While the Vanguard reported on two examples that are currently of concern – the Human Resources director and her role in the next round of MOUs, and the Planning Department with regard to the ongoing ConAgra development at Cannery Park., we are examining both of those situations more closely.
On the other hand, Zipcar revealed an outright attempt to mislead the public into believing that safeguards that the city staff was claiming were actually codified into the Zipcar contract, when in fact they were not.
If that was then, this is now, and there is increasing concern that city staff is slow-playing the Fifth Street Redesign, even as the public safety threat continues to mount in the form of new accidents each day. At some point, one of these accidents is likely to produce a fatality and the city may well have a lawsuit on its hands, having acknowledged the dangers of this road but having not acted soon enough to prevent them.
The real question at this point is when this project will begin. Originally, when the council approved funding it appeared that answer would be this year.
That date now appears to be 2012, according to information provided this week to the Vanguard by Roxanne Namazi, the Senior Civil Engineer with the city’s public works department. 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.
According to Ms. Namazi, Caltrans has approved the Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) that the city submitted last year.
“We have completed the Phase I Environmental Report, as requested by Caltrans,” Ms. Namazi informed the Vanguard. “[The] Consultant will be submitting Scope of Work for the Phase II shortly. We will take a recommendation to the Council on this.”
She also told the Vanguard they are in the process of preparing a report to the city council authorizing issuance of an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) for design/engineering services for the corridor in either late March or early April of this year.
The city has also filed a Request for Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering to Caltrans in November of 2010. The city expects to hear from Caltrans in the next month or so and if approved, any project expenditure after that approval date would be eligible for reimbursement.
The Vanguard is looking more deeply into the issue as to where the funds are coming from to pay for current staff time for the city staff that is working presently on this project. While our public records request was referred to the Finance Department, Ms. Namazi informed the Vanguard, “I have been charging my hours on this project to my home program (Traffic Engineering).”
The concern is whether they intend to reimburse the traffic engineering program for the staff time that they have been putting in now. All money, of course, that goes to staff is money that will not be available for work on the street.
City Manager Bill Emlen, back in August of 2009, told the council that there was sufficient money in the city’s road fund to build the entire project at that time.
Given that the city would get reimbursed once the federal funds become available, and that the project is eligible for an advance on the funds, it makes sense, if the city still has the money that Mr. Emlen claimed it did back in 2009, to build this now and reimburse it later.
According to our sources, the city could do a number of things right now. For instance, it could advance the funds, from wherever Bill Emlen had indicated that the money existed, to build the SACOG-funded portion of the project which mainly dealt with re-striping the road.
The city could use RDA funds, which it is trying to tie up anyway as the state seeks to eliminate RDA’s, to complete the street with medians and better crosswalks concurrently with the re-striping of the road.
If they were to accelerate the engineering process, it would be done this summer rather than next year. The money issues would be the same, but that would be one less year for safety hazards on Fifth Street.
The Vanguard will continue to examine the money issue, but there is concern that as long as the grant reimburses funding for staff time, there is an incentive to string this out as long as possible to maximize money for other priorities.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
For anyone generally interested in the concept and application of road diets, check out what San Francisco is now doing to Cesar Chavez Street ([url]http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=1166[/url]) (formerly known as Army Street).
It’s similar to what we will do with 5th Street. Cesar Chavez is now a 6-lane freeway, with 3 lanes going in each direction. Traffic tends to move at about 50 miles per hour, though traffic backs up where there are no dedicated left turn lanes. One serious problem is that there are residences on both sides of the street, and kids who live on one side have to traverse this freeway just to go to school.
The plan is to make the new Chavez two lanes in each direction with bike lanes and a parking lane on the outside and a median between.
Here is a graphic of what it should look like when finished:
[img]http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02_05/cesarchavez_median_perspective_fog.jpg[/img]
I’m foursquare in favor of the 5th Street “road diet”, but where the money is going to come from is a mystery to me! Interesting San Francisco analogy…
I have not followed this project that closerly. What happened to the 1-year test phase? It was my understanding that the road diet would be implemented and then observed for a year to determine whether the project met the desired objectives. Furthermore, if it is determined that the project is a failure, the projecte would be unwound. The downside of unwinding the project is that the grant funding would have to be reimbursed with city funds. The refund aspect is something that seemed to get lost in the shouting. Is all of the foregoing no longer the case?
DTB: “I have not followed this project that closerly. What happened to the 1-year test phase? It was my understanding that the road diet would be implemented and then observed for a year to determine whether the project met the desired objectives. Furthermore, if it is determined that the project is a failure, the projecte would be unwound. The downside of unwinding the project is that the grant funding would have to be reimbursed with city funds. The refund aspect is something that seemed to get lost in the shouting. Is all of the foregoing no longer the case?”
All good questions…
So DG, what are the answers? Your fans would like to know.
Speaking of unresolved questions, you never got back to all your fans who wanted to know the actual ConAgra zoning. If you recall, I had posted the ordinance which refuted certain claims made by SG and others. However, I’m an unreliable source, so some of the bloggers had requested a clarification from you. Or did you post the ordinance already and I simply missed it?
I will try to get the answer, the issue is supposedly coming before council within the next month.
dmg: “I will try to get the answer, the issue is supposedly coming before council within the next month.”
Good, bc I think it is a vital point…
Pingback: My View: Fifth Street Finally Fixed | .:Davis Vanguard:.