But Timetable Pushes Start Date Back to Summer 2013 at the Earliest –
This week the planning commission will hear a presentation of the Initial Study to document the environmental impacts of the Fifth Street redesign project as requested by the California Environmental Quality Act.
Currently, there are safety concerns with the speed, the difficulty of left turns both on and off the road, and the lack of safe pedestrian crossing opportunities and bike lanes.
“The Initial Study analyzed the project and determined that potential environmental impacts were less than significant,” according to the staff report.
“Potential impacts to emergency response plans and traffic during the project construction will be mitigated through a Construction Traffic Control Plan,” the report finds.
One of the concerns is the impact of construction on the fire station located in the heart of the project area. According to city staff, “The plan will ensure emergency access through the corridor during the construction. A further Mitigation Measure requires the project design to include improvements for fire engine access after completion of the project.”
The Initial Study concluded “that impacts to the roadway system resulting from changed level or service or hazards would be less than significant,” the report continued.
However, staff added, “Although there are no traffic impacts under CEQA, staff is very aware of neighborhood concerns about ‘cut-through’ traffic and its impacts on local streets. Staff is also concerned that delays along the corridor would result in drivers making inappropriately risky moves, which would increase the risk of collisions with other vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.”
Staff recommends two additional mitigation measures to address these concerns.
First, “After construction, the City shall monitor trips and speeds in adjacent neighborhoods and parallel streets, along with travel times along the corridor. If cut-through traffic increases to unacceptable levels as a result of the project, the City shall develop and implement a neighborhood traffic plan to reduce speeds and trips in the residential neighborhoods.”
Second, “After construction, the City shall monitor collisions at unsignalized intersections along the corridor. If it is determined that the unsafe movements have increased to unacceptable levels as a result of the project, the City shall develop and implement an intersection management plan to reduce unsafe movements.”
The City will contract with an engineering firm to design the project this fall and winter.
The grant funds are scheduled to be available in Federal Fiscal Year 2013-14. However, according to the staff report, the City may choose to advance the funds and begin construction the summer of 2013.
This is a point of concern for advocates who see the city pushing back the start of construction now to the summer of 2013 with an “accelerated” schedule, a full year after it was anticipated to begin just a few months ago. Even if the city decides to accelerate the process, the street would not be complete until a full four years after the council voted to proceed, which followed years of lobbying.
As we have reported, given the high number of accidents on the street, this is a matter of general concern as we believe it is only a matter of time before one of the accidents could turn fatal.
The staff report also sets neighborhood impacts aside – to be determined later if they are unacceptable. Only then would the city consider what neighborhood traffic calming, if any, might be done.
The city already has a number of speed surveys, anecdotal evidence, and traffic reports showing that Old East and Old North Davis are already suffering from impatient speeding drivers and the accidents they cause in the interior of our neighborhoods.
The suggestion is that we need traffic calming now to push traffic back out to Fifth Street, since many fear that drivers who have altered their routes will never go back to Fifth Street to see that it works better after the redesign.
As reported in August, we remain concerned about the lack of progress on this project, combined with the continued high rate of traffic accidents.
We reported back in March that 2012 appeared to be the target date, but now suddenly that has been pushed back another year until 2013.
That is, provided that the council approves advance funding for the project.
When council approved this pilot project in April of 2010, the council had announced they had been awarded a grant by SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) to undertake this project. That grant will cover only a portion of the initial expense. Moreover, it begins in the 2013-14 fiscal year.
At that time, the Vanguard reported that the city was hopeful about finding some funding to be able to start sooner.
That was a Community Design grant, in the amount of $836,000, which was approved for the project last February, with funding allocated for the Federal Fiscal Year 2014.
We have also expressed concern about the company, KD Anderson and Associates, that has been commissioned as transportation engineers.
Looking at their website, we question their commitment to smart street design and multimodal usage. They seem to be focused on automobiles, highways and traffic congestions, and have no photos of bikes, pedestrians or buses.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Can you give some insight as to why there is a year’s delay suddenly? Is it because the funding won’t be available, or the planning will take that long, or a little bit of both? It seems such a long time away, so it would be nice to know why the one more year of delay. If anyone from city staff knows, please speak up…
I can see what I can find out, the report was not forthcoming with such information.
[quote]the report [b]was not forthcoming[/b] with such information[/quote]The words you used indicate to me that you believe that the staff was “covering up” deliberate delay, they are incompetent in knowing all questions that anyone could possibly have, or….? Or are your words coming out of frustration that you mis-reported a time schedule that has been known from staff reports that accompanied the news of the grant?
My opinion: this massive and expensive so-called environmental review is a total and complete waste of staff time and money. The changes to the road are relatively easy and inexpensive to do. What is happening is the City is using the pot of money set aside for the structural improvements to pay for staff positions for several years, to do a study that Steve Tracy has told me is not needed.
You wonder why the City is broke? Because of the way the City unnecessarily throws money away.
Mayor Joe: please look into this waste of precious resources, and get the project moved to construction phase ASAP. The road is dangerous. I live right here at 5th and D St and hear and see the accidents nearly every week.
What are the statutory requirements for an EIR related to a project like this? In any case, I would think the city would be well advised to do some environmental due diligence given the risk of law suits from all the attorneys in the area. Also, we might find some endangered amoeba in the soil and require some relocation effort or an amoeba-tunnel.
[quote]Or are your words coming out of frustration that you mis-reported a time schedule that has been known from staff reports that accompanied the news of the grant?[/quote]
Since you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about what goes on in the city, do I take this to mean it is the source of funding that is slowing the process? Please clarify – it would be greatly appreciated…
[quote]MH: My opinion: this massive and expensive so-called environmental review is a total and complete waste of staff time and money.
JB: What are the statutory requirements for an EIR related to a project like this?[/quote]
Isn’t an EIR required by law and are there exceptions? I’m not an environmental attorney, but even so, that is my understanding whenever any project like this is taken on an EIR is required… plus there are good reasons to do an EIR…
From wikipedia:
[quote]Major proposed projects have been blocked because of an agency’s failure to prepare an acceptable EIS. One prominent example was the Westway landfill and highway development in and along the Hudson River in New York City.[27] Another prominent case involved the Sierra Club suing the Nevada Department of Transportation over its denial of Sierra Club’s request to issue a supplemental EIS addressing air emissions of particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants in the case of widening US Highway 95 through Las Vegas.[28] The case reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which led to construction on the highway being halted until the court’s final decision. The case was settled prior to the court’s final decision.
Several state governments that have adopted “little NEPAs,” state laws imposing EIS requirements for particular state actions. Some those state laws such as ()the California Environmental Quality Act refer to the required environmental impact studies as environmental impact reports.[29][/quote]
From: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/010/basics_e.htm#3
[quote]What are the benefits of environmental assessment?
By considering environmental effects and mitigation early in the project planning cycle, environmental assessment can have many benefits, such as:
an opportunity for public participation
increased protection of human health
the sustainable use of natural resources
reduced project costs and delays
minimized risks of environmental disasters
increased government accountability…
1. Determine if an environmental assessment is required – A federal authority determines whether it has a responsibility to ensure that an environmental assessment is conducted.[/quote]
I think the gas station that resided on 5th and F Street would justify/require at least a phase-2. Although, the project currently under construction would have likely already required this and that report could be purchased.
Don Shor, in the past you have asked me to identify regulations that impact business in this state. Environmental regulations are tremendously burdensome to economic and infrastructure development efforts. In my business, it has required my credit underwriters to become environmental experts as every commercial development project in CA requires some form of environmental study/review. I’m sure you can justify these requirements, but it is an example of our state’s regulatory burden on business. States like Texas don’t have near the level of business and infrastructure environmental risk-aversion. Neither does China. You can certainly make the case that these two faster-growing economies are less pristine, but it certainly comes at a price. As in all things, we need to seek some balance… in this state/country and others.
Related… I find it interesting that we still are not drilling on many of our Federal lands like ANWR Alaska, but liberal Canada is scraping up miles of their land to process oil sands to feed US oil consumption needs.
Isn’t that ironic? We won’t feed ourselves because we want our land pristine, and pristine Canada wrecks their land to feed us. There are a lot of ways we seem to earn our international distinction of being “ugly Americans”.
[quote]I think the gas station that resided on 5th and F Street would justify/require at least a phase-2. [/quote]Jeff you seem to have some info that I’ve never heard (but then again, I’m a “newbie” who only came to town ~ 38 years ago). As far as I know, there was a gas station @ Russell & B (sw corner), and two @ Fifth & G (sw & nw corners). If you know of others please contact city staff.
hpierce… whoops. Thanks for the correction. Yes, it was 5th and G, not 5th and F, where the gas station used to reside. I think it was a Union 76. There were actually two gas stations on 5th and G that I remember. I think there was a Chevron across the street. I forgot about the station on Russel and B. That was a while ago!
Gas station = phase2 in my business.
Most recently, it was a Shell where the Roe Building now is, and a 76 across the street. Both stations @ Fifth & G were “decommissioned under modern rules, as I understand it… the station @ Russell @ B, not so sure of what rules they were under. It had pretty much closed when I came to town, but think it was a Texaco, or maybe a ‘flying A”… a good trivia question would be where all the old Core Area Gas stations were… I know of three others…
Jeff: Relaxing the need for EIR’s would be something I would favor in many cases. I wouldn’t use Texas or China as examples of positive outcomes, though.
[i]”I wouldn’t use Texas or China as examples of positive outcomes, though”[/i]
Positive economic outcomes?
Let’s get our terminology straight… Jeff mentions a Phase 2 site assessment… that is basic “due diligence” that should be done before acquiring property, doing a project, etc. IF a ‘lower level’ review shows that the history of a property is unknown, and/or ‘suspect’, due to known uses such as gas stations, dumps, etc. All projects, unless they are statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA, are subject to an environmental assessment. Such an assessment may lead to a NegDec (no actions necessary) a “mitigated negdec” (an ‘odd fish’, by saying if you take certain actions, a NegDec is justified), a “focused” EIR (which only looks at issues that were identified in the assessment), or a “full blown” EIR, which is typical of major development proposals, such as Covell Village. If federal money is involved there is also a NEPA process, but am not so familiar with that.
[i]”… the station @ Russell @ B, not so sure of what rules they were under. It had pretty much closed when I came to town, but think it was a Texaco, or maybe a ‘flying A” …”[/i]
I remeber that it was a Standard (Chevron) station. I think it was roughly 1978 when it was torn out and rebuilt as an office complex. I think the reason that station closed was because the corporation, Standard Oil, was more interested in larger sites, where they could build convenience stores.
[i]”… a good trivia question would be where all the old Core Area Gas stations were… I know of three others …”[/i]
I recall the Shell station at 1st and B. It was torn out to house the building which is now a Vietnamese restaurant, Pho Bac Hua Viet.
There must have been some more gas stations downtown, but I cannot think of any. Likely sites would have been at 2nd and B, where Jim Kidd’s mini-mall now is; and 1st and B, where the Aggie Inn now is. The site at 2nd and B which now houses the Black Bear Diner was a Sambo’s when I was a kid.
I know that before Central Park was built in the 1930s, there were a couple of automotive repair shops on the east side of B Street. I don;t know if they also sold gas.
Keep in mind a few things about that area of Central Park:
1. What we know as I-80 (nee US 40) did not yet exist. The Highway in Davis ran from Richards Blvd to 1st to B to Russell and out to Cactus Corners (Cty Rd 98) and on to Dixon. Because of that, the original car repair shops and gas stations were largely along the highway, including B Street;
2. Originally, the stretch of 5th Street from C to B took a slightly different course. If you travel on it today, it bends to the south until it becomes Russell. It did not always have that bend. I think that was changed after Central Park was originally built, or perhaps it was part of the Central Park construction.
I don’t remember seeing a map of Davis which shows this, but I think back in the olden times, a driver on 5th ran into B Street perpendicular to the old high school gymnasium — point of trivia, that is the second gym; the first one burned to the ground in 1937 — and then had to turn left and then a quick right to get onto Russell.
[quote]All projects, unless they are statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA, are subject to an environmental assessment.[/quote]
And what type of projects are exempt from CEQA, if you know? Or to be more specific, could the 5th St redesign be exempt?
Elaine, see this ([url]http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/15300-15333_web.pdf[/url]).
Thanks Rich. From what I could tell, the 5th St. Redesign could be CEQA exempt under possibly the following:
1) Insignificant impact on the environment;
2) Class 1 – existing facilities;
3) Class 4 – Minor alterations to land – creation of bike lanes on existing rights of way.
Wonder why city feels none of these apply? Anyone know?
ERM: Just example, without arguing for or against, in my opinion one could reasonably ask that IF delays to motor vehicles increase, there could be an increase of vehicle emissions per mile traveled. One could reasonably argue that if delays increased, more people would choose to bicycle instead of using a motor vehicle, thereby mitigating the increased delays to motor vehicles.
CEQA is, at its best, a disclosure document whereby the effects of a given action can be dispassionately and rationally (scientifically?) evaluated, and the results of that evaluation is disclosed to the public and the decision-makers as they decide whether to pursue the action. In the real world, CEQA is often used to promote or de-rail actions (IMHO). The diffenence between the ideal and reality can be job security for paid activists and attorneys.
To hpierce: Thanks for the insights…
Friends. Actually, both the traffic study Fehr and Peers did under City contract and the study done by the UCD Engineering School at the request of supporters of the redesign came out with virtually identical results: At the most congested time of the day a round trip through the corridor between A and L Streets would be 45 seconds [b]faster[/b] than the street we have now (slightly slower in one direction, significantly faster in the other).
Moreover, the UCD software was more sophisticated and accounted for bicycle and pedestrian travel, and emissions. That run indicated that reduced idling time with the better traffic flow of the redesigned street would reduce through traffic emissions by 53%. Raising the issue of an exemption because this project benefits the environment.
Thanks Steve, for explaining why an EIR might not be needed, which would come under #1 in my list of possible exemptions…
Well, some kind of CEQA document might be necessary, but maybe not. With all the hundreds of positive examples of road diet makeovers around the country, the fact that two traffic models using different software confirmed traffic flow is significantly improved, and emissions reduced, why not just do it?
With all that evidence supporting the benefits of the redesign, the fact that bike lanes in this corridor have been on the General Plan Bikeway Map for 20 years, and ditto a General Plan action item to evaluate this exact design, this could be viewed as an administrative act. Remember, a full EIR was prepared for that General Plan. That is, it requires no document because it is a re-striping project falling under the normal duties of the Traffic Engineer.
[quote]Remember, a full EIR was prepared for that General Plan.[/quote]It might be useful to hear from a reputable, professional Planner as to whether the General Plan EIR was a PROGRAM EIR, or a PROJECT-LEVEL EIR… is there anyone out there who can shed light?
Iguess, not.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED 5TH ST REDESIGN 5-2. STEVE TRACY GAVE WONDERFUL DISSERTATION AT PUBLIC COMMENT. CONGRATS!!! KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!!!