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.

The Bureaucracy Strikes Again

There has been a lot of debate as to whether or not the federal stimulus package passed last year has actually contributed to job creation. After reading dozens of article, there is no doubt that the funds that went back to states for education did help reduce the number of teacher layoffs--or at least put them off for a year.

On the other hand, there has been a dearth of "bricks and mortar" type projects due to the feds insisting on adding their own layer of red tape to every construction project that they have touched across the country. Locally, the Atherton Gap closure project will be delayed by at least 6 months due to the additional red tape and the state's inability to handle all of the addtional red tape imposed by our friends in Washington D.C. All of the additional paperwork is completely duplicative to processes already required by our state government. Thus, while the government is insisting that these projects be fast-tracked in order to help the economy--the same legislation that insisted on speed also imposed an additional layer of duplicative review.

One of the many ridiculous requirements that come with "federalizing" a project is historic review. The feds require projects as insignificant as replacing an air conditioner to go through the state's Office of Historic Preservation to make sure that historic resources are not at risk in the subject project. Those of us that have dealt with federal programs over the years have seen this requirement stall and often kill great projects. The Office of Historic Preservation is not only slow, but incredibly subjective when it comes to determining what is historic.

A recent in the Sacramento Bee (click here) has exposed the Office's role in helping to gum up the process of getting projects approved and getting people back to work. The article notes:

As Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prepares to emphasize job creation as his top priority in his State of the State address, his watchdog for federal stimulus dollars says a tiny state office is delaying hundreds of projects that could employ out-of-work Californians.

Laura Chick, state inspector general for American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds, said Monday that the California Office of Historic Preservation has a two-month backlog in approving federal stimulus projects, some as small as installing a heating and air conditioning unit.
Chick said state-mandated furloughs have contributed to the backlog, and she suggested that the state should allow historians to delay taking furloughs.

She also said the Schwarzenegger administration could shift other state workers as needed to the Office of Historic Preservation to reduce the backlog.

"There are human beings standing on the street, waiting for an employer to say, 'OK, I need you to work, I'm ready to pay you,' " Chick said. "If there's a bunch of paper sitting on somebody's desk, and the review could be 15 days instead of 60 days, that's 45 days of holding up jobs from being created."

Under federal law, the office must review federally funded construction projects to ensure they do not adversely affect historic sites.

Chick estimated that hundreds of projects are awaiting review by the Office of Historic Preservation, many of which she suggested would have no significant consequences on historic properties.

Those of us who work at the local level are finding that the furloughs are becoming the excuse for state agencies not getting back to us in a timely manner. Frankly, most the agencies using this excuse were just as slow prior to the furloughs. After this article appeared in the Bee, a follow up blog was post about a week ago:

The Office of Historic Preservation is quickly clearing an application backlog that delayed billions of dollars in federally-funded stimulus projects, according to California Recovery Task Force Director Cynthia Bryant .

Capitol Bureau colleague Kevin Yamamura last week reported on the backlog of hundreds of applications made worse by furloughs at the OHP. The office has to sign off on federally funded construction projects to ensure the projects don't mess up historic sites. Delayed reviews had stalled billions of federal stimulus dollars. Click here for that story.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gave the office 30 days to clean things up and sent over extra employees to help. Bryant said in this press release that six projects were left to review that will be finished this week.

Traffic Level of Service

Transportation Level of Service: On November 12, I attended a meeting with representatives from San Joaquin Council of Governments (COG), the County and other cities in the County to discuss the issue of Levels of Service (LOS) for transportation improvements.

LOS is a traffic engineering measure used to describe operating conditions for roadways and other transportation facilities. The idea behind the development of LOS was to quantify driver’ perceptions of the operating conditions they experienced while driving. Driving conditions where a driver encountered no limitations were rated highest, and drivers who experienced significant delays or limitations on their ability to move freely were rated lower. The initial six-step scale that was created rated free flowing, unencumbered traffic as an “A,” while slow, stopped or impaired traffic was rated as low as an “F.”

Over time, the use of LOS has become a standard measuring tool used not only to quantify existing conditions, but also more frequently to identify environmental impacts and mitigation requirements for new projects. Unfortunately, the use of LOS in some cases has been stretched beyond its intended use, and as development and growth patterns have evolved, the use of LOS as an effective planning tool has been challenged. Thus COG and other local agencies (including Manteca) are revisiting the adopted LOS standards to ensure that planning for future growth is accomplished in a realistic and cost-effective manner to provide infrastructure suitable to the needs of the community.

I'm hopeful that looking at other qualitative measures for traffic will reduce the need to create huge traffic intersections for traffic issues that occur less than one hour per day. This in turn, will reduce the overall cost of development and hopefully spur more economic growth in the communtiy.

Response to Bulletin re:Pedestrian Safety

In Saturday's Manteca Bulletin (click here for link), the editor takes the city to task for not maintaining a sidewalk adjacent to the Jack-in-the-Box on East Yosemite Avenue.

The City of Manteca makes every effort to maintain sidewalks so they are safe for pedestrians. It is not possible, however, for City staff to continually inspect the conditions of every sidewalk in the City. The adjacent property owner is in the best position to be aware of any problems. In fact, State law provides that a property owner is responsible for maintaining and repairing the sidewalk fronting his/her property in such condition that it will not endanger persons or property (Section 5610 of the State of California Streets and Highways Code).

In the case of the sidewalk in front of Jack-in-the Box on East Yosemite Avenue, the leaking backflow device is not owned or maintained by the City, but by the property owner. The City was not aware there was a problem until someone fell. The City has responded by cleaning the sidewalk, placing a barricade at the site to warn pedestrians, and contacting the property owner to ensure that the problem is quickly corrected.

The public should not assume that, just because a problem has existed for a long time, the City is aware of the problem. As a matter of fact, one should assume just the opposite. If the City knows of a problem that creates an unsafe condition, staff will take some corrective action immediately. In the case of overgrown bushes or slippery sidewalks, the City may not be able to completely solve the problem, because staff may have to work with the responsible property owner. At the very least, we will barricade the area to keep the public safe. In the case of cracked or raised sidewalks, the City may not be able to immediately remove the tree and replace the sidewalk, but staff will barricade the area until we can at least grind the raised edge to remove the trip hazard.

The City of Manteca has an easy on-line way to report this type of problem. You can access it using the "contact us" button at the top of the City’s home page at www.ci.manteca.ca.us. You can also call the Public Works Department at 456-8400. During non-business hours, any unsafe condition should be reported to the Police Department on its non-emergency number (456-8100).

The City’s Streets Division has been hard-hit by the budget crisis, but we will respond to unsafe conditions. So please let us know when you see a problem, so that we can, hopefully, fix the problem before someone gets hurt.

Response to Bulletin re: LMDs

There still appears to be some confusion about the facts concerning the City assuming responsibility for the Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMD). The intent of this blog is to provide clarity to some of the points made in the opinion column in today’s Manteca Bulletin.

It is possible that the four contractors that are currently maintaining the City’s 24 LMDs, may deploy a dozen workers in any given week to maintain the landscaping. However, keep in mind that they are typically only on site one time each week. Beginning July 1, the City will assign three full-time maintenance workers, plus a half-time lead worker and a half-time irrigation technician to maintain the LMDs. The number of actual personnel maintaining the LMDs appears to be in favor of the contractor. However, the major difference is that the contractor is only on site once a week, where City staff works 5 days a week, and can respond to issues much faster than a contractor who is working in another city.

The move to maintain the LMDs with current maintenance personnel will, in fact, preserve jobs. But, this was not the only reason. City staff evaluated each of the LMDs and determined that staff could maintain current service levels, and that the City’s costs were within 5 percent of current contract rates. That doesn’t necessarily mean that LMD property owners should expect a 5 percent increase in their assessment. In fact, the assessment will not increase at all for several of the LMDs.

A big advantage, and often overlooked advantage, with the City assuming responsibility for the LMDs, is the potential for savings in water. Because a contractor typically only visits the site once a week, they have a tendency to over-water. With City staff managing the water, we anticipate being able to conserve water by as much as 10-15 percent of current use. It is true that all of the LMDs combined have a budget of approximately $1 million. Of the $1 million, $285,000 is for water use alone. Any savings on water costs would be passed on to LMD residents, in the form of a lower assessment. If you consider the potential savings in water costs, and the fact the City’s estimates to perform the maintenance are within 5 percent of current contracted rates, staff feels we can provide the best value to the taxpayer for the dollar.

The question regarding accountability and where maintenance personnel’s salaries are being charged is a good question. The response to that is that each employee maintains a daily record of where they work and how much time they spent at each location. So if an employee does need to work overtime in a General Fund-maintained park, that time would be charged to the General Fund, not the LMD. LMD funds can only be used in the LMD where they were collected.

The issue regarding landscaping along Atherton Drive east of Union Road centered around a private contractor who installed the landscaping as part of the Atherton Drive extension project. The City does not accept public improvements like this landscaping until it has been installed to City standards – clearly not the case to date with this landscaping. This area is still considered an active construction site, and not yet at the point where routine maintenance overseen by the City would begin.

Maintenance of the Tidewater bike path has improved significantly over the years – due primarily to an upgrade of the irrigation system. The previous condition of the Tidewater was the result of an older, inefficient irrigation system – not the maintenance by City personnel.

Oversight of the LMDs will be no different than the oversight of the City’s parks and other publicly maintained areas. Manteca has a very good reputation for maintaining its park system. There is a lot more to it than simply mowing the turf. The majority of park maintenance personnel maintain multiple certifications pertinent to maintaining landscaping, parks and water features – likely at levels beyond what are possessed by the private contractors. Manteca’s workers are experienced maintenance personnel, many of whom call Manteca home. With that comes ownership and pride in what they do.

Finally, City staff is committed to continuing its evaluation of managed competition, and will work with the City Council-appointed Budget Advisory Committee in this endeavor. Staff and the Council will establish clear goals for all of the services the City provides, including landscape maintenance, to provide a better understanding of how our customers get the best value for their dollar.

Parks Level of Service Reductions

Park Maintenance Service Level Reductions: There has been much discussion over the past several months regarding park service level reductions. The following is a description of the impacts these service level reductions will have. All City departments are being, and have already been, impacted by the budget deficit facing the City. Park maintenance is no exception. Just two weeks ago, the average number of acres maintained by each park maintenance worker was approximately 14 acres. This is consistent with the industry standard, which has been established by the National Recreation and Park Association. Through a combination of early retirements and personnel transfers to other non-General Fund departments, the number of park maintenance field personnel will be reduced by nine positions by July 1. The average number of acres maintained by each park maintenance worker will increase by approximately 60% - from 14 to 22.5 acres per worker. If more positions are lost, the number of acres maintained per position will continue to go up. Staff realized several months ago that we would have to selectively reduce service levels to match available resources. Maintaining public health and safety would remain a priority, followed by protecting the City’s investment in its park system.

The first step was to categorize parks into three different classifications – Level I, Level II and Level III. Staff then listed maintenance tasks, such as mowing, fertilizing, pruning, etc., and frequency of each task. Finally, every site the City is responsible to maintain was assigned to the appropriate service level category.

Level I sites would continue to receive current levels of service, such as weekly mowing and edging, fertilization/aeration two times per year, trash pick-up three times per week, and routine irrigation system inspections. Examples of sites may include the Civic Center complex, parks with ball fields (when in season), major entries into the City, and other high-profile areas.

Level II sites would receive acceptable levels of service, such as mowing every 7-12 days, trash pick-up 1-2 times per week, turf edging every other week, fertilization/aeration one time per year, reduced frequency of tree pruning, a higher tolerance for weeds, and a slower response time on irrigation repairs. Examples of sites would include neighborhood parks, ball fields when not in season, and less frequented parks. Turf irrigation would also need to be reduced, to slow the growth rate.

Level III sites would receive minimal levels of service, such as mowing every other week, trash pick-up once per week, turf edging monthly, hazard pruning only on trees, a higher level of weeds, and irrigation system repairs would be made when time and resources permit. Examples of sites would include natural areas such as the Tidewater Bikeway, and remote isolated areas.

Example photographs of the levels of service are included in this week's "The Week in Review" (TWIR). You can access the TWIR by clicking on the link on the right side of the page.