Commission Impossible

Lon,

What if the City said that it would approve a 3.1% traffic increase but would be installing car counting devices in the driveway to surcharge Costco for traffic in excess of 3.1%?

TJ,

First, I think it was a City hired consultant that stated a 3.1% increase. The actual EIR seems to suggest much more traffic at the intersections accessing Costco.

The way I understand funding road improvments is that projects go into the Nexus, and then development impact fees are collected into funds for general improvements. There are other buckets of money used as well, including RDA and grants. Projects that have a direct impact on localized traffic can be charged for local improvments.

But it's the City's responsibility to set fees high enough to pay for general improvements, without setting them too high to remove the economic incentives for expansion or growth.

I think it would be a problem (legally) if the city tried to introduce after construction fee increases. Determining Costco's "fair share" is part of the problem. Some might want Costco to foot the bill for improvements that allow that entire stretch of road to become a retail "Parkway", Costco would likely only want to pay for its impact on the area. I think legally Costco is higher ground.

I have some work to do before I fully understand how the City funds this work. But that's how I see it right now.

Lon

Lon,

I have to respond to save myself from looking more stupid, I hope.

I was being facetious about the driveway metering.

I am tired of seeing bad information or lack of information in EIR's, and I would love to see some action taken to make EIR consultants more accountable for their reports. I thought that metering their blatant mistakes might do that. I apologize that I did not read the document and didn't realize the error in 3.1%.

You are right. The EIR's are huge documents chock full of information all right. So much information in fact, that most people don't bother to read them or if they do are overwhelmed by the depth of information and skip to the conclusion without seeing the data or process that developed the conclusion. EIR's are not Attention Deficit Disorder friendly. With only a little effort, it is easy to get lost in them and yet still feel comfortable that you understand the situation just by the sheer volume of information that is thrown at you all at once.

Organizing that much information, it is admittedly easy to make a mistake or overlook something important. It is also easy to bury information in the document and obscure its relevance.

The EIR process is good in theory but the practice does not regulate itself like everyone would like to think. I have a friend who has worked for environmental consulting firms and he constantly complains about how he is asked to compromise his own conclusions to skew reports in favor of the developer who is paying the fee for the report.

Much of the reports are about their professional opinion, so it is difficult to point blame at someone for their opinion. Especially if they have the facts to support them, or perhaps have only revealed the selected facts that confirm their conclusion and let them move on to the next client.

I have no doubt that the EIR process has been beneficial to the public, that is, more benficial than no environmental study, but those EIR's are not cheap for the sake of time or money. If the developer can skew the results to get what they wanted in the first place, then ultimately aren't we just attaching a higher price tag to the project that will end up costing all of us more money in the long run?

There is no oversight control over the EIR process and Chico may end up paying the price for years to come. The positive side is that the rest of developing California is having the same dilemma.

I just think that our little part of the State is more fragile and environmentally critical than Imperial County or Riverside. But that is just my non-professional opinion.

TJ,

I didn't think your original suggestion was out of line with what most people would like to see. It would be funny to put a toll on the driveway. Maybe instead somebody will put parking meters on the property?

I agree that the EIR is valuable. I also think that people need to better understand what they are for. They are basically mandated research into alternatives to the proposed project. They were created for governments to see the evironmentally "better" alternatives to a project (which always includes no project at all, but doesn't preclude building the project as first proposed).

For the Costco project I'm mostly bothered by what appears to be a lack of basic information being provided by City hired consultants. I think I'm also bothered by City planning staff offloading the responsibility of knowing that information onto consultants.

Lon