CEQA - Why?

I've received a number of inquiries as to why we are revisiting the McKinley Avenue expressway. We set a preliminarly boundary years ago and citizens don't understand why we are holding meetings again. In addition, there are questions as to why we are required to analyze this and analyze our update to our plan for future street widenings and street extensions.

Staff put together the following summary in an attempt to answer some of these questions:

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FOR THE
CITY OF MANTECA'S
GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE


The City of Manteca is in the process of updating its Public Facilities Implementation Plan (PFIP). The Transportation Section of this plan includes a road network to service all known proposed development projects. Some of these projects are outside of the General Plan Circulation Element. This disparity of study areas between the General Plan and the PFIP establishes the need to update the General Plan Circulation Element. Additionally, the levels of service (LOS) used for the transportation network are also proposed to be amended at this time.

An update of the PFIP and/or the General Plan Circulation Element requires that the environmental studies that support them also be updated. In fact, the California State Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifically list general plan amendments among the examples of “projects” within the meaning of CEQA (14 CCR §15378). All “projects” must comply with CEQA (14 CCR §15002 (i)). If the updates result in significant environmental impacts, then CEQA requires that the City prepare an Environmental Impact Report that examines the potential impacts, recommends mitigation measures to reduce those impacts, and evaluates alternatives that might reduce those impacts while still accomplishing the primary goals of the update (14 CCR §§15002(k), 15126.4 and15126.6)..

The alignment of McKinley Avenue, between State Route 120 and State Route 99 is a good example of the work necessary to meet the environmental process requirement to look at alternatives. Very little input was sought or received when the alignment was shown in the 2003 General Plan Update. Essentially, there was a basic understanding of the need for an eventual roadway; however, not enough specifics were known about how the area would develop. Fast forward to 2009, and far more information is available about how and where the land is developing, hence the need to proceed with a greater level of analysis and detail as to the specific alignment and configuration of McKinley Avenue.

As it relates to the study of McKinley Avenue, public notices were posted and printed in the local paper (Manteca Bulletin) for the 2003 General Plan Update. Though it met the legal notification requirement, very few affected landowners were even aware of this process taking place and, therefore, did not participate in it. In contrast, direct mailings have been used to notify landowners of the public workshops for the McKinley Avenue Specific Street Plan. The result has been well-attended meetings by affected landowners and other interested parties, where there has been much discussion and exchange of ideas on the merits or demerits of the various alignments depicted. Though both methods of notifying the public meet the legal requirements for their purpose, the Specific Street Plan notification process has proven to produce more citizen-participation in the governmental decision-making process that affects them. By extension, a more solid environmental analysis is made possible because it has taken the extra steps necessary to truly analyze alternatives.