are also not hyperbolic.
The primary reason that I responded today was due to the author’s incorrect claim (in the article above) regarding the amount that Nishi is contributing towards off-site traffic improvements.
Ron, UC Davis is currently conducting its LRDP with a placeholder for Nishi. To say that Nishi has not been planned for is incorrect. In fact, it is being planned as we speak. Just because there is a lag between the Measure R/J vote and the release of the final LRDP does not mean that the university is not planning for Nishi.
As Matt pointed out recently, the combined costs for the interchange and the improvements to Richards/Olive are estimated to be $10 million, of which Nishi will pay $5 million, or 50%.
Completely misleading. I understand that Nishi’s contribution to the interchange are limited to $3 million. I do not know when these funds will actually be collected. Of course, Nishi will also generate its own traffic that will impact this interchange.
I also understand that Nishi will contribute approximately $2 million toward the Richards/Olive intersection, which will be “credited back” to the developers if Nishi is approved. These “improvements” include widening of Olive Drive, which is not needed if Nishi is rejected. Since the funds are credited back, it appears that the city will actually pay for this $2 million “improvement”, which is not needed if Nishi is rejected.
Not misleading at all Ron. The Development Agreement is very specific about a commitment of $3.0 million to the “Redesign and improvements at I-80 Richards Interchange” and a further commitment of a minimum of $1.7 million to “Safety and capacity of the Olive Drive/Richards intersection.” Those are legal commitments.
The piece of information that has not been discussed prior to last week is the fact tat the $10 million estimate from Public Works for the Richards corridor project includes both the interchange improvements portion and the Olive/Richards intersection improvements portion, as well as the improvements to Richards between those two.
The only way that those monies will not be collected from Nishi Gateway will be if the project is not approved.
The “Fee Credits” are simply a statement by the City of where the $1.7 million must be directed. It is not a cash payment by the City, only a recognition of the completion of the City’s desired intent. That Exhibit I Development Agreement language also protects the City by making the $1.7 million due and payable as cash in case the developer does not undertake and pay for the construction item(s) listed.
Matt:
From your explanation, I’m not seeing where anything I’ve stated is wrong.
Interchange improvements paid by Nishi are limited to $3 million. Nishi will generate its own traffic, that will impact that interchange. Seems that we all agree, on that.
The $1.7 million credit (for the Richards/Olive intersection) is more confusing. I understand that the developer is receiving a credit for that. (This “improvement”, which includes the widening of Olive, is not needed if Nishi is rejected.) You state that “It is not a cash payment by the City, only a recognition of the completion of the City’s desired intent.” What does that mean?
I understand that the fees above are considered “traffic mitigation fees”. However, I also understand that the full amount that was expected from Nishi is not being collected by the city. (I don’t recall if this includes the $1.7 million credit.) Please explain.
In other words, I recall a connection between the $1.7 million credit, and the negotiation which resulted in a reduction in the amount of traffic impact fees collected from Nishi developers.
Does this negotiated reduction/credit mean that we’ll have $1.7 million fewer dollars in the “traffic mitigation fund”, for future needs? (That is, fewer dollars than the city would normally expect, from such a development?)
Your explanations have not addressed this concern, or otherwise addressed the impact of excusing some of the traffic mitigation fees.
Ron asked . . . “Does this negotiated reduction/credit mean that we’ll have $1.7 million fewer dollars in the “traffic mitigation fund”, for future needs? (That is, fewer dollars than the city would normally expect, from such a development?)”
Ron, the simple answer to that question is “No, what you refer to as the traffic mitigation fund will have exactly the same amount of dollars.”
The Development Agreement specifies that the City expects as part of its normal fee structure “$4,775,462 in roadway impact fees” (which I believe will rise to $4,962,150 based on the residential unit bedrooms and sizes listed in Article 2 of the Development Agreement).
With that $4,775,462 “debited” to what you have referred to as the traffic mitigation fund, the City then “credits” $3,000,000 to the “Redesign and improvements at I-80 Richards Interchange” and $1,775,462 to the “Safety and capacity of the Olive Drive/Richards intersection.” The net effect of those “debits” and “credits” is $4,775,462 in and $4,775,462 out. The “in” is paid to the City by the developer and the “out” is paid to contractors. Under the terms of the Development Agreement, should the developer pay any of the contractors directly on the “Safety and capacity of the Olive Drive/Richards intersection” portion of the project, then those direct payments to the contractors will be credited against the $1,775,462 due and payable to the City, because the City would not be receiving a bill from the contractor for that work.
No one is being “excused” for any traffic mitigation fees. All that is being done is a clear expectation is being set about the “accounting buckets” in the City’s ledger where those traffic mitigation fees are being deposited and dispensed.
Matt:
Thank you. I think I understand, now.
As you’ve stated, the $1.7 million credit is the city’s attempt to direct the traffic mitigation fee, to Olive/Richards. However, some of the $1.7 million “improvements” (such as the widening of Olive, to the development itself) are not needed, if the development is rejected.
The developer’s contribution to the interchange is limited to $3 million. Of course, Nishi would add its own traffic impact to that interchange.
I also understand that the city has already collected sufficient funds to complete the interchange improvements, without Nishi.
Ron said . . . “Interchange improvements paid by Nishi are limited to $3 million. Nishi will generate its own traffic, that will impact that interchange. Seems that we all agree, on that.”
Agreed Ron. The current volume of interchange traffic includes current northbound Downtown traffic, current northbound UCD traffic, current northbound Hotel traffic, and current southbound Interland, Oak Shade, Willowcreek and other South Davis traffic. If you take the current volume of interchange traffic (call that 100%), what incremental addition to that current volume do you believe Nishi will add to the 100%?
Ron said . . . “The $1.7 million credit (for the Richards/Olive intersection) is more confusing. I understand that the developer is receiving a credit for that. (This “improvement”, which includes the widening of Olive, is not needed if Nishi is rejected.)”
Are you saying that the Richards/Olive intersection is operating well under the current traffic conditions? If that is the case, why are we seeing the current backups in and around that intersection?
Ron said . . . “I understand that the fees above are considered “traffic mitigation fees”. However, I also understand that the full amount that was expected from Nishi is not being collected by the city. (I don’t recall if this includes the $1.7 million credit.) Please explain.”
As I stated in my prior comment, if the City is being billed for the Richards/Olive intersection improvements by the contractor, then the developer will pay the $1.7 million to the City, who will then pay the contractor’s bill. However, if the developer is being billed for Richards/Olive intersection improvements by the contractor, then the once the developer has paid the contractor, those payments will be credited against the $1.7 million to the City. In the first scenario the City will receive $1.7 million and pay out $1.7 million, which produces a net gain/loss of $0. In the second scenario the City will receive $0 and pay out $0, which also produces a net gain/loss of $0.
Ron said . . . “Thank you. I think I understand, now.”
My pleasure Ron. The questions you are asking are important, and lots of people are asking those same questions.
Hopefully my answers are useful to them as well.
Matt: Thank you. Your responses were helpful. Just wanted to respond to a couple other points/questions you brought up:
Well, we know that Nishi can add up to 1,732 parking spaces, which will have access to Olive/Richards and to the interchange, existing tunnel to the city, etc. What we don’t know is the traffic impact of providing another additional motor vehicle access point to the University, itself (which will also access Richards/Olive. Assuming that the University ultimately approves of such access, we also don’t know how the University will route traffic, provide additional parking, or construct other traffic-generating developments on campus that will be facilitated by the new motor vehicle access point. There are no plans or studies to predict this.
No – I never said that. What I did say is that some of the improvements that the developer’s contribution would fund (such as the widening of Olive Drive – to the development itself) are not needed, if Nishi is rejected.
One thing that I’m not certain of is how much the improvements to Olive/Richards intersection would cost, if Nishi is not approved. (In other words, the cost AFTER removing improvements that are only needed as a result of Nishi, itself – such as the widening of Olive Drive).
I understand that the city has already collected sufficient funds to pay for the interchange improvement, as well as the (more limited) improvements needed for Olive/Richards (that are needed regardless of Nishi).
Ron: This is my understanding as well. The City already has sufficient funds in it’s roadway impact fees fund to do all planned the Richards corridor/interchange/intersection improvements if Nishi does not pass.
Without Nishi developer fees there will be a $5 million dollar funding gap to complete the Richards corridor improvements. The $5 million is from developer fees contributed for off-site improvements that benefit the entire community by paying 50% of the cost to fix the broken Richards Blvd. and provide safe travel for bikes and pedestrians. DarrelD, these are required improvements that need to be completed under the baseline project features before Nishi can be occupied.
>> these are required improvements that need to be completed under the baseline project features before Nishi can be occupied <<
I understand the concept and the words. Yet… I believe it is more accurate to say that $5M will be spent on “improvements.” We don’t yet know what those improvements will be, nor precisely what they will improve, nor how. I do understand that money will be spent. My concern is what it will cost to do everything correctly, and what everybody thinks “correctly” means.
I’m sorry to keep bringing this back to Cannery, because I’m fully aware of how much better the Nishi product will be. BUT, I have to. I have to, because the faux “Dutch Intersection” was the connectivity improvement that we got out of that. A bunch of money spent to ensure that motorists were not hindered in any way, at the cost of convenient and safe bike and ped usage.
Improvement takes more than the word and the money.
Yes on A Fan: I think it’s more accurate to state that there’d ultimately be $3 million fewer dollars collected for the traffic mitigation fund. However, I understand that the city has already collected sufficient funds, to cover the interchange improvement. (And, without Nishi, there’d be a lot fewer cars using that interchange.)
The other improvement (such as widening Olive Drive to the development itself) is not needed, if Nishi is rejected.
darelldd
“A bunch of money spent to ensure that motorists were not hindered in any way, at the cost of convenient and safe bike and ped usage.”
In this post, I am speaking only from the pedestrian usage point of view. The biggest obstacle to me in using the most direct route from my J street residence to my job at South Davis Kaiser has been the conflict between the pedestrian route and the freeway onramp. I realize that for those whose preference is their bike, this may not be prohibitive due to the presence of the bike path that you have currently referenced. This is for a pedestrian on their way to work, quite a bit further to go, and led to my use of my car on many occasions when I would have preferred to have walked. Thus, from this perspective only, the separation of the pedestrian path from the freeway off ramp would have, in and of itself, proven enough incentive to leave my car at home. As always, safety will trump convenience for me and was a minor point in favor of Nishi in my calculations.
The freeway offramp crossing is a safety and convenience impediment to cycling in the same way it is for peds. Yes, cyclists (just like peds) can go out of their way to use the HWY 80 under crossing. But using the direct route (as you have chosen to walk) means the same conflict area with high-speed motor vehicle traffic.
Darell, the City has an engineer who has submitted plans, as posted, for review by Cal trans. The rendering was prepared by the City contract engineer which shows the new interchange and separate bike lane from the street. So, the bike improvements are a part of the Richards corridor plans and the construction of these improvements must be complete prior to occupancy on Nishi. Furthermore there will be bike and pedestrian improvements along Olive Dr. (not yet engineered) and the current bike path you use will not be obstructed by the road extension; hence the bridge over the bike path at Putah Creek as depicted (which is required in the baseline features) The underpass to UCD will include a separate bike path and pedestrian bike path but working drawings have not been completed. This also needs to be complete before occupancy. This is completely different than Cannery which did not require a Measure R-J vote and apparently did not include the preferred bike connections. That mistake or whatever was what prompted the thorough review of the bike improvements proposed at Nishi. Nishi will have a new grade separated crossing to campus as required in the baseline features approved by the voters.
DDD, I am impressed by Nishi separating the Olive Drive from the Putah Bike Path, and for the bike connectivity to campus as well as the auto connectivity.
Having said that, I have to agree with you about the half-baked freeway crossing. I hope it is only half-baked and will be improved, but as you say, we all thought we had the H Street connection with Cannery, and that was vapor.
I just learned last week that one of the developers of Nishi also owns Cranbrook and won’t allow the bike connection there, despite repeated City asks, supposedly because they are butt hurt over the lack of connections to Covell Village II. I should have put this together earlier, but it was pointed out at a Council meeting a couple of weeks ago. This will require TWO crossings of the railroad to get from Cannery to the east side of the tracks (most people won’t do) and millions more in taxpayer spending to get an inadequate overpass. And the City won’t do eminent domain against a local developer, even for a transportation improvement (that in this case makes an actual safe-route-to-school), which is what eminent domain is for.
The owner of Cranbrook needs to get over it, and do the right thing for Davis, so Davis can built that 800′ path from the Cannery to the H Street tunnel, via Cranbrook and Pinecrest’s east side. And get over the fencing requirement. The H Street tunnel path goes through Pinecrest just fine as part of the landscape, no fencing.
All of this will be fixed when the railroad tracks are re-routed.
I will take that as humor and not waste my time with a response.
Based on local and regional historical facts, I see no reason to trust the statements and intentions of the City, the City Council, or the developer(s). However, of that lot, I’ll believe the developer(s) before I’ll believe any of the politicians and their minions.
The developers simply want to make money – nothing more; nothing less. The politicians and their minions have all sorts of motives, both visible and carefully hidden.
From what I can determine, in this specific case, the interests of the developers are only being met because they, possibly reluctantly, were forced to make some concessions, at least a few of which are binding. As for the other concessions and promises by multiple parties, I’ll believe them if and when they’re delivered.
I’m reluctantly voting for Measure A. The process stinks, but hopefully the bulldozers will leave at least one small patch of clover to mask the odor.
I’m sure everyone reading this blog gives a damn how one pig is going to vote. Oink!
Mr. (or Mrs. or Ms.) Pig, please tell us why you are voting yes despite your distrust. I am interested in a pig’s vote- love Animal Farm (having studied soviet style economics as a focus in my economics degree) – and one of my favorites songs is simply: Pigs; not just because of the band but also the lyrics which tie into your theme here….and its length, not your typical 3 minute soiree but a nice long tribute to pigs everywhere.
Well, Yes on A Fan, I’ll try to briefly accommodate your request since I too like Pink Floyd and “Pigs” – not to mention of course the genius of George Orwell. Even though “Pigs” was directly relevant to shenanigans in the U.K., it’s pretty applicable to here and elsewhere as well if you flex a little on the details of which pig is which.
So, as far as Measure A goes, after reading (casually, I’ll admit) a lot of mediocre propaganda from both sides, I fall back on my basic understanding that capitalism is an engine of progress, that, much like an edged blade or fire, can be wielded for both good and evil. Without edged blades and fire, civilization wouldn’t be much to write home about; and without capitalism, the vast majority of barnyard critters everywhere would be firmly under the heavy boot of some of my less savory fellow swine.
More specifically, Measure A provides for reasonable growth while funding and reasonably protecting those features that make Davis, Davis. I won’t elaborate, since we all know what they are, even those like me who grouse about both idiotic plastic bag bans and un-indicted banker felons (to blend local and national, for those not fully awake).
For me, Measure A strikes a balance; and I don’t really care how much money the developers make as long as they are not complete, unadulterated scum, which I don’t believe they are. As for the politicians and their minions, present and past, well that’s a much more complicated story. . .
Oink!
Gag. clearly PIG and YES!! are Polysci students from the UC of D. Probably Spafford and Lincoln hacks. So which ones are you? just post your initials.
· Brandon Lam – $3150
· John Jarrett Crowell – $1400
· Patrick Curzon -$1750
· Saira Delgado -$1384
· Priscilla Liang – $1750
· Silvia Chanian – $1400
· Cecilia Panduro -$1400
· Thanh Pham – $3000
· Neil Ruud – $900
· Drake Drago – $665
· Eman Eteyah – $1400
· Julie Beppler -$1400
· Katie Green – $1600
· Keila Greenstein – $1400
· Spencer Langan – $815
· Donald Lathbury – $3250
· Hiba Saeed – $1800
· Wesley Sagewalker – $4000
· Mario Salvagno -$1182
· Thomas Slabaugh – $3250
· Dave Terry – $500
· Hee-ah Yoo – $500
Pig is a longtime poster on here.
Just for fun you can see his comments from August 2014: https://davisvanguard.org/2014/08/city-sends-out-official-prop-218-notice-hearing-sept-16/#comments
Fred, strike two and three; keep digging. Maybe check in with Flipper, perhaps Pig used to work at The Aggie
What a Joke. John Whitcombe is both one of the developers for Nishi and one of the owners of Cranbrook court. It was Cranbrook Court’s unwillingness to have a bike path that killed the grade-separated access at the Cannery. There is no way I want to turn over any part of our bike infrastructure to these developers.
Fred, neither history nor the public record supports your assertion. After extended negotiations, on May 13, 2014 the City Manager and North Davis Land Company signed an MOU that stated the following legal agreement:
Subsequently, three members of the Council chose not to ratify the signed written commitments in the MOU, abandoning the City Manager’s legal commitment. It was Council’s decision not to ratify (not any decision by John Whitcombe or his partners) to pull the rug out from under the City Manager. The graphic below shows the schematic of the MOU agreement.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Exhibit-B.jpg
Fred, what a joke: just make stuff up. WANTED for No on A – villain – and/or conspiracy theory. No proof required.
Fred, since you brought up the Cannery Grade Separated Crossing. In my opinion, the best and safest alternative is the overpass (highlighted in blue) depicted in the graphic below. On the southwest end of the blue ramp it connects with the existing F/H Street Bike Path (highlighted red in the graphic) just before that bike path empties out into the Davis Little League Complex parking lot area. Two of the strengths of that alternative are that (1) it minimizes the use of the substandard H Street tunnel and (2) it eliminates the sharp right hand turn that would exist where the Cranbrook/Pinecrest bypass lane joins the exiting bike path just to the east of the H Street tunnel entrance. That hard right turn into existing bicycle traffic flows was always going to be a safety deficiency.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-03-CC-Item-07-Cannery-Grade-Separated-Crossing-Alt-4-5.jpg
Sure Matt, Whitcombe had nothing to do with killing the bike path. Did you notice this all went down right when the New Homes Company tried to take back the 30 sites in the cannery designated for local Davis builders several of whom are directly related to Whitcombe. I am telling you its a dirty rough and tumble world among the developers and the blow back hits the city as if we were standing behind Gunrock after he ate Ketehi’s home cooking.
Fred, I don’t disagree with your “rough and tumble world” assessment, but when two parties come to agreement, and then mutually sign a legal document memorializing that agreement, and then one of the parties backs out of their commitment, the “dirty fingerprints” are pretty easy to identify.
With that said, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t “the New Homes Company attempted take back of the 30 sites in the Cannery designated for local Davis builders” something that happened this year (2016)?
I am not sure when it started, but I think I saw a letter from Eric Roe (a classy guy and Whitcombes Nephew) here on the Vangaurd just a few months ago. I believe it was the same week (or close there to) when the Enterprise ran the story stating the preferred option would not happen. Forgive me if that is a little vague, I don’t have the dates at my finger tips.
Fred, your recollection is the same as mine. The New Homes Company’s attempt to take back the 30 sites in the Cannery designated for local Davis builders, did happen “just a few months ago.”
That makes the timing of the May 13, 2014 signed MOU very different than, and approximately two years prior to those events “just a few months ago.” Given that, it is hard to see how the 2016 events and the 2014 events could fit your description “Sure Matt, Whitcombe had nothing to do with killing the bike path. Did you notice this all went down right when the New Homes Company tried to take back the 30 sites in the cannery designated for local Davis builders” Time only runs backward for H.G. Wells.
Sorry Matt, for any confusion, my understanding is that despite the MOU situation in 2014 there was still a sense that the preferred option would happen until a few months ago. Regardless, I trust you to dig into this situation – your the only counsel candidate that will. That’s why you deserve our support.
No apology necessary Fred. The concerns you were expressing were/are very understandable. Your willingness to bring them forward provided us all with an opportunity to come to a better understanding.
It is indeed a “rough and tumble world.”
Fred, slinging a lot of mud and checking facts later.
Matt wrote:
> That hard right turn into existing bicycle traffic flows
> was always going to be a safety deficiency.
Like the hard turn at the end of the tunnel under the tracks behind the little league field (where almost every kid from East Davis who played little league for the past 30 years has crashed in to someone on his bike at least once)…
P.S. I hope Matt can do something to try and fix this when he was on the city council (My first choice is a “Y” at the end and second choice would be adding a big convex mirror)…
I will absolutely try and fix that SoD. So between now and Tuesday, please call and/or e-mail as many of your friends as possible and ask them to Vote for Matt.
In the meantime I’ll get together with Darell Dickey and Robb Davis to begin (or continue) doing the groundwork needed to fix it.
Very good, Matt. You just earned my vote (with continued skeptical observation if you win, of course). Oink!
Fred wrote:
> John Whitcombe is both one of the developers for Nishi and one
> of the owners of Cranbrook court. It was Cranbrook Court’s
> unwillingness to have a bike path that killed the grade-separated
> access at the Cannery.
It is true that Whitcombe is an owner of Cranbrook Court, but I’m guessing that there is more to the story about the Cannery bike path. The Davis Wiki says:
“Whitcombe was instrumental in crafting part of Davis’ famous bike path system while integrating greenbelts and new wildlife habitat”
https://localwiki.org/davis/John_Whitcombe
I will just go over to the Wiki and fix that. No Whitcombe was probably pissed at the Cannery Developers because they were trying to freeze out his family and friends from the 30 sites designated for local builders.