2019 will likely be remembered as a year of tragedy. The year started with the tragic murder of young police officer Natalie Corona on January 10 and in many ways was bookended by the murder-police shooting of a mother and her son.
But in between the council largely attempted to put out a lot of brush fires, while either intentionally or inadvertently deferring the big issues for another time.
The biggest issues of the year: Pacifico, Mace, downtown parking, homeless respite center were of this nature. The long-term challenges – General Plan, Measure R, housing, economic development, revenue, the downtown and fiscal sustainability have largely been deferred to another time.
It is perhaps fitting that at the moment many of us were at a community meeting at the library at Montgomery on Pacifico, Natalie Corona was being shot in downtown Davis.
The neighbors complained that the population of Pacifico was creating a nuisance. The council ultimately decided to close the facility and put out an RFP for other potential uses of the site. In so doing, they created a need to find locations to continue to provide the services to the residents of Pacifico while ignoring requests for a navigation center and a place to provide walk-in mental health services.
In the downtown, the council followed recommendations by the Downtown Parking Taskforce to create paid parking downtown, and then backed off under pressure from the business community. The watered down paid parking proposal is still sparking controversy even while the issue of parking has not been adequately addressed.
At Mace, residents of South Davis and especially El Macero pushed back redesigns to the road coincided with a heavy-buildup of traffic congestion, especially on Thursday and Friday afternoons.
After a series of heated meetings in South Davis, the council approved a modified plan which does not go quite as far as some residents who demanded Mace be restored to the way it was – now Mace 
will be restored to four vehicle travel lanes even as traffic analysis shows a good deal of the congestion is due not the road redesign, but rather changes to traffic on I-80.
Meanwhile we watched not one but two public meetings involving the respite center for homeless people. There was pushback on the original location last month, the council, claiming that Fifth Street at the corporation yards was preferable, moved the proposed location from Second Street in November. That triggered pushback at Davis Manor, but ultimately the council stuck with the location.
The problem of course is that while the respite center provides some day shelter and needed services, the city still hasn’t addressed either the need for permanent nighttime shelters or permanent supportive housing for a growing homeless population.
That is kind of the microcosm for the year. The council was busy putting out brushfires – several of them at least partially self-inflicted. And they have yet to address the long-term issues facing this community.
We saw the downtown parking issue – unresolved by the compromise – and yet we have yet to take on the final downtown plan report which will require much community discussion still as the council will look at an ambitious plan – which doesn’t go far enough for some and will go way too far for others.
The number issue facing the community according to both private and public polling is the affordability of housing. And yet, the council this year did not take on one-major housing project. It has not started a discussion on the required renewal of Measure R. And it has deferred discussions on the downtown which will have a mixed use proposal and the General Plan update to future dates.
The city has taken on the issues of Pacifico and respite centers without addressing broader needs for the homeless.
The city also has put a sales tax renewal on the ballot which maintains the status quo on taxes – and yet it has done very little on either the broader picture for economic development (i.e. revenue generation) or fiscal sustainability.
The city is still facing an $8 million (at minimum) shortfall. If anything the city continues to tread water. The latest MOUs have all included two percent pay increases.
The city faces a deficit for road and other infrastructure. In 2018, the voters failed to get to two-thirds on a parcel tax that would fund road repairs among other infrastructure needs. The voters passed a status quo parks tax in 2018 and will likely approve a status quo sales tax in 2020. But there are no plans to expand revenue.
Meanwhile a city inventory of available commercial land – from January – showed a limited amount of commercially zoned and available land that would be available for actual development in the next 10 to 20 years. While the city’s inventory found about 129 acres, a close scrutiny of that property found that between pre-designated uses for health care facilities, the superfund, and general unavailability, only about 50 acres remain.
The council will probably get a chance to act on the ARC proposal for roughly 200 acres of innovation space next year. But that discussion is likely to get bogged down in concerns about traffic impacts and there is no plan B if voters fail to approve the innovation center.
In short, some massive questions are brewing for 2020. A big question will be which concern is bigger for the voters – the lack of affordability housing, the lack of economic development, or concerns about increased traffic congestion.
The Vanguard is concerned that the council did not address any of those looming issues in 2019. Moreover, when the council did act, they avoided the core issues. Downtown parking once again was largely deferred. Broader homeless issues were not raised. The council had an opportunity to seek a more expansive tax measure for 2020, but opted for basically a straight renewal – albeit one without a sunset date.
The council failed to have discussions on the need for housing, economic development, Measure R, and fiscal reform.
In short, the council put out some brushfires, affixed some band-aids and left the heavier lifting to future councils.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The watered down paid parking proposal is still sparking controversy even while the issue of parking has not been adequately addressed.”
It will never be adequately addressed because it is an ongoing dynamic condition rather than a finite problem.
An ongoing dynamic condition with well-documented methods of management that many here either misunderstand or simply deny.
You talkin to me?
The council evidently concluded that many people prefer the status quo with respect to parking and concluded that it is not a “critical long term issue.”
“even as traffic analysis shows a good deal of the congestion is due not the road redesign, but rather changes to traffic on I-80.”
But some of the road redesign was apparently not just a factor in the congestion, but had some undesirable impacts. So they were responsive to the community’s concerns. One of the jobs of an elected official is to be responsive to community feedback, up to a point.
“The problem of course is that while the respite center provides some day shelter and needed services, the city still hasn’t addressed either the need for permanent nighttime shelters or permanent supportive housing for a growing homeless population.”
The council took action in spite of considerable pushback. They listened and were responsive, but did move forward. I don’t think any council member feels this is all that is needed. Providing permanent nighttime shelters etc. is going to be even more complicated and controversial. They made progress.
“And yet, the council this year did not take on one-major housing project.”
Is there one proposed that they failed to “take on”? If not, then what do you actually mean by this criticism?
“It has not started a discussion on the required renewal of Measure R.”
They didn’t need to “start a discussion” on this in 2019. It’s a reasonable action plan for 2020.
“The city has taken on the issues of Pacifico and respite centers without addressing broader needs for the homeless.” Except that they did start that process with the respite center.
“The council had an opportunity to seek a more expansive tax measure for 2020, but opted for basically a straight renewal.” Can you think of a reason why they might have been a bit conservative in their approach on this, given that the last tax measure before the voters failed?
“The council failed to have discussions on the need for housing, economic development, Measure R, and fiscal reform.”
There’s not much point in “having discussions” in the absence of specific proposals from the private sector for housing projects. There doesn’t seem to be much public appetite for fiscal reform, given that candidates who have embraced that in their council campaigns have done very poorly at the polls. In my opinion, “discussions” about Measure R will be really simple and might occupy about half of one council meeting. And discussions about economic development, which have been ongoing for about a decade now with respect to specific peripheral and downtown options, have pretty much run out of options. ARC is the last one standing, and I’m giving it less than 50:50 odds at this point.
This whole essay reads like a campaign manifesto. It fails to acknowledge the hard work this council has actually put in on many topics. Will you be taking out papers for the council soon?
This would be a valid point if the need first came to the Council’s attention in 2019. After years of neglect and minimal progress, however, it’s fair to say the Council’s responsiveness to the issue has been less than timely and adequate.
Not sure “punted” is the correct analogy in the headline… generally means you can’t move the ball farther down the field during the current series of downs… and give control for the next plays to your opponent… as long as you advance the ball ten yards or more, your team still has control of the ball, and if keeps doing that, eventually, you’ll score… from Don’s comments, appears to be a better analogy.
Also, in the recent council meeting the city joined the county in purchasing the H Street duplex and, per the Davis Enterprise,
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city-county-agree-to-purchase-h-street-duplex/
Don Shor stated “ There’s not much point in “having discussions” in the absence of specific proposals from the private sector for housing projects.”
The City did not meet its own deadline for revising its interim affordable housing ordinance. Meanwhile, projects have been proposed that are attempting to take advantage of that failure.
Greenwald stated “ While the city’s inventory found about 129 acres, a close scrutiny of that property found that between pre-designated uses for health care facilities, the superfund, and general unavailability, only about 50 acres remain.”
Nope. Greenwald conducted a brief amateur-level exercise and “found” that.
Meanwhile, the City has yet to conduct an analysis of the actual development potential of the sites (including an expanded inventory, including underutilized/redevelopable sites, City-owned sites, and others).
Even at a reduced inventory of 60 acres, at the commercial/industrial development density proposed by ARC (supposedly 0.92 FAR, but it is unclear how they calculated that), and a standard 250 sf/employee ratio, there is a potential for 9,600 jobs on already existing vacant land within city limits in the short-term, and at least double that over a 20-year period. Add in underutilized/redevelopable land, city-owned land, and potentially rezonable land, and the capacity is even higher.
If the City is serious about the climate change emergency and infill development strategies, it will prioritize that. That should be ‘Plan A,’ not a retrograde, auto-dependent, highway-oriented, peripheral office park.
The sites available at the time of the Innovation Park Task Force (2009 – 2014, roughly) are evaluated here:
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Innovation-Park-Task-Force-Committee/Documents/Final-Business-Park-land-Strategy-Site-Evaluations-2010-10-27.pdf