To view the agenda and reports online, please visit:

http://www.ci.chico.ca.us/government/minutes_agendas/city_council.asp

…………MOVING………….

Moving over to NorCalBlogs.com

Catch me here:  Editorial Bored

www.norcalblogs.com/bored

.

.

The House has passed an historic health care overhaul. Are you excited or angry?

The poll is still open, and as of the time I created this post – Survey Says:

Wow… And this is on MSNBC. See the on-line poll here.

On-line polls are notoriously unscientific, but I did not expect to find the results to be quite this skewed “against” on MSNBC!

One Way

As we in the City of Chico prepare to convert more two-way road sections into one-way road sections, I thought that it was facinating to hear about some street sections in Sacramento going in the oposite direction of our travel:

From the Sacramento Business Journal:

Crews from the city of Sacramento Department of Transportation will convert J Street between 30th Street and Alhambra Boulevard from one-way to two-way traffic Tuesday, weather permitting.

The project, which includes adding bike lanes and parking in both directions, is part of the city’s push to make the neighborhood more livable and improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. According to the city, traffic travels slower on two-way streets than on two-lane, one-way streets.

From the SacramentoPress.com :

The following is the complete list of first priority streets that have been converted from one-way to two-way or from three lanes to two lanes since 2007:

• J Street (30th Street to Alhambra Boulevard, to two-way, to be completed March 16)
• 19th Street (H Street to Broadway, from three lanes to two lanes with bike lanes, completed)
• 21st Street (I Street to W Street, from three lanes to two lanes with bike lanes, completed)
• N Street (21st Street to 28th Street, to two-way, completed)
• 3rd Street (I Street to J Street, to two-way, completed)
• 9th Street (E Street to I Street, to two-way, completed)
• 10th Street (E Street to I Street, to two-way, completed

In the  current episode of converting roadways to one-way travel in Chico, there is an effort to address the major traffic bottlenecks which occur from the left turns from 2nd Street onto Main and Broadway by converting a section of 2nd Street to one-way East Bound, and by converting one of the few remaining sections of 1st Street to one-way West Bound.

*Note that by John Bidwell’s intended design downtown streets do not run exactly East-West or North-South, but you get the idea

For some reason, I always expected that 3rd Street’s use as a West Bound artery would be expanded upon as part of the solution to the problem of the left turns from 2nd Street.

I’m still not very enthusiastic about the 1st Street Couplet idea. Particularly the idea of the loop sending traffic down 1st Street to be redirected Southerly at Salem to get back to 2nd Street seems odd. And the thought of all that traffic on one lane going down 1st Street to Salem and back to 2nd Street with people trying to get into and out of parking places along the way. That area is a bit difficult to navigate at peak times today.  I still have not heard about any other alternatives that were being considered or exactly how the City arrived at this particular solution.  But I am not a traffic engineer, and I do not play one on TV.

The City has done an excellent job of putting together graphics depicting the plan HERE. They communicate the plan so well, that even I can understand it.

Here are a few shots of the plan. Click for a slightly larger version, or see them in full living color at the City web site.

1st & 2nd Street Couplet

Couplet Legend

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Here’s a close up of the intersections of Salem at 1st Street (left), and Broadway at 1st Street (right):

.

And, a close up of the intersection of 1st Street, 2nd Street and Flume Street near the Camellia Way Bridge:

03/25/10 Update: After attending the City’s latest presentation of the 1^st-2^nd Street Couplet project last night I had some additional ideas for clarifications and amplifications.

A Welcoming Downtown?: As it is, many people will not venture downtown because they do not want to deal with the traffic congestion, the labyrinth of one-way streets, the complexities of trying to find a parking spot and getting into and out of a parking spot, or all of the above.

Some folks waive those objections during the summer months – when there are many thousand fewer residents of the downtown area.

I can remember hearing those downtown objections when I worked downtown in the 1970’s, when my own business was downtown in the 1990’s, and I still hear them today.

I am afraid that the couplet project will add strength to those objections.

Some downtown business owners are definitely concerned about the potential effect of repelling customers with more traffic complexities, and worry that the change in traffic circulation patterns will have an adverse impact on the visibility of and accessibility to their location and therefore on their business.

City Staff are working to strike a balance among various concerns and objectives. Here are a few:

-          Reduce vehicle congestion. Most notably the bottlenecks currently caused by the left turns from 2^nd Street to Main and Broadway.

-          Improve bicycle traffic flow and safety. One example is that it is currently problematic to move to and from the Esplanade and downtown.

-          Improve pedestrian traffic flow and safety.

-          Increase parking places.

-          Better accommodate truck deliveries.

-          Improve the drop off opportunities to CSU-Chico

-          Better utilize existing right of way, and better allocate the existing area to the uses above.

I’m still having trouble working up much enthusiasm for the project, but unfortunately I do not see any obvious and simple answers to the issues at hand.

It is reasonably clear that Jerry Brown (Wikipedia Article) will win the Democratic Primary for California Governor. This is mainly due to the fact that no one is running against him…. Yea, I am that perceptive.

Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman are competing for the Republican nomination.

I must be getting old, because I am starting to see history repeat itself. Or perhaps history merely rhymes and this is an attempt at a refrain, because Jerry Brown was the Governor of California when I was in High School in the late 1970’s. Jerry’s Father Pat Brown was California Governor when I was born.

At the Governor’s mansion, Jerry Brown immediately followed Ronald Reagan. Now there’s some contrast. That was way back when most people thought that an Apple was something to eat, and it was even before a portable computer looked as sleek and streamlined as this:

That’s an Osborn-1 (In production 1981-1983).

Osborn portable computer geeks were easy to spot, because they had unusually well developed arm muscles (on at least one arm) from toting that 30 pound beast, and because they had bug eyes from trying to focus on that dinky little 5” monochrome monitor. Kaypro “portable” computer users were similarly situated. But I digress… Back to the 2010 California Gubernatorial Election:

SacBee.com has a recent summary on the main candidates for California Governor. Copyright “fair use” doctrine prevents posting more than 10%, so hopefully they’ll let me get away with this snapshot and a link to the SacBee.com article:

-See the SacBee.com Comparison Table Here-

Oh, if it were actually easy to tell the story of the differences in people with such a nice neat little table.

Strangely enough, Jerry Brown seems to be enjoying a very brisk level of support from Pro 2nd Amendment folks. And the very opposite seems to be true of Ms. Whitman. In a Brown-Whitman race this unscientific on-line pol gives 93% to Jerry Brown to Whiman’s 7%. Wow. And presumably that is among California gun owners and enthusiasts. While that issue group represents a very small slice of the electorate, I found this (and the underlying reasons) to be very surprising and interesting.

There seems to be a common, mostly unspoken assumption that Meg Whitman will beat Steve Poizner in the primary.

A Great Debate:

Tonight (Monday 03/15/2010) at 5:30 PM, there is on-line coverage of a debate between Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman. It could be interesting. It could be…..

http://stevepoizner.com/debate?tr=y&auid=6067095

This reminds me of that old Chinese curse: “May you live in interesting times”. We do. And the next Governor of California will.

.

.

In honor of Dan Nguyen-Tan, I’ll include a Scrabble word of the day. Mainly because this word always strikes me as an odd word to see in print and even more odd to hear spoken:

gu·ber·na·to·ri·al

goo-ber-nuh-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-,gyoo-] –adjective

of or pertaining to a state governor or the office of state governor.

For Immediate Release: March 12, 2010

Contact: Larry Wahl 342-1904 321-2743

Chico Councilman Larry Wahl joins the race for

Butte County Supervisor District 2

(Chico) Larry Wahl announced today that he is running for the seat of Butte County Supervisor District 2. Wahl is running because the status quo is not good enough for ButteCounty residents. Our unemployment is too high and the under-employment rate is worse. Wahl says; “it’s going to take fresh leadership and new ideas to put ButteCounty firmly on the road to economic recovery. I cannot stand by as once again ButteCounty struggles to weather economic bad times without any real plan to change the chronic financial problems and shortage of jobs that have had it teetering on the brink for decades”.

Wahl’s focus is on ways to bring good paying jobs to ButteCounty. To increase revenue we need to increase our tax base. That means putting people to work. I will work to make County government live within its means and will not vote to raise new or existing taxes,” said Wahl “. I will find the money in the existing $400 million dollar County budget to keep our library open”.

Larry Wahl has been elected three times to the Chico City Council. A Chicoan since 1945, Wahl served as a Navy pilot during the Vietnam War. Wahl and his wife Mary own and operate the Chico UPS stores.

It was only a matter of time…

It will be interesting to ultimately find the cause of Toyota’s recent woes. It certainly does not sound like something caused by floor mats. Though new information on that recent episode in San Diego has some people questioning the validity of that particular incident:

From USA Today:

…The latest about why that San Diego case may be falling apart:

· His Prius was equipped with a brake override system. It would have curtailed the acceleration if he pressed the accelerator and brake in a way that indicated he was confused or panicked.

· He was deeply in debt and has retained a law firm, even though so far he says doesn’t plan to sue Toyota.

· His answer on why he didn’t shift the car in neutral to stop the acceleration raised more questions. He told Carty, I was afraid that would “flip the car.” He also says, “I’ve since found out that’s not possible, but I had no idea,” Sikes says. “Hopefully, I helped save five to 10 lives because people are now finding out” how to put a moving Prius into neutral.

We’ll be watching. Toyota so needs to hit some sort of turning point to get out of this mess. Sure , there are other high-profile cases against Toyota, but the San Diego Prius has become the poster child. in the public’s mind, if this one falls apart, the others could look shaky as well.

But, there’s no question that Toyota’s hot-foot on this subject will not be extinguished any time soon, from Fox News:

The press coverage is certainly compelling. Hopefully the inventor, his company and the product are the real deal and that they are truly on to something really big….

It is not a hydrogen fuel cell, and it is not a “Mr. Fusion” reactor from “Back to the Future”.

It looks like existing models consume natural gas and oxygen from the air in the electricity generation process. So, it is not the Holy Grail of Green-ness.

Perhaps Bloom’s process is truly more effecient at converting natural gas into electricity than current generation methods, cleaner, is less costly to construct per unit of generation capacity, and is durable and efficient over a long useful life.

And then there is the fact that we currently loose gobs of electrical energy in the transmission system just moving electricity from the generation site to the consumption site and through the processes of steping up to voltages for transmission and stepping voltages down for local distribution and finally down to the level we receive in our homes. So, moving a reasonably efficient source closer to the point of use could be a significant energy savings on its own.

From a recent article in Business Week:

Bloom Energy Shifts Power via Fuel Cells

Breakthrough technology from a richly funded Silicon Valley startup could revolutionize the energy business, especially in the developing world

…Fuel Cell Trials

From the start, the eight-year-old company has been shrouded in secrecy, and its executives remain tight-lipped. But some details are slowly leaking out. Stu Aaron, Bloom Energy’s vice-president for marketing and product management, confirms press reports about a University of Tennessee trial in which a Bloom box capable of powering a 5,000-square-foot home proved twice as efficient as a traditional gas-burning system and produced 60% fewer emissions….

.

Click here for a recent 60-Minutes segment on Bloom … yea, it’s worth sitting through the commercial at the beginning.

Bloom Energy web site: http://www.bloomenergy.com/

A hat tip to Dennis P.

(image of new low emissions, low carbon footprint vehicle)

This is a re-re-repeat of a very old local story… a business wants to include a drive through in a new building.

*Sorry, this is long. I just didn’t have enough talent to shorten it much more*

The City of Chico’s General Plan, zoning ordinance and use permit process definitely restrain where drive throughs can be placed, as well they should. To a point.

In this episode, a bank is considering constructing a new branch on East Avenue, on a now vacant lot between Safeway and the gas station.

That is if they can provide drive through service for their customers, which is contrary to the zoning of our Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts. So the bank is asking the city to amend zoning regulations to allow a drive through at a bank in our Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts, though still subject to the Use Permit and Building approval processes.

Currently, only drive up pharmacy services are allowed in Neighborhood Commercial areas, and I’m waiting to see if someone uses this exception for a Marijuana dispensary (a subject for another day).

Chico City Staff Report Here.

The bank senses a need to provide drive through service and drive up ATM service to customers who are handicapped, disabled, injured, sick, have kids or pets in the car, or just do not want to get out of their vehicle. This could even be for security to use the drive up ATM on a dark evening.

Whatever the reasons may be, the bank believes that that there is customer demand for drive through service. Why else would they invest many tens of thousands of dollars (at least) to get the approvals and to construct drive through facilities?

Not So Fast:

Quoting from the Chico ER story of 03/05/2010:

But Commissioner Jon Luvaas said promoting any additional vehicle traffic is counterproductive to the city’s effort toward sustainability.

“The goal of the city at least since 1994, and certainly ever more so, is to reduce dependence on auto use in every way we can do so,” Luvaas said.

He said the commission’s previous approval of drive-throughs for pharmacies is different than bank drive-throughs, saying the necessity of a pharmacy drive-through supersedes the convenience of a bank drive-through.

“That’s designed for people who are ill, not doing well, have a sick child in the car and that sort of thing,” Luvaas said, referring to pharmacy drive-throughs. “Very different from the situation where somebody just doesn’t want to get off their duff and walk a few steps.”

Other than some potential for incompatibility at some locations and design issues (which should be caught by the Use Permit and building approval process), the quote above pretty well sums up the argument against.

OK, perhaps some folks do not get out and walk as much as they should, and all that “get off their duff” stuff. But I just do not believe that the City should even attempt to make such an evaluation. Particularly when there are plenty of rational reasons why some folks would like to use the drive through or a drive up ATM.

The question for the City Council will be whether or not to continue the existing categorical prohibition of bank drive through services at this particular location and at all other locations with the same zoning. I’d give the idea a less than 50-50 chance with the City Council.

Limit Your Exhaust

Part of the sustainability argument against drive through services focuses on the waste products from having an internal combustion engine idling.

I wont try to get into the messy aspects of stopping and then restarting an internal combustion engine. Then add the 30-90 seconds of idle time used to park and un-park a vehicle and I suspect that total emissions are not dramatically different from a quick run through a drive up teller or drive up ATM.

My own recent, brief, low sample rate, unscientific, incomplete and undoubtedly flawed observations of drive through banking indicated that there are short queues and brief times at the window. In the past 2 weeks, I’ve never seen more than one vehicle waiting. It just doesn’t look much different from what happens at drive up pharmacy windows.

Most hybrids and certainly all electric vehicles completely avoid the “engine idling emissions” issue, as there are no emissions during a stop. Tomorrow’s vehicles are likely to do so as well.

And here’s where I think that the “Sustainability in Planning” argument folds back upon itself and works against its own stated goals: by failing to weigh economics. And I mean both the monetary math and the human behavior parts of economics..

The vision calls for less “drive to” destination shopping in favor of more local, nearby, walkable, bikeable, accessible shopping for essential goods and services. A diverse mixture of local, neighborhood shopping.

You know, just like we used to have everywhere in small town America. The neighborhood store, bank, etc, so that vehicle trips were shorter or not needed at all.

I see the vision. I get the logic. The sustainability folks want it. Our General Plan desires the outcome. And it looks really great on paper.

It would be very much like what we had locally with the Longfellow Shopping area, the mix of stores and shops downtown and down the Esplanade, Mangrove and Park Avenue, Behr’s Market, SuperShopper (by the deer pens), etc, when shopping destinations were, on average, closer to home.

But wait… Those virtually disappeared. Evaporated. For whatever reasons, consumers voted with their wallets for larger, more centralized locations with better economies of scale. Perhaps it was better prices, more hours of operation, better access, more variety, or all of the above. Whatever it was, it happened.

If we as a city truly want to see commercial dispersed throughout our community then we need to allow Neighborhood Commercial areas to be diverse and economically viable. Able to attract the necessary critical-mass of visitor traffic. Otherwise, those neighborhood commercial areas will not support the sale prices or the lease/rent rates to economically justify being built. Or, if they are built, then they will not survive. It is that simple.

A bank could certainly be a benefit in Neighborhood Commercial as they provide desired services and could add visitor traffic to make the entire Neighborhood Commercial area more economically viable.

If we truly want to the see the creation of viable, sustainable neighborhood commercial areas then we must be sure that they have the tools and the attributes to be (here it comes again) economically viable.

Above is the flow chart which drastically sumarizes the new bureaucracy being proposed for the City of Chico, with who knows how many re-re-re-hearings before getting through the process.

***Be sure to read the entire proposal here.

Last week we heard how the City was strugling to find ways to shave $4,000,000.00 from its annual operating expenses to balance the General Fund. That is if (which is a very unlikely “if”) their tax revenue projections hold up (more on this subject very soon). This week we read about a proposal to create a new chunk of bureaucracy at the City of Chico, including the formation of a new “Public Art Advisory Group” .

Yes, we all want our city to look great, and public art contributes to that cause. But, is this really a good economic time to be adding operating expense to the City AND placing more taxes upon capital investment into our city, AND creating more expensive and time consuming bureaucratic obstacles to making those capital investments?

Might this be a bit discouraging of capital investment? Particularly at a moment in history when we need to do the opposite of discourage and spur private capital investment into our community?

There are some practical considerations to consider, with some unintended consequences. For one, all costs (including the costs of time and resources to get through a months or years long design and approval process) are real costs which will be reflected into the sale price, rent or lease costs at a time when it is exceedingly difficult to make commercial investments, low income housing, multi-family housing or anything else “pencil out”.  Another is that while public art is a great thing, lenders are not likely to recognize the resulting product of those costs as a tangible assett, so you’ll have to cover those costs outside of any project financing (upfront and out of pocket upfront costs). And then we as a city will need to pay city staff to process applications through the months or years long design and approval process.

In short, the proposal is to add more operating costs to our city and to create a grand new tax in addition to the $180.000.00 or so in art funding per year that we all already fund through our property taxes (the 1% Chico RDA set aside), and in addition to public art funding that is a part of other and separate public and private projects.

**NOTE: at its 03/10/10 meeting the Art Commission decided to suspend the discussion on the proposal at this time.