On Tuesday night, the Davis City Council agreed at least in principle to have a design firm make revisions to the now complete Mace Boulevard project. One of the interesting factors on Tuesday night was, unlike previous meetings where the angry voices literally drowned out people who were supportive of the project, a fair number of people came out in support of the current re-design.
Especially parents of school children expressed concern about the safety of the previous road design and were grateful that there were steps taken to slow down traffic and separate pedestrians and bicyclists from what they view as previously a dangerous thoroughfare.
While the council pushed for immediate changes in the turn radiuses and the intersection of San Marino, the longer-term fixes will include expanding sections back to four lanes.
But this work will come at a cost. Staff estimates that the unallocated remaining budget for the project is currently at $479,000 but stated, “After redesign plans are further developed better cost estimates will be generated.”
Supervisor Jim Provenza was on hand on Tuesday for the entire discussion, but did not speak during public comment.
Previously he told the Vanguard, “It’s a big mess and people are working hard to try to find a solution.”
He explained, “I’m working with a working group of citizens from the county and El Macero as well as South Davis residents who live close to Mace Boulevard and we’re going to look at these alternatives and try to give some feedback.”
On Tuesday, several residents of El Macero got up to speak and demanded that the council restore the road back to its previous design.
An El Macero resident spoke on Tuesday stating, “I represent an ad hoc committee that was put together by Supervisor Provenza to advocate between the county and the city on some of the issues that 
we find concerning over Mace.”
She expressed concern both over safety and the effect on the economy with the reduction down to two lanes, particularly on the farming community, “which I don’t think was consulted when this project was put together.”
She said, “The right turn lane pockets is a great idea, we would really like to see the return of those turn lanes. It will reduce congestion and reduce the possibility of rear-end collisions.”
Another resident of El Macero said, “The reason I’m here is our frustration. The current design is a totally brain dead and also a sophomoric design.” He said that “the only redeeming value I see is that it is providing safe bike lanes.”
Elly Fairclough, a Davis resident, also served on Supervisor Provenza’s ad hoc committee. She called this “a fix on steroids that is really not appropriate to the neighborhood.” She likened it to “a video game” arguing “they do not take into consideration context.”
An interesting aspect of this discussion is the folks who live in El Macero are not residents of the city of Davis. El Macero is unincorporated and the residents are not city residents but rather reside in the county.
So here was a group of residents who live in an area that has chosen to be separate from the city of Davis and they are demanding changes to Mace Blvd. with costs that would be born exclusively by the citizens of Davis.
It is rather striking that, first of all, not one person who spoke from El Macero seemed to acknowledge that this was a cost to the city of Davis for which they as residents of El Macero would not pay.
Second, not one person on the city council raised this point during the public proceedings. At no point did any member of the city council mention the need for even the discussion of cost sharing.
Finally, it is telling that the county supervisor in this case is Jim Provenza, who represents not only El Macero but all of South Davis on the County Board of Supervisors – at no point did he speak on Tuesday and discuss whether the county would be paying their share of the costs to the city of Davis to renovate or restore the roadway, partially in response to complaints from El Macero residents.
It should be noted that El Macero has in the past sued the city of Davis on sewer costs and many believe that El Macero has been paying far less annually than they should for wastewater services. A lawsuit back in 2013 noted: “El Macero has been paying $100,000 less than it should be for wastewater services and that the city has not forced Yolo County, which collects wastewater payments from El Macero, to make up the difference over the past five years.”
Given the costs of the road reconstruction to the residents of the city of Davis, it is frankly surprising that no one raised the specter of cost sharing between the city and county – particularly given that Supervisor Provenza was present.
Residents of El Macero have made demands here of the city of Davis from the start, even as it is becoming less and less clear that there are really traffic congestion problems as the result of the reconfiguration of the roadway – and yet none of them have stepped up to discuss fair share of costs.
To be clear, this is an issue of fair sharing – not a claim that residents at El Macero do not have the right to request changes to the roadway or a demand that they pay for the entirety of the changes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
El Macero is in the County, so maybe the County could contribute or do something to control the flow of traffic into town from south of Mace.
This is an interesting way to think about paying for our infrastructure. How about this : Roughly 1/3 of the students at DaVinci are out of resident students (don’t pay local taxes) yet the School District is considering expensive upgrades to serve them, while the school has plans to increase enrollment even higher.
Sharla…
Why should County revenues, generated from say, Esparto, Guinda, etc., be used to pay for upgrades needed due (in part), or benefitting, El Macero or “old Willowbank” residents who pay not into City coffers (in proportion to the ‘services’ they receive), but are some of the loudest as to what they expect from the City? There are CSA’s unique to those conclaves who have the wherewithal (and then some!) to assess themselves to mitigate their impacts… but they won’t… they are “too precious”… and too arrogant… it’s all “about them”…
So, neither David’s question, nor your alternative, are happening things…
Your comment as to Da Vinci students/parents, is actually “spot on” as to ‘cost sharing’… also a quixotic endeavor… ain’t goin’ to happen… same reasons…
It was just a suggestion. Rather than focus on “El Macero” paying for changes, David should have suggested that Yolo County contribute as the entity governing El Macero. I don’t think the County will agree to pay for something in the City of Davis, even if it impacts people living just outside the City’s border.
There are such things as toll roads. Maybe Mace Blvd, south of the highway could be a toll road to collect money from non-residents who cut through Davis in an effort jump to get around the traffic on the highway. But I don’t think that is going to happen either.
Also, Sharla, “south of Mace”? Mace runs N/S… not very far south from Montgomery, (towards Dixon), you’re in Solano County…
“Roughly 1/3 of the students at DaVinci are out of resident students (don’t pay local taxes) yet the School District is considering expensive upgrades to serve them, while the school has plans to increase enrollment even higher.”
Once you realize that school administrators make decisions primarily to benefit school administrators then all becomes obvious.
Ahhh… point of agreement, Jim:
True story… may well be more egregiously true than you realize, particularly in re: financial dealing (and tangent dealings) with the City… where the district f’s up, then demands the City make them whole… @ no cost (and sometimes ‘bonuses’)… several Superintendents, and several Board members (past, know of no problems with current), had hands so heavily soiled in this regard, that was inclined to shower, wash hands again, then use Purell to cleanse…
City employees were told to ‘suck it up’… “it’s for the kids” was often used as a ‘mantra’…
Topic of this article is Mace/ El Macero, not the school district.
Feel free to delete my posts off topic… actually, please…
Part of Sharla’s, and all of Jim H’s should be treated same…
Mea culpa…
Yes – only responded to your since it was the most recent – wasn’t trying to single you out.
I could be wrong, but El Macero residents are in DJUSD and therefore have to pay the parcel tax, so I’m not sure the point of all of this.
As David points out, only a portion for the ‘evolved’ discussion…
Per topic, as presented, El Macero, Old Willowbank pay no impact fees to City, no property tax towards GF revenues (roads, etc.) accrued by the City, no parcel taxes for municipal purposes… so you are correct, but only as it relates to DJUSD… and missing the point of the main article…
Can say that, as one who strayed off-topic… now repentant (sort of)…
Yet, El Macero, ‘Old Willowbank’ folk often are most vocal about what the City should spend to accommodate their needs/wants, generally w/o admitting they “want the say, but don’t want to pay”… ‘representation without taxation’, as it were… interesting spin on what “founding fathers” rebelled against, in part…
I don’t know what each of the city council members would say in answer to the point about El Macero and Willowbank residents demanding expenditures from the city of Davis. They have been silent on that. It has crossed my mind daily since January. When I think about it, I understand that those residents are voters within the DJUSD boundaries. And while I don’t know the facts, I would suppose they pay some amount toward city services under some kind of contract. But even if all that were available I wonder really how much difference it makes. Many of those people are part of our community in positive ways. One El Macero resident bravely spoke up in favor of the Mace Blvd improvements at the City Council meeting on Tuesday and even called out some of her neighbors for not being in touch with issues regarding cycling and pedestrians. So what purpose does it serve to castigate El Macero and Willowbank?
To anyone who has spent any time on Next Door following this topic, the torch-and-pitchfork crowd have certainly not made any friends. Their online behavior has included a range of abrasive tactics like posting in CAPS (the equivalent of shouting), hijacking unrelated posts by cutting and pasting blocks of text, use of provocative language similar to the comment in the article above (“totally brain dead and also a sophomoric design”), demanding a recall of the entire city council (most often individuals from El Macero who don’t vote in city elections) and generally a shotgun approach to the entire project by citing any little thing that might bolster their case whether it is justified or not. In their view, nothing about the Mace Blvd project is okay. Nothing.
I have mixed feelings about all this. While I admire their Jacobean zeal and willingness to violate all kinds of social norms to arouse their base (obviously it has been effective), I’m troubled by how it affects social discourse and community cohesiveness. It’s been a take-no-prisoners campaign and it’s pretty hard not to take the hostility to heart. If the City Council were making decisions based on how people behave, they wouldn’t change anything out there on Mace Blvd and would not even talk to those people.
To the credit of the City Council, they have kept the door open on how this project may be modified. What David did not include in his report are the comments of Darrell Dickey who suggested that the uproar is an opportunity to address legitimate problems and come up with a really good project. The way it’s gone down so far with the loudest squeaky wheel asking for all the grease is that we will end up with a less than optimal, compromised project based on the angriest El Macero driver.
The ball really is now in the political arena and will depend on how thoroughly the city and county facilitate the best solution.
True, as far as representing that they are outside the City… not so true (by far!) of those who spoke as if they were within! 45 years of history back me up. Few were challenged for the deception, but it was (is?) prevalent…
How many folk @ recent meetings on the Mace changes, self-identified as to residence status? I suspect, few.
The council definitely dropped the ball here – they should have talked about fair share. We made a big point out of the UCD MOU – where’s the council on this one? Why hasn’t Jim Provenza stepped up here? Doesn’t he represent folks who live in the city too?
My biggest issue as an El Macero resident is that the city did zero outreach to the county residents during the planning process. We might not be where we are today if the city had notified El Macero, Willowbank, and the county residents south on Mace. It would have been nice to bring up these concerns in the planning phase before construction started.
So, you wanted (deserved?) representation, with no obligation for funding… got it… do you know how many (%-age?) of the vocal folk at the meetings that did occur, were El Macero/’Old Willowbank/”county residents south on Mace”?
Fits with what I opined earlier… thank you for the affirmation.
When they make a major change to your only egress; yes, I think that is deserving of outreach. Sad that you have an affirmation that people outside the city don’t matter.
The County insisted that the City take all responsibility, and legal ownership of Mace Blvd (formerly known as Co Rd 104) many years ago… when the City annexed ‘City Willowbank’, etc… all costs, responsibility, no financial contribution… the County did that, to wash their hands, financially… you have benefited from that. You want the amenities, but no responsibility for costs… you want it all…
Very normal, very human, very selfish…
The County laid the groundwork… complain to them… the County, not the City, acted to change the “rules” as to your major access… perhaps they can modify their contributions to City expenses as to roadway and other improvements… your BS that I do not care about others is misplaced… big time…
But your apparent view that “we want to play, but not “pay” is, well, ‘telling’… has El Macero even once ever stepped forward to contribute to City expenditures? Cite examples…
El Macero has repeatedly demanded to be ‘subsidized’ as to City costs to convey your water, your wastes, your drainage… the County erred when they allowed El Macero to exist, outside City of Davis limits… when most of South Davis was annexed in the late 60’s, Willowbank and El Macero said, “fine, but not us”…
Who paid for Mace interchange improvements? State and City… no contributions from El Macero…
To paraphrase John Donne, no community is an island, unto itself… yet, repeatedly, consistently, over the years, El Macero has generally taken a very “privileged” attitude… the record documents this.
Despite the fact that it was a City employee who gave the County facts, that stopped FEMA from putting El Macero into a flood zone… the County was content with the FEMA determination…
If you are serious, petition to annex El Macero to the City (not sure I’d support that, given history, without “reparations”)… if not, why do you believe you should be consulted, without obligations, except perhaps in the name of “charity”?
“But your apparent view that “we want to play, but not “pay” is, well, ‘telling’… has El Macero even once ever stepped forward to contribute to City expenditures? Cite examples…”
You are taking mighty bold assumptions when all I asked for was initial outreach. To be a part of the conversation from the beginning. Seeing how the initial project was mostly funded by SB1 money, and not City of Davis revenue, I don’t think that is too much to ask. You are also stereotyping me to what you view as the sins of El Macero.
Sounds like you folks should build another road out. Having only a single egress is dangerous.
Like the Cannery. No way out except Covell.
Yep… City engineers urged having a route (or routes) to Pole Line from Cannery… City “planners”, Measure J/R folk said, no, growth inducing… had Cross Roads or Covell Village been planned/approved together with the /Cannery (old Hunt-Wesson site), things would be different… some can opine, better or, worse, but would would be different… something about 20/20 hindsight… so much for planning, as opposed to vox populi… which city planners/CC/ electorate, kow-towed to…
You reap what you sow… think I heard that somewhere…
They actually have two egresses (soon to be three?)… all to Mace… they have met the enemy, and it is them… they ‘bought’ into it… the County then pressured the City to make Mace a City street rather than a County Road (CR 104)… El Macero benefits, no responsibility… QED…
But El Macero is a ‘special case’ and deserves “accommodation” as a deprived entity… I get that now. Much lower property values/income than the City of Davis… yeah… right…
It seems to me that the folks at El Macero want the advantages of citizenship without the costs or obligations.
Yep… big time… as I’ve previously alluded to… a conclave of the “it’s all about me” cohort.
They are not alone… Binning Tract… “old Willowbank”… North Davis Meadows… tried not to single El Macero out… guess I should forgive them all, under the theory that I should forgive them for they don’t recognize what they do… not there yet… have a problem with their collective arrogance… am funny that way… I ‘should be better’, but not here yet… will work on it… seriously doubt the El Macero, etc. folk will concede ANYTHING… I’ll try to be the better person… no promises…