It is worth noting that the ballot measure that requires a vote for land use changes and incorporation of open space and agricultural land into urban uses is so synonymous with its previous ballot designation, that the city will now be forced to have to adopt it’s common reference of Measure J. Will it continued to be called Measure J or it’s actual name, the “Citizens’ Right to Vote on Future Use of Open Space and Agricultural Lands?”
While he lists a website on his ballot argument, www.helpsavedavis.org, the website is clearly not set up as of now.
One thing that Mr. Whitcombe does get credit for is that in addition to signing the ballot statement, he also came on the Vanguard and defended it. While I disagree with his arguments, I believe that a good open dialogue is in the best interest of all involved.
However, I believe he makes a number of assumptions and arguments that need further response and elaboration.
He writes in his argument:
“Measure R has not slowed growth, but instead pushed growth toward neighborhood open space and bordering jurisdictions. UC Davis responded to Measure R by starting a housing project, on land the City of Davis now hopes to annex.”
He later writes,
“Growth in and around Davis is substantially the same as before Measure J. You can exclude 1000+ apartments from growth for rhetorical purposes, but the impacts that students have on traffic and public services are real.”
There are a couple of interested points embedded in here. The first, point is that Measure J is actually not suppose to slow growth, it is supposed to give the people of Davis the ability to decide where, when, and how we convert ag land into urban use.
West Village may have been UC Davis’ response to Measure J. However, from the standpoint of traffic impacts, it is difficult to argue that it has a detrimental affect on Davis. After all, the university is not going to add students as the result of the construction of West Village. Rather they are going to house existing students close to the campus where the students are more likely to bicycle to campus and less likely to drive around town. From that standpoint, you can argue it has probably lessened the impact on traffic by taking 1000 would-be commuters and making them bikers.
We can debate over whether we would have liked West Village to be constructed, however, from a planning standpoint, putting students and university workers next to the university, is not the worst outcome.
“Housing approved under Measure R has generated no significant revenue for the City or schools, or contributed to needed traffic improvements. If Measure R is renewed, expect more under-mitigated development, and worsening fiscal problems for the City and schools. Will the next school closure be in your neighborhood?”
The second issue is the issue of school closures. Here Mr. Whitcombe attempts to make the argument that Measure J led to declining enrollment and the closure of a school. I believe this is a false interpretation of history.
He continues:
“No more school closures? Boy, I hope your right about that. But with increasing enrollment declines and an ever worsening fiscal situation, I’d be surprised if there isn’t some major consolidation of facilities (i.e. school closures) in the next 10 years, absent some source of major funds.”
The first problem here is that he is now conflating issues. First he is arguing that lack of growth in the form of Measure J has led to declining enrollment and a school closure. Then he is arguing that the current fiscal crisis will lead to the major consolidation of the schools. Let’s address these issues separately.
Let’s leave aside the fact that above he has argued that “Measure R has not slowed growth” because if that is true, then this is a moot point. However, the district made the determination to close Valley Oak in part because the district overbuilt in 2000 in anticipation that the city would continue to grow at the rapid rate it did in the 1990s that led to Measure J being implemented. When that did not happen, it determined that enrollment did not support keeping an additional elementary school open.
Since that point however, enrollment has stabilized. It is not declining and not expected to decline into the projected future.
The district with the closure of Valley Oak lacks the additional capacity for consolidation. A few months ago, the school board, Superintendent James Hammond and Budget Director Bruce Colby all stated pretty clearly that closing a school was not an option in the near future and certainly not as a means to close a $5.7 million deficit. Does that mean that things cannot change? No. But it is unclear that Measure J will have any effect on that decision.
One can argue hypothetical financial crises, but we are probably at the worst point in our current crisis and the district is not talking consolidation. I cannot preclude it ten years from now, but right now, for the foreseeable future, it does not seem that closing a school is a reasonable cause for concern or reason to vote against this measure.
Mr. Whitcombe also has some misperceptions as to how schools are financed. For example, “I don’t think I was directly arguing that more senior housing is going to help schools. However, a substantial portion of property tax revenue would go to schools.”
However in the Davis school district, property taxes do not drive school revenues, city revenues, but not school revenues. The Davis schools get money based on average daily attendance (ADA).
There are several other points that should be addressed as well. I think there is a good discussion to be had in terms of whether Measure J/ R has led to a lack of innovation in housing in Davis. I would argue that for the most part, the developments in the 1980s and 1990s in Davis could have been plopped down anywhere. Developments at Wildhorse or Mace Ranch could easily be found in Elk Grove or Natomas. The last truly innovative project was likely Village Homes with Wildhorse Ranch making a bid for innovative features as well but voted down at the ballot box.
To the extent that the city has failed to mitigate for impacts or has failed to utilize development deals to their fullest ability can be more attributed to City Council policies than Measure J.
Mr. Whitcombe tips his hand however when he said, “I frankly don’t think any housing development can pass the voters in the form of an initiative.”
While that is an interesting statement, it is not necessarily true. There have been two projects rejected by the voters under Measure J. One was the massive Covell Village project that would have added around 2000 units to Davis and was not properly mitigated particularly for traffic impacts. The other was the smaller Measure P that occurred at the height of the housing market collapse.
So we have two examples, one that was too big and one that was clearly at the wrong time. However, pre-Measure J we have the example of Wildhorse which while not technically a Measure J vote was put on the ballot and was approved by the voters.
I agree with Mr. Whitcombe that right now in the foreseeable future given the housing market, there is no project that will win approval by the voters, but that will likely change at some point down the line. Why does Mr. Whitcombe believe that this should preclude the voters having the right to vote? Why does he believe he knows better than the majority of the people in Davis?
I think the answer to that is that he is somehow concerned that the “entire character of Davis will be forever altered if we continue for 10 more years.” But I think people are equally concerned that had we continued as we had in the 1990s, the entire character of Davis would be forever altered. Davis is still a small town with a small town feel, but would it maintain that character had it grown to 100,000 like it’s Valley sisters, Vacaville and Fairfield? Shouldn’t the people of Davis get to decide on its future?
He’s making the argument that the restrict of housing supply will lead to a decline in the quality of life. I think it could be easily make that the lack of restriction of housing supply could do the exact same thing. Moreover, he contradicts himself again. He started out his argument arguing that Measure J had not decreased growth, now he is talking about a restriction of the housing supply. Which is it?
The fact of the matter is that Mr. Whitcombe has a financial interest at stake here that he never really acknowledges or accounts for. His family stands to make considerable money should their projects pass, they seem to believe it is unlikely that their projects will pass, and so they are attempting to get rid of that barrier. Somehow I think the city of Davis and its residents will see through the charade.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I propose Measure RX that would allow the voters to retroactively remove projects that we don’t like!
It is an interesting observation that the Whitcombe’s who claim to have the best interest of Davis at heart take their profits to buy large hunting ranches(to shoot animals in open, pristine surroundings) and villas in Mexico where they can escape the impacts on Davis’ quality of life that we less “fortunate” Davisites are left to endure.
Why my previous comment was removed begs understanding. I will try again.
It is an interesting observation that some local Davis developers who declare that they have Davis’ best interests at heart actually reside,for the most part, in locales that offer open space and little auto traffic and congestion, ,e.g., hunting ranches, villas in Mexico or a nice place in the south of France. We less fortunate Davis residents are left with the impacts on Davis’ “quality of life”.
I’m not sure either.
I would be interested however in a bit more discussion on Whitcombe’s arguments and whether you think this is going to be a threat to Measure J or simply a smokescreen. If they aren’t intending to take out Measure J, why put their name on it?
I think that they believe that the fiscal problems facing Davis open the door for claiming that peripheral development is the way to address Davis’ budget woes by continuing the Ponzi scheme that cities have been addicted to for some time now. Short-sighted, short-term development fees to back-fill city budget deficits. The developments themselves add to the city’s “red ink” and so, more peripheral development to back-fill , etc. etc…. It’s a superficial and simplistic argument which they hope will be bought by the Davis voters. Measure X failed in part because of the level of developer arrogance coupled with miscalculating the intelligence of the Davis voter. This appears not to have changed.
[quote]West Village may have been UC Davis’ response to Measure J. However, from the standpoint of traffic impacts, it is difficult to argue that it has a detrimental affect on Davis.[/quote]
The EIR for the UCD Long Range Development Plan estimated that West Village will produce 24,257 external vehicle trips per day [LRDP EIR, p. 4.14-48, Table 4.14-16]. While one can argue that West Village will have little effect on overall traffic in Davis, it will have a very large impact on traffic at some already-troublesome locations.
Assuming that UCD and the City will honor UCD’s committment not to provide motor vehicle access to Russell Boulevard west of Hwy 113 (except emergency vehicles), those 24,000+ vehicle trips will primarily impact the following on-campus roads: Hutchison, LaRue and Garrod. However, traffic from West Village heading towards central Davis will necessarily travel either on Russell Boulevard east of LaRue/Anderson, on the freeways, or on the circuitous campus roads that lead past the Mondavi Center and Mrak Hall. Given those three routes, it is likely that the majority of that traffic will travel on Russell. If there is a significant increase in traffic going past the Mondavi Center and Mrak Hall, the UCD administration will probably take action to discourage that route.
The LRDP EIR estimates daily traffic volumes along all segments of Russell Boulevard from Eisenhower to College Park in 2015 will be 4,500 – 5,500 higher with the LRDP than with the No Project alternative [LRDP EIR, p. 4.14-52, Table 4.14-19]. (The EIR does not indicate how much of that increase is due to West Village, but it is likely to be the lion’s share.) That represents about 15-30% more daily traffic for those roadway segments.
If UCD and/or the City decides to violate UCD’s promise not to provide full vehicle access to Russell Boulevard west of 113 (and assuming the EIR traffic projections are correct), the traffic at the Russell Bouvelvard overpass will become horrible – perhaps to the extent that traffic will drive through the Arthur Street neighborhood to cross the freeway at Covell. The Covell overpass is already over capacity at certain times. It will likely be many years before there is another overpass built at Hwy 113 connecting west Davis to central Davis, or the existing overpasses are widened. Those are very expensive projects.
It is certain that West Village will have a very large impact on traffic at certain important locations – especially on Russell Boulevard between Anderson and the downtown area (whether the no vehicle access committment is honored or not) and a very significant impact on Russell Boulevard west of Anderson Road as well if UCD’s committment is not honored.
[i]”While one can argue that West Village will have little effect on overall traffic in Davis, it will have a very large impact on traffic at some already-troublesome locations.”[/i]
Other than when someone is hurrying to respond to an emergency, I think there are two very good results of “troublesome traffic”:
1. It forces you to slow down. People are so often, needlessly, in a hurry, driving too fast for no reason; and
2. If getting stuck every day in a traffic jam in Davis bugs you — it would bug the bejeezus out of me if, for example, I had to drive through the Richards Blvd. Underpass during rush hour every day — it gives folks an incentive to stop driving so much. That is, they can take a bus if they have to go a long distance or the weather is foul; or they can bike or walk if the distance is short.
That might sound flippant, but really, even if you live way out at Mace Blvd. & El Macero Drive in South Davis, it’s only about 3.7 miles to bike to campus. At a very slow pace, 12 miles an hour, that’s only an 18.5 minute ride–no big deal. And it’s about the same amount of time on Unitrans on the Q-line.
I’m not saying because of its side-benefits we should build more and more in order to create traffic jams. Where possible and cost effective, I am all for building infrastructure designed to meet the demand. But just because excess demand at certain times of day can slow people down, that is not entirely bad (save during a crisis).
As to the West Village location, its great benefit is that by way of the Hutchison Drive route and the bike overcrossing which lands at Orchard Park Circle, it will be quite easy for the students and faculty who live there to get to and from the main campus without ever impacting anyone in the City of Davis.
[i]”It is certain that West Village will have a very large impact on traffic at certain important locations – especially on Russell Boulevard between Anderson and the downtown area …”[/i]
Insofar as traffic engineers back up your contention, I won’t doubt you. However, how many times a day will a student living in West Village drive his car downtown*? How many times a day will a faculty resident of West Village drive downtown*?
I think there are supposed to be units for 3,000 students at West Village eventually. The other 500 residents will be faculty and their families, with maybe a few non-faculty staff in the mix. Maybe Unitrans can dedicate a bus line for them directly to the downtown. They could do that, if they wanted to, taking them on Hutchison straight through campus to 1st and A. That is far more direct than taking Russell.
*My understanding is that the supposed route of this trip is east on Hutchison to LaRue; north on LaRue to Russell; and then east on Russell into the pit of traffic hell.
[quote]
Insofar as traffic engineers back up your contention, I won’t doubt you. However, how many times a day will a student living in West Village drive his car downtown*? How many times a day will a faculty resident of West Village drive downtown*?[/quote]
More than you’d think. According to the LRDP EIR (p 4.14-44,45):
“The faculty and staff housing within the NMP would generate approximately 9.8 daily vehicle-trips per unit… These rates are based on a trip generation study of Aggie Village conducted by Fehr & Peers in Spring and Fall 2002…”
“The student housing within the NMP would generate
approximately 3.5 daily vehicle trips per student with 2 percent of vehicle trips occurring during the AM peak hour and almost 7 percent occurring during the PM peak hour. These rates are based on a trip generation study of the Colleges at La Rue Apartments conducted by Fehr & Peers in Spring 2001. The NMP student housing is expected to have trip generation characteristics similar to the Colleges at La Rue…”
There’s a lot more information in that section of the EIR, and I encourage you to look at it yourself rather than taking my word for it.
[quote]Maybe Unitrans can dedicate a bus line for them directly to the downtown. They could do that, if they wanted to, taking them on Hutchison straight through campus to 1st and A. That is far more direct than taking Russell.[/quote]
They could. I hope they do. However, as you’ve probably read recently, the campus/downtown shuttle was recently discontinued due to lack of riders. We’ll see.
[quote]*My understanding is that the supposed route of this trip is east on Hutchison to LaRue; north on LaRue to Russell; and then east on Russell into the pit of traffic hell. [/quote]
That would be one logical route; however, I expect that some people in a hurry will take Hwy 113 from Hutchison to Russell in order to avoid what will certainly become very heavy, slow traffic on LaRue. Unless UCD eliminates the northbound 113 onramp at Hutchison, I don’t know how they would prevent the use of this perceived shortcut.
[quote] If getting stuck every day in a traffic jam in Davis bugs you — it would bug the bejeezus out of me if, for example, I had to drive through the Richards Blvd. Underpass during rush hour every day — it gives folks an incentive to stop driving so much. That is, they can take a bus if they have to go a long distance or the weather is foul; or they can bike or walk if the distance is short.[/quote]
In fair weather, I expect that the increased traffic on Russell may convert some drivers to bikers. However, I doubt there will be many residents who choose to take Unitrans to go downtown for dinner or to go to the hardware store. For one reason, a bus must negotiate the same traffic and therefore can’t get downtown any faster. For another, most of the Unitrans routes and schedules are only convenient for students and others who want to go to campus. For instance, to go to the main post office from my house would require changing buses in each direction. The round trip would probably take close to 1.5 hours.
We should never forget one intangible factor that leads to seemingly illogical choices regarding travel modes – many people just plain like to drive. They like their cars, they like to be seen in their cars, they like the comfy heated seats, the XM/Sirius satellite radio, and so on.
A car is also a much easier way to bring home 10-foot sections of sprinkler pipe or 7 bags of groceries than either bike or bus.
David, thanks for the follow up. I have nothing more to add to this, but appreciate your information and analysis.
Rich, we’re sort of off topic here anyway. My initial post was meant only to point out that David W’s assertion that West Village won’t affect Davis traffic is inaccurate.
Although it has been over 6 years since the projected impacts of the UCD Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) were published, it appears that the City has still not pursued a MOU regarding mitigation of impacts with UCD. Given the City’s financial situation, those impacts will probably go unmitigated.
BTW, it turns out that the overall LRDP will increase city and regional traffic substantially. According to the EIR, total traffic trips and total vehicle miles travelled will both be more than 8% higher with the LRDP than they would have been without it. See p. 4.14-50 of the LRDP EIR at [url]http://arm.ucdavis.edu/environreview/onlinedocs/lrdpeir/4.14_traffic_b.pdf[/url]
When the proponent of projects – be they housing subdivisions, racetracks, casinos or malls – are not required to fully mitigate the impacts of their projects, one of two things will always happen. Either the costs of mitigation will be shifted to taxpayers, or the impacts will go unmitigated. This is why it is very important that local agencies require strong development agreements, providing mitigation in perpetuity, before approving projects.
“Either the costs of mitigation will be shifted to taxpayers, or the impacts will go unmitigated>….”
I believe that a city in the East Bay won a court case that forced a casino, located just outside of its city border, to pay mitigation for the casino traffic’s contribution to the city’s road/traffic problems.
That’s a good point, davisite2. The failure of project proponents to mitigate their offsite impacts can, in some cases, be resolved by litigation.
The City of Marina famously challenged the California State University’s refusal to mitigate offsite traffic impacts, and appealed the case up the California Supreme Court, who affirmed CSU’s obligation to mitigate such impacts. (City of Marina vs. Board of Trustees of the California State University, S117816) The City of Davis, in fact, filed an amicus brief in support of the the City of Marina in that case. The case tooks years, but set an important precedent.
Strangely, after expending the legal effort to support the City of Marina, the City of Davis appears to have done little further to persuade UCD to mitigate the offsite impacts of West Village and other components of the the Long Range Development Plan.
To Davisite 2…your claim of arrogance is shocking for its hypocracy. Maybe you even live in a home or apartment built by a developer- maybe it is even subsidized. You have probably also fought every new development since you moved here. Yes, developers have businesses in Davis, sometimes profitable, sometimes not, but they have been consistent contributers to this community not only in providing you shelter but also supporting many non-profits, schools, open space campaigns, pence gallery, art center…
“….they have been consistent contributers to this community not only in providing you shelter but also supporting many non-profits, schools, open space campaigns, pence gallery, art center…”
….all true, Yeahmyam, but it does not change the FACTS that are usually not “trumpeted” and which I thought also may be valuable for the reader to consider.
“The failure of project proponents to mitigate their offsite impacts can, in some cases, be resolved by litigation.”
The precedent set in these court cases also would apply if the County decided to build on Davis periphery. In addition to having to supply all the infrastructure and service needs, the County would also have to mitigate impacts on Davis infrastructure and service .