City of Davis

One of the issues that has arisen during the course of the Wildhorse Ranch debate is a very important question as to when commissions ought to weigh in on future housing developments.  The issue was first raised by Councilmember Stephen Souza during the July 28 meeting when he asked why commissions such as the Open Space, Finance and Budget among others did not have the issue of Wildhorse Ranch come before them.  City Staff at that time explained that staff did not feel the need for policy direction and did not have ambiguities about whether or not this project fell within city guidelines in these jurisdictions.

As a result the project came before only the Social Services and Planning Commissions prior to approval by council.  As we now know there is at least considerable debate about the finances of the project and it clearly would have been helpful had the Finance and Budget Commission had a chance to evaluate the project, the model, and how it fit within the city’s budget and its impact on that budget.

While it took the Council far longer than anticipated, going past midnight, four of them were able to agree on a modified development agreement that accounted for some of the concerns the neighbors sought to address.  They were able to modify the work hours, the construction of a play structure and covered meeting area within the greenbelt, other issues such as the modification of buffer were left untouched at this point.

These issues of course were mostly cosmetic and little to do with support or opposition to project.  As one person put it, they might make life a bit more bearable for the neighbors immediately adjacent to the project.  There were limits as to how far the council was willing to go, but there was some give and take.

What began as a simple hearing by the Finance and Budget Commission listening to the fiscal analysis on the Wildhorse Ranch Project became a more generalized complaint about the city’s model for fiscal analysis and the role of the commission in such an analysis.  The commission eventually ruled that they lacked enough time and the necessary information to make a determination of any sort of the fiscal analysis and to sort out competing claims presented before the commission by members of the public, and by Councilmember Sue Greenwald who seemlessly shifted between roles as Councilmember, Council liaison and member of the public.

The meeting began where most of these meetings tend to, a staff report that laid out the fiscal analysis that would be presented tonight at the Davis City Council Meeting.  The City Council tonight is scheduled to approve the developer’s agreement.

Placed before the Davis City Council on Tuesday will be true action on water that we have seen that will lock the city into a course of action.  If approved it would authorize the Mayor of the city of Davis to execute the proposed Joint Powers Authority agreement–the Davis-Woodland Water Authority (DWWA), it would elect two of the Davis City Councilmembers and an alternate to serve on the Governing Board, and it would approve a budget contribution of just under one million dollars.

According to comments set up at the joint council session, only elected officials would serve as members of the Governing Board.  Currently the board would be made up of four members with non-tiebreaking provision, meaning and emphasizing the need for consensus building.

After a staff report that appeared to waffle and stall for time, city staff on Tuesday night found a way forward in the form of a resolution the entire council could agree with.

The resolution was read into the record by Councilmember Lamar Heystek.  The consensus emerged following the public comment of dozens of residents, most of who came forward strongly in support of the project.

It does not seem very long ago that DDBA co-President Jennifer Anderson proudly strode to the mic at Community Chambers to announce that they had collected 400 signatures opposing the Fifth Street Redesign. 

Tonight Council once again will hear staff on the Fifth Street redesign, just over a month after they approved funding for a SACOG grant.  This time it is supporters of the project that will be armed to the teeth with a petition–2500 strong in favor of the redesign.  DDBA, how do you like them apples?

On the night of July 21, 2009, the Davis City Council dropped back into punt formation and punted the political hot potato that is the wood burning issue back even further off the horizon… yet again. 

The issue has been mishandled from the beginning starting with a summer 2008 vote that was done before most people even became aware of the issue where they directed the Natural Resources Commission to draft an ordinance that would ban woodburning in the city of Davis.

Sunday’s Davis Enterprise presents a good and balanced article on the Fifth Street Redesign and it captures well the concerns that many in the downtown businesses have toward the project.  While I understand the concerns of business–namely that reducing the lanes on Fifth Street will slow down traffic and thus discourage people from coming to downtown, I believe the effect of the change will actually produce the opposite impact for downtown.

The studies show that the road capacity will be the same.  What will be different is there will be more traffic flow and less traffic stopping.  Pedestrians and bicyclists both of whom could be huge partakers in the downtown will have greater access to the downtown under a redesign.  Statistics show that the corridor presently is the most dangerous stretch of road in Davis–creating a safer road will benefit downtown.

A few weeks ago the Vanguard printed the ballot statements for and against Measure P. 

Signing the ballot statement for Measure P were Jay Gerber, Business Owner/ former President Davis Chamber of Commerce; Tansey Thomas, former City Council Candidate and Community Activist; Stan Forbes Business Owner and former Davis City Councilmember; Pam Nieberg, Environmental Activist; and Ken Wagstaff, Former Mayor of Davis.

Yesterday’s article discussed the issue of housing affordability in Davis.  At that time, we chose to separate the overall issue of housing affordability from the hot button issue of Wildhorse Ranch that voters will vote on come November.  One of the crucial questions voters will have to determine is to what extent, Wildhorse Ranch provides housing that meets our needs in Davis.

As we discussed yesterday, the problem of affordability of housing in Davis has no simple solution.  Indeed each of the three solutions that we threw out as possible answers had serious shortcommings.

In recent weeks there has been an active and persistent discussion on the Vanguard about the issue of workforce housing.  The discussion has been interesting and impassioned.  The emerging consensus places the number somewhere around $200,000 as housing that a substantial portion of the workforce can afford.  While I am sympathetic to the viewpoint of the people who are advocating for more affordable housing for the Davis workforce, I think the discussion to this point has focused too narrowly on one number and one population segment.

I have long been an advocate of slow growth in Davis, and I think the 1% growth requirement set by the council majority is currently set too high.  I also believe that any actual growth should not be based on a requirement number, but rather on two concepts:  first, internal demand and second, quality of the project.

They told us it could not be done.  It was November of 2008, the West Lake shopping center had been vacant of a grocery store for almost two-and-a-half years.  The issue was on no one’s radar, except one blogger and a small but determined group of civic activists who called themselves DANG (Davis Advocates for Neighborhood Grocery Stores).

The argument by those who were skeptical about the prospects of a new store coming to West Lake was simple, no one would simply allow their property lie vacant intentionally and take financial losses.  That would be illogical.  However, on November 24, 2008, right before Thanksgiving, I was looking for a topic and somewhat casually I listed out top goals for the coming year and there I decided to put getting a grocery store at the top of the list.