[OldNorth] Fifth Street Reconfig

[sheryl lynn gerety]

Old North Residents:
     At meetings over the weekend members of the ON neighborhood board 
drafted the following position on the Fifth Street Reconfiguration to 
be discussed at Council this coming Tuesday and much in the news in 
this morning's Enterprise.
            Bruce

02/04/06

To:	Ruth Asmundson (Mayor) and members of the City Council: Sue 
Greenwald, Ted Puntillo, Don Saylor, and Steve Souza.
From:	Bruce Winterhalder (President) and the Board, Old North Davis 
Neighborhood Association
Re: 	Recommendations of the Department of Public Works on the Fifth 
Street Reconfiguation, CIP No. 8138, dated 26 January 2006.

	Public works makes two recommendations.  In response, we ask that 
Council take the following actions, respectively:
	(1)  Council should move to neither accept nor reject the staff 
analysis, but instead ask that it be rewritten in a manner that is 
responsive to the original direction of Council and the concerns and 
efforts of the neighborhood; and,
	(2)  Council should move alternative 2b, with the following substitute 
wording:  "Direct staff to return to Council within a period of 6 
months with one or more plans for improvements to Fifth St that achieve 
to the greatest extent possible the goals established in the July 12, 
2005 Council resolution."

	Our reasons for these requests are the following:

	(1)  The current staff report is an odd beast, perhaps best 
characterized as a technical filibuster, in that -- after seven months 
of study -- it provides no positive direction to Council, the 
neighborhood or the town.  It is deficient in these respects:  (a) it 
does not respond in a positive way to the mandate given Public Works by 
the Council to come up with a workable re-design by this date;  (b) in 
its analysis of the three-lane proposal submitted by ON, it ignores or 
misrepresents key elements of consultant reports commissioned and paid 
for by the City, substituting alarmist language for balanced analysis; 
(c) it contains virtually no discussion of safety, one of the key 
motivating issues for the neighborhood; (d) it invites consternation 
and citizen mobilization over options that no one, to our knowledge, 
considers realistic (e.g., tree removal); (e) it presents in different 
locations contradictory information about the possibility of external 
sources of funding; and (f) it presents cost figures that do not 
distinguish among items already completed (EIR), required outlays, 
optional expenses, or costs that already have been budgeted or will be 
necessary even without reconfiguration.  In all of these respects it is 
inadequate as a decision-guiding document.

	(2)  As a result of items identified above, Public Works has elicited 
considerable opposition to the 3-lane proposal -- for reasons many of 
which we believe are debatable or technically flawed -- but it is a 
cause of frustration that Public Works has nothing to offer in place of 
the ON proposal.  After all this time, work and expense, nothing here 
moves the issue forward toward the resolution we seek:  a safer street 
that is user-friendly to pedestrians, cyclists and automobiles.  If 
trade-offs are required, we should have in this report feasible options 
that lay them out with full discussion and analysis, including impact 
on safety and traffic flow.

	In closing, we have attached Don Saylor's original wording of the 12 
July motion as a reminder to everyone of the directive given by Council 
to Public Works:

Davis City Council, July 12, 2005, Fifth Street Study:
Saylor:  “Let’s see...I move we direct staff to develop a plan for 
Fifth Street that incorporates the following elements:
	Bicycle route and network connectivity,
	Improved pedestrian safety at crossings,
	Reduced effective speeds,
	Protected left turns, and
	Staff should seek grant funds to implement this plan.”
“Second.” By Stephen Souza.
Ted Puntillo substitute motion to approve staff recommendation failed 
for lack of a second.
Sue Greenwald substitute motion to approve a trial re-stripe in 
concept, and direct staff to come back with a comparison of the 
re-stripe project minus the cost of the pedestrian flashing lights, 
with the cost of starting from scratch and designing an entirely new 
project and implementing it also failed for lack of a second.
Ted Puntillo asks for clarification: is Don Saylor’s motion to reduce 
it to two lanes.  Told no, just setting policy.  He says “Oh...I get 
it.”
No further discussion.  Vote 4-1 to approve motion, Ted Puntillo 
dissenting.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 4598 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/oldnorth/attachments/20060205/7ea63850/attachment.bin>