By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – I belatedly caught up with a Measure H discussion during the Chamber’s candidate forum from last week. It was Matt Williams for the no side taking on Wesley Sagewalker from the Yes on H side.
What struck me was a comment by Matt Williams early in the discussion on the traffic study.
He said, “But you have heard that the traffic study has said that it’s going to improve traffic times at intersections. Well, there’s a very good reason for that. The standard for traffic studies looks at an intersection from all four directions. And any of you who have lived with the current traffic problems on Mace north of I 80 know that the problems are heading southbound. We have no problems heading northbound. So what we have is the improvements that affect northbound eastbound and westbound overwhelming the real issue, which is southbound.”
That didn’t make a whole lot of sense to me, so I started by looking at the traffic study itself. The chart above is from page 43, and you can see that the project does have a major impact on traffic and causes some pretty substantial delays. But once the mitigation measures are put in place, those delays fall by quite a bit and in some cases actually improve over existing conditions.
That’s where the claim comes from that the project will actually improve Mace in the southbound direction over existing conditions.
Now I understand that there is some skepticism over that claim – and I think that skepticism is fair game for criticism.
However, what Matt Williams is arguing is that basically what is happening is that the improvement in the other four directions is trumping the traffic impact on Southbound Mace. That makes no sense intuitively and after doing some research is in fact false.
Matt Williams is correct on one point: “For signalized intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches.”
So theoretically his point could make some sense.
But let’s look at the first intersection – 9 – Mace and Alhambra. Right now during the PM peak hour there is a 163 delay. That increases to 286 second (nearly five minutes) with the project. But with the enhancement it drops to 45 seconds.
So you are telling me that Southbound Mace which is causing the delay is going to have its impact offset from just under five minutes to just under a minute all through improvement on Alhambra. That makes no sense.
And it turns out, it is actually incorrect.
As was explained to me – the delays is actually a weighted average – weighted by traffic volume. The vast majority of that at most intersections is produced on southbound Mace, though obviously traffic turning from Alhambra and Second Street onto southbound Mace is backing up some as well.
However, in the areas where there is not considerable delay, there is no room for improved traffic flow with the various improvements cited by the project. Those other directions in other words are not offsetting the worsening traffic on Mace under the Project Plus Operational Enhacements condition.
Bottom line, the vast majority of the improved traffic flow will in fact be where it needs to be on southbound Mace and the comment by Matt Williams was off-base.
A couple of important points this article over looks:
The EIR predicts more than 12,000 additional trips on Mace.
Any possible improvement in traffic on Mace is projected by stacking all best case scenarios and assuming extensive reworking of the road system. this is not supported in the basleine features or development agreement.
The Baseline features for this project do not require developers to pay for the mitigation measures that would be required. the language includes phrases like, “will participate in the construction,” and “will contribute funding.”
The development agreement does little more promising, “to determine which traffic mitigations are needed at each phase of Project development,” and then lists no direct road mitigation other than allowing developer owned property to be used to widen Mace.
Both the baseline features and the development merely promise to write a traffic demand management plan at a later date. Without this plan and more specific requirements to implement and fund it, all of the best case scenario numbers are etherware.
I don’t believe that anyone (even supporters) honestly believe that adding traffic will “improve” traffic. (Not to mention the environmental concerns associated with that pursuit.)
In any case, I’d be curious as to the timing of any of these “improvements”, assuming that funding is subsequently found for all of them.
Trying to navigate through an endless construction zone is no fun. It’s bad-enough when they close off lanes just to repave or repair them, let alone perform major reconstruction.
And such reconstruction is not always related to the streets, themselves. There would be disruption just to connect the site with utilities, water, sewer, etc.
Not to mention the addition of construction traffic, itself.
For years, if not decades.
And it’s not just DiSC.
Why would they even come up with any plan at all, when Shriner’s, Palomino Place, the property inside of Mace Curve, and the “other half” of DiSC are also (possibly) on the horizon?
Are each of those developments going to have their own “mitigation plan”? Possibly conflicting with (or undoing) any mitigation plan from DiSC?
Does anyone do any master planning? (“My” plan would be to leave the area alone. I like it just fine, the way it is.)
Though even I acknowledge that it makes sense to develop the property inside of the Mace Curve. I’d suggest putting more commercial development, there.
From RESOLUTION NO. 22-010, SERIES 2022:
What wording would you have preferred in the baseline agreement to reasonably ensure the desired traffic mitigation measures?
About
delay is only one of very many aspects.
And one question – so obvious it seems – is that delays are really bad now and shouldn’t we as responsible adults fix them in a different way?
It’s simply a fact of physics and human behavior that travel to and from DISC will be almost entirely by automobile.
A small number of people take express buses in the region and it’s mostly because parking is difficult and/or expensive at the destination. DISC as a destination will have no such worries.
There’s no promise of a shuttle that syncs with Capitol Corridor trains (and their not always predictable schedule). A single shuttle cannot serve the UC Davis – DISC route as the catchment area on the campus side is huge. One shuttle will be slow and multiple shuttles are expensive to purchase, staff and service.
A small number of motor vehicle-owning adults ride bikes to work if the work is not at UC Davis campus. It’s even smaller from origins in east Davis and south Davis, which are connected by a single route well to the west of Mace, by a relatively steep bridge (relative, compared to all the under-crossings in town – only the new connection from Olive to Pole Line is steeper, among dedicated bike/ped crossings.) The UC Davis Campus Travel Survey makes clear that journeys about 15 minutes are not interesting for most UC Davis students; DISC to to the closer part of campus is beyond this limit. I used to ride nearly everywhere in Davis until I moved just east of Mace.
A few minutes less delay under ideal conditions compared to a baseline that’s an existing garbage transportation system on the eastern periphery of Davis is nothing to be proud of.
12,000 additional journeys comes after any projected mitigation, but while it’s a horrible number, it’s only an additional number. I urge people who have not yet voted to consider also – or instead – what I focus on above: That DISC will have no significant share of arrivals by active or sustainable transportation, that virtually all journeys from DISC to the east side of South Davis and a significant majority of journeys more than 15 minutes away by bike will be by car, and that starting with this vote and continuing onward – e.g. with the new General Plan – we need focus on a 15 minute city. In a city designed based in part on this principle, will we will add thousands of journeys by foot, bike and public transportation.
Expensive parking is definitely one reason.
Another reason is that it’s subsidized by some employers (e.g., state/federal employers in Sacramento).
You’ve got to hit them with (both) a “stick and a carrot” (probably in that order).
Personally, I (might) hit them with high gas prices as well – but unless they hit $20/gallon, it’s probably not going to be effective. And if that occurs, DiSC would fail regardless of “approval”.
Needless to say, I would probably not be a “popular” president. Nor would you, I suspect. 🙂
DiSC 2022 WILL CONSTRUCT and/or contribute funding to improve the capacity, functionality, and safety of Mace Blvd.
The “or” effectively relieves the applicant from responsibility for constructing the improvements on its own. As long as it chips in $1 for the improvements it meets the requirement. That doesn’t look like reasonable ensurance to me.
So how should it read? If it simply said “WILL CONSTRUCT” that would be a constricting and unrealistic expectation. It could say “WILL CONSTRUCT” and provide funding. But that’s not accurate. It could say “WILL CONSTRUCT” or provide funding and that’s not accurate. I believe and/or = A or B or Both
The way I read it means the developer will:
Construct improvements to mace
OR Fund the improvements on mace.
OR Construct and fund improvements on mace
The wording leaves open for other funding sources and initiatives to become involved in the future. But I believe the onus is still on the developer which will be reviewed at each step of entitlement.
“Contribute funding to” does not mean (fully) “fund”, as Jim already noted.
With that type of wording, you can be sure that they won’t fully-fund it.
I disagree. The ability to chip in funding is still with the ultimate goal (responsibility) for completing the improvements. It’s worded this way to keep it open on HOW the improvements are accomplished. Yes the developer can just chip in $1 if the rest is covered by another source of funds (state, federal…wealthy benefactor…whatever). But bottom line (BASELINE) is that the developer is still responsible for improvements no matter how they build it or fund it…in order for them to move forward with entitlements.
That is how I understand it as well
In addition this is the language of the MOU – with binding language with the city and county: “The Applicant is required, pursuant to the adopted CEQA Addendum (Resolution No. 22-099), to implement the twenty-three identified transportation mitigation measures to mitigate for Project-related traffic impacts.”
The “entitlement” is the Measure J vote, itself. After that, voters will lose all control, and the developers will get what they want. (At least, to sell the site to another developer.)
For example, they can build the first phase (and/or nearly complete it), without having a “grade-separated crossing” in place (for bicycles).
Which means that there will be people living at the site, with no grade-separated crossing.
My guess is that they’ll “enlist” the “other half” of DiSC to complete it (and contribute toward the other “improvements”), at that point. Perhaps Shriner’s, as well.
(Not sure if they can also rope-in Palomino Place. If so, it’s going to be amusing to witness “developer-fighting-developer” fights.)
I’d suggest that they make it at least $2 toward all of the “traffic improvements”, to demonstrate “good faith”.
What the hell, make it $3.
Any gap in funding of the project resulting from weak contracts will need to be picked up by the City. DiSC implementation could end up costing the City quite a bit of money. By comparison the Nishi project included very explicit language that infrastructure like roadways bike and a grade-separated crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad, “are solely the responsibility of Developer, at the Developer’s sole cost.”
The DiSC contracts are full of this loose language that will make it nearly impossible to hold the developer to what they appear to be agreeing to.
You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you? Entitlements come at each step. Annexation (measure J) is just the first step then tentative maps, final maps….permits…etc… Those have to be approved by the city. The city is under the obligation to enforce the baseline features. They do so by granting or not granting those entitlements.
The definition of “entitlement” is not limited to your examples. Also, are you familiar with the history of what occurred at The Cannery, for example?
You trust the campaign chair (council member) to implement everything properly? The guy who sued opponents, on a personal level?
Regardless, you’re the one who noted this:
And just as important (as the undefined funding) is the “timing” of when this needs to be done -regardless of who pays for it.
Already noted that they can start on (and perhaps even complete) Phase I, without having the grade-separated crossing in place, for example.
Also, what makes you think that the city itself won’t end up paying for some of this?
But I’d still say that the more-important consideration is the impact that Shriner’s, Palomino Place, the “other half” of DiSC, the property inside Mace curve will have.
None of these impacts have been analyzed, much less “mitigated”. We already know that the “mitigations” for DiSC (regardless of timing or funding) don’t account for those impacts.
[edited]
You’re so lost and all over the place it’s hard to respond to your comment.
Land entitlement 101: It’s the legal process (and often political process) by which a developer gains approvals for a planned development.
The Cannery was not subject to Measure J. So the city was not legally bound by any baseline features in the project.
They can’t build squat unless the city approves their entitlements…and the city is under the obligation to enforce the baseline features from the Measure H vote.
Again, they can proceed with the first phase without having the grade-separated crossing in place. I’ve posted the reference to that, previously.
There will be people living at the site, with no grade-separated crossing.
This is another personal attack, and has no basis. The situation that occurred with The Cannery has already been noted by another commenter on this very page, and has been repeatedly noted in the past.
I haven’t looked into the timing of the other “improvements”.
Again, you’re the one who noted the following:
Again, I ask why you believe that the city won’t contribute toward those costs, as well.
Personal attacks are never relevant to the discussion at hand. I ask that you stop doing this.
I understand it just fine.
The baseline features for DiSC are written in a manner which would enable the council to subsequently enter into ill-advised agreements. This has been pointed out to you by three different commenters on here, now.
So I’ll ask you the same question: How do you not understand that?
Perhaps you should explain this a little more, as I understood that we were referring to the baseline features that would be approved via Measure J.
Are you claiming that the city would (for some unknown reason) “hold up” map approvals after a Measure J vote?
Again, the baseline features allow them to proceed (build) the first phase without having the grade-separated crossing in place. As such, there would likely be folks living there, without such a crossing in place.
Personally, I suspect that they would complete (or nearly-complete) Phase I, and then put the rest of it on hold until another development (probably the “other half”) of DiSC comes forward to help complete the crossing (and contribute to the other “improvements”). I understand that the site of the crossing is already planned to be on the “other half” of DiSC.
I also strongly suspect that the “other half” of DiSC would be a housing development.
You have an honorary campaign chair (for the “yes” side) on the council, who seems determined to make this proposal work for the developer, to say the least. Why don’t you ask him (and the rest of the council) if they “promise” not to help fund any of the “improvements”? (And, ask them to put that in writing.)
In any case, you asked a question of another commenter below, which I think bears repeating – as it was already preemptively answered:
Christ….you poor victim….AGAIN, NAME SOMETHING IN MY COMMENTS THAT WAS A PERSONAL ATTACK.
I explained in detail how the baseline features were written to be enforced. Your lack of understanding of legal writing is evident. Just because you believe one thing doesn’t make it objectively true.
Yes. The entitlement process is how the city can keep the developer in check. They grant entitlements based on if the project meets the General Plan requirements, services capacity…voter whim… Annexation is just the first step in the entitlement process. Normally all of these steps are governed by the city council (and lafco for annexation). Each step requires approval to move forward. It’s just in the case of Measure J that the first step is decided on directly by the voters. But the remaining steps are still there to be decided on by the city council.
Again, this shows how little you (and Colin) understand development. DISC is a 10 year project. The required changes to infrastructure are much greater and would and will likely require more sources of funding than the developer can put up themselves. In fact just think about DISC’s location compared to where NISHI. DISC will be located adjacent to COUNTY LAND. It’s also next to ag land. So you have far different political jurisdictions and environmental issues to content with. Those things also generally require different kinds of funding too. DISC is still required to construct and/or fund improvements to Mace. But it has a lot of leeway in how it can do it because of all the different factors involved.
How do you figure that the city is responsible for any gaps in funding? Where did you read that? Sure the developer can always walk away but that’s true for any project anywhere.
Name something personal about you that I posted that wasn’t relevant to the discussion at hand.
You’re not reading my posts. You keep referring to the Cannery. THE CANNERY WAS NOT SUBJECT TO A MEASURE J VOTE. SO NO BASELINE FEATURES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WERE TASKED WITH HOLDING THE DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE FOR. How do you not understand that?
How can the developer proceed without a tentative tract map or final map approval???? What do you think a successful measure J vote magically grants land entitlements?
Why would they unless they had a good reason to? The city is under no obligation to contribute funding for those improvements.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned in 40 years of negotiating contracts, it’s this: if a clause doesn’t say what one party thinks it should say, it’s because the other party doesn’t want it to say that.
Yet, both parties have the choice of the wording of the contract, right?
My point exactly — the city and the developer both knew full well the size of the loophole that the wording in question leaves open.
Just like when the city negotiated a DA with the Cannery folks that said that the developer “may” ask for a CFD, and city “may” grant it, both of which subsequently happened. That was a charade put on to get through the negotiations and paint a fig leaf of fiscal responsibility on the city’s part. It later (as intended) produced a multi-million dollar giveaway to the developer.
Jim… your second paragraph…
‘After my time’, but agreed that it was the “opening wedge”, the “camel’s nose in the tent”… unlike previous DA’s where it was just acknowledging what was law, independent of the DA… Korvosa and others including a certain candidate for County Supervisor were part of negotiating that language, as I recall… Robb Davis talked to me about that, after the fact… can’t remember what the vote was, but it was “ill-advised”… much worse than other DA’s… (“Development Agreements”, not trying to ‘drift’ into a completely different definitions of ‘DA’, completely different discussion thread(s))
And what do you think it should say? I asked you before how you think it should have been written. I stated how I read it which still lays the burden of the improvements on the developer. How the developer gets those improvements (construction and funding) is still for them to figure out.
Probably like the following (copied from Colin, above):
The lines are drawn, in hardened concrete, for many posting…
No cogent thought… “my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts” thingy going on
Knowing Jim F, that blows me away… uncharacteristic… $1? Really? Am amazed by that post…
Jim F’s position is quite evident… like several other posters… No on H… perhaps No on any growth? (Jim F has not ‘gone there’)… I say again, I’ve decided how to vote (to be transparent, I’ve already voted), not particularly inclined to be influenced by ‘dogmas’…
Ballots have been mailed out… 2 of 3 in this household have been ‘cast’… I hope all vote, as eligible (altho’ a certain someone has opined I should not be eligible, on the measure, but cannot fathom why, as I’ve lived in Davis for like 45 years, currently reside in Mace Ranch, but I should abstain?), and we’ll see how the vote turns out… as I’ve said several times before, we can live with either outcome, and fully understand the pros/cons…
Called being an ‘adult’…
If eligible, I hope all vote, accept the vote results and move forward…
Please note, I’m not recommending a particular vote, but with the JeRkeD process, please vote…
Here you go (below). Certainly, these are some rather mild personal attacks, compared to some of what occurs on here. I’d categorize the following as more of an attempt to undermine the messenger, which is a common political tactic.
I don’t believe that either of us are attorneys. Three people in this thread alone disagree with you, and their reasons for that have already been provided.
The same would apply to you. The reasons for the disagreement were already pointed out, so I’m not sure that it helps to continue doing so.
Other than agreeing with the other commenters on here regarding undefined funding of the “improvements”, what’s your point here?
As a side note, are you sure that it’s (only) a 10-year development timeline?
Personal attack? I questioned your ability to understand my comments and the subject being discussed. That’s hardly an attack. Messenger? Of or for what are you carrying messages? You’re having a discussion with me. I don’t need (or want or care) to undermine you personally. I’m establishing the reasons you’re having for disagreeing with me….which is lack of understanding and ignorance of the subject being discussed.
I’m by far and away more qualified than most people (and certainly almost everyone here on this comment board) to speak on this subject. This isn’t the first time I’ve read, fixed/corrected language in real estate legal documents.
This is what I mean by not understanding development and my comments. Let me put it a little more simply; comparing DISC to NISHI is an apple to oranges comparison for the reasons I listed. So simplistic ideas about baseline features for NISHI being written for DISC are absurd.
I took 10 years from Matt’s estimates about when the projected tax revenue for the city would be fully realized.
Keith Y-E… re: above post…
9.5/10… enjoy the day…