What To Do About Peach Avenue Part (Heck I’ve Lost Count Already!)

Before we begin, let’s have a Reading from the LIVINGSTON MUNICIPAL CODE Title 1-Administrative; Chapter 11-Purchase Policies and Procedures: Section 1-11-10:

“EXEMPT FROM BIDDING:

Contractual services will not include the following, which will be exempt from the bidding requirements;

A.   Contracts involving the obtaining of professional or specialized skills such as, but not limited to, services rendered by attorneys, architects, engineers, accountants and specialized consultants.

B.   When calling for bids on a competitive basis in the opinion of the city Manager is undesirable, impossible, unavailing or incongruous.

C.   Where the City Manager’s requirements can be met solely by a single patented article or process. (Ord. 331, 5-19-87)”

(Hmmmmm-I guess that means that not EVERYTHING has to go out to bid after all)

Well, well, {cough-cough}….on to “the topic at hand”

Remember “Promise Rings”?

Those cute little “do-dads” you exchanged when you weren’t quite “growed up” enough yet to get engaged.

They were a kinda “promise” that “if something else doesn’t get in the way and we are still in love when we are old enough to make a real decision, we agree to agree to get married”

Well….it seems Governmental Agencies have their own “paper version” of “the promise ring”: one that is on tonight’s City Council Agenda.

And it has to do with Peach Avenue

In my “What to do about Peach Avenue” series, I chronicled the seemingly never ending saga of twits, turns, flip-flops and wheel spinning surrounding the multi-year quest for a final decision on just what to do about Peach Avenue.

You see….Once upon a time; the Merced Union High School District (MUHSD) decided it would do an “expansion” of Livingston High School.

Which meant someone had to figure out how to get the students across the road.[1]

Which lead to countless discussions, and multiple meetings, etc., etc. and so forth.

It seems that maybe-just maybe-“the powers that be” have finally made up their minds, made a decision, decided to all “get on the same page” and put down in writing what they are all “agreeing to agree to”.

{However—There is one tinsy, tiny “legal catch” (hence those expensive lawyers I alluded to in a prior post)}

Because of certain “nuances” in CEQA law (California Environmental Quality Act) the City and the District can’t “legally” really agree to a “formal and final (enforceable as in “contract”)” Memo of Understanding about improvements to Peach Avenue until after

“the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document is completed and approved. However, both entities can tentatively agree on the scope of work for the environmental document as outlined in the proposed Memorandum of Understanding.”[2]

So….if I got it right they can “agree to agree[3] on paper, but they can’t agree to DO on paper until after the CEQA process is done.

Are you confused yet? (That’s why the lawyers make “the big bucks”)

Anyway…

The following includes excerpts from the Staff Report entitled “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Merced Union High School district and the City of Livingston Regarding the Deferral of Improvements to Peach Avenue. (For brevity’s sake, I have not reproduced every “jot and tiddle” in the report. If you wanna read it all-head up to City Hall and ask for the counter copy of the Agenda Packet-It’s in there)

Ready or not.. here we go…..

[4]“BACKGROUND

Merced Union High School district has purchased approximately 19 acres on the south side of Peach Avenue for expansion of the facilities at Livingston High School….

At the January 20, 2009, City Council meeting, the City council voted to eliminate the closing of Peach Avenue as an alternative. Three alternatives remained for dealing with Peach Avenue….

    Option #1   Close Peach Avenue at Seventh Street and Main Street and reroute the street to the south as indicated on the attached drawings.[5] …After the (school bond) was approved by the voters in November 2008, the City made it clear that it would not participate in the condemnation of property for this alternative is the District did not have willing sellers. At this time, there is at least one property owner that does not wish to sell.

    Option #2   Raise Peach Avenue at Seventh Street and Main Street

    Option #3   Install a pedestrian overpass over Peach Avenue

DISCUSSION

There appears to be a growing consensus that a modified Option #3 would resolve this long-standing issue.[6]

The project description for the CEQA study will contain the following responsibilities for the Merced Union High School District as part of the Livingston High School Expansion project:

1.     Improve Peach Avenue consistent with the City’s standards and General Plan to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Engineer…

2.     Construct a pedestrian bridge over Peach Avenue, centrally, located between Main Street and 7th Streetwith the proceeds from the final sale of bonds from Measure M…..

3.     Construct a crosswalk across Peach Avenue with a pedestrian-activated traffic signal or flashing read traffic light (or multiple red traffic lights, if deemed necessary by the city)…

4.     Paint all curbs red on both sides of Peach Avenue between Main Street and 7th Street and include appropriate signage…

5.     Construct an 8 foot non-climbable wrought iron fence on top of a brick or concrete base along the entire length of the south side of Peach Avenue between main Street and 7th Street, except at the crosswalk location …

6.     Construct a lockable gate at the entrance of the parking lot on Peach Avenue that will remain closed except during the starting and ending times of Livingston High School when school is in session.

7.     Dedicate right-of-way for a 110’ wide 4-lane Minor arterial for Main Street/Lincoln Boulevardas required per the City of Livingston Traffic/Circulation Master Plan….

FISCAL IMPACT

THE Merced Union High school district will be required to pay for all expenses relating to the environmental document, modifications to Peach Avenue or other required improvements.”[7]

So…what we have here is a “promise ring” of sorts where the MUHSD promises to use it’s own land and it’s own money to make it possible for students to cross the road at Peach Avenue.


[1] And because of all the “squawking I have heard at Oh so many meetings: at this point I am having a very  hard time restraining myself from launching into a whole series of “why does the chicken cross the road” jokes J

[2] Staff Report “Memorandum of Understanding Between the Merced Union High School district and the City of Livingston Regarding the Deferral of Improvements to

Peach Avenue

[3] Which is a heck of an improvement over the convoluted mess that was going on before

[4] Quote J

[5] Copy of which is at City Hall-(Sorry-I’m not yet sophisticated enough to scan documents directly into my postings yet)

[6] Long-standing issue? Ya THINK?

[7] End Quote J

What to Do About Peach Avenue: Part 3

If you’ve been here a while, you know “The Pink Store” and you know who owns it.

 

You also know how she feels about the Merced Union High School District even hinting at rerouting Peach across any of her land.

 

And you also know that to get any land from the her, it will be “over her dead body”.

 

And if you have been a regular at City Council Meetings, you also know that point was made quite clear to the “powers that be” at the Merced Union High School District…..

 

More than Once…..

 

And you also know that the City also let the District know that it wasn’t too crazy about the idea of Eminent Domain either

 

More than Once

 

So, either the District wasn’t listening….

 

Or, it believes it has an “in” with the new Council

 

Because, it has decided to pursue the “Peach Reroute” option

 

Which will be sure to result in much controversy, court fights, and more money for the lawyers.

 

Mayor Varela has already gone on the record as not supporting an Eminent Domain Action against a local land owner.

 

Future “discussions” on this matter will be very interesting to watch from a psychological perspective. Because Mayor Pro Tem Frank Vierra and Council Person Martha Nateras both work for “the District’ they will have to recuse themselves.

 

That leaves the “discussion” in the hands of Mayor Daniel Varela, and Council Persons Margarita Aguilar and Rodrigo Espinoza.

 

The question before the house will be…..will these three be able to come to a moral consensus, or will any discussion devolve into a session of head butting and name calling.

 

Council Person Espinoza has already gone on the record as claiming others on the council are trying to damage him politically and Council Person Aguilar has gone on the record as claiming the City is making it difficult for her to do her job properly and that bloggers are rumor mongering.

 

The hostility that exudes at times during Council Meetings is so thick one could almost cut it with a knife.

 

People who voted for “change” did so because they were tired of “politics as usual’.

 

It is clear that Mayor Varela is striving to actually implement positive change.

 

However, because some folk still struggle with the concept of “Humility”, it looks like a case of “three steps forward and two steps back”.

 

So…Will this Council be casting

 

Votes of

Sincerity

For Doing What’s Right

Or Votes of

Vindictiveness

Vengeance

And Spite

 

And if the High School District continues down the path towards eminent Eminent Domain……

 

Might just be good cause for an “Anti Eminent Domain Rally”

 

And we cauld all buy our Tea from “The Pink Store.”

What to do with Peach Avenue: Part 2

As part of this Tuesday’s City Council Meeting, a Public Hearing was held to take

“Public comment on Various Alternatives for Peach Avenue in the Vicinity of Livingston High School as Part of the Livingston High School Bond Expansion and Designation of Which Street Alternative the City Council is Interested in Pursuing”

 

Prior to the Hearing, Council Persons Martha Nateras and Frank Vierra recused themselves since they both work for the High School District

 

City Manager Richard Warne opened the discussion by explaining that the passage of the recent bond measure would provide funds for the renovation and expansion of the Livingston High School: a project which would clearly benefit the youth of the community. However, one important issue remaining to be resolved is what to do about Peach Avenue.

 

At the last City Council meeting, the council had decided that closing Peach entirely would not be a good idea and eliminated that option. Three other options still on the table for discussion included:

1.     Close Peach and Reroute it to the south.

·        This was the option first proposed by the High School District on May 14, 2008 and put before the Council on June 3 of the same year: The District’s logic at that time being it wanted to keep the campus together and not divided by a road of any kind.

·        This option would require an amendment to the Traffic Circulation Master Plan and General Plan, and an Environmental Study

2.     Raise Peach Avenue and provide a Pedestrian Tunnel

·        This option would also require environmental review but would not require amending the Traffic Circulation Plan and General Plan

3.     Widen Peach at its current location: add curb, gutter and sidewalk, and construct a Pedestrian Overcrossing

·        No Plan Amendments would be necessary but it would need and environmental review.

 

A representative of Cal Fire stated that closing peach would affect public safety by affecting fire department response times.

 

The City’s Engineer recommended against closing Peach due to potential impacts on adjacent streets: Peach Avenue having been already designated an East/West Corridor Major Residential Collector.

 

During the public comment portion of the hearing, the council was asked to reconsider its previous 3-0 vote against Closing Peach. Long time resident Howard Gentry stated the Peach Closing would only be “temporary”: for portions of the day and suggested try it out for a week using temporary barriers.

 

Mike Torres, a regular at City Council meetings, reminded Council members that if they choose to reroute Peach, the City would end up spending a lot of money in an Eminent Domain action and that no matter what, the school districts need to pay their own way.

 

The Council was also encouraged to extend the comment period and consider options other than just the three being discussed that evening.

 

Since this was a Public Hearing item, no final action was taken. The question about what to do about Peach is yet to be answered.

Closing the Door on Closing Peach

At the Tuesday, January 20th Livingston City Council meeting, a proposal by the Merced Union High School District to close a section of Peach Avenue (from 7th to Main St.) as part of the Livingston High School expansion was turned down by a vote of 3-0. (Two of the councilpersons recused themselves due to conflict of interest)

 

Closing Peach was one of 4 options being considered by the City Council. The other 3 include:

·        Rerouting Peach

·        Raising Peach and Constructing a Pedestrian Tunnel

·        Building a Pedestrian Overpass across Peach

 

During the discussion that evening, the Livingston City Attorney maintained that closing Peach might not be an option legally available to the Council while Police Chief Eldridge took a very firm stance against stopping any traffic flow whatsoever.

 

The Chief maintained that the short traffic survey done did not fully address the negative impact closing Peach would have on the City. There was no way to safely and adequately divert traffic to other streets.

 

The City Engineer agreed with the Chief that to divert any more traffic to other streets would create bottle necks and affect Fire Department response times. He also noted that the Master Plan assumes Peach to be an East/West Minor Residential Collector.

 

The City Manager reminded the council that if they considered Rerouting Peach street (as originally proposed in June 2008) it would mean the City would have to be “heavily involved” in the process. There would need to be a “right of way acquisition” and the General Plan would have to be amended. On the other hand, if Peach were to be “raised”, no Amendment would be needed. However this option would likely need an Environmental Impact Report.

 

Some members of the audience commented that many communities have overhead pedestrian crossing: Ceres, Los Banos, Stockton, etc and encouraged the council to look after the interests of Livingston residents first and foremost. According to Mike Torres, long time Council Regular, “The school wants their way, but we were here first”.

 

Councilperson Espinosa stated that closing Peach was “clearly out of the question” and that “rerouting Peach would be the most expensive option”. He seemed more inclined to favor either Raising Peach, or the Pedestrian Overpass, and wanted another meeting in which the public could discuss the “best two options”.

 

Councilperson Aguilar held that safety was one of the biggest issues to be addressed and asked the Council to reconsider an Open Session without the option of Closing Peach. She also told the High School District personnel present that “Supervision at the High School is terrible” with “Parents dropping children off in the red zone.”

 

After a little more discussion and a suggestion by the City Manager, it was finally decided to eliminate the “Closing of Peach” as a viable option and to continue the discussion of the other three options at a future Council meeting.

 

HAZ, HAZMAT, and Hazardous Soil?

 

The following is an excerpt from a Legal Notice: Soliciting Bids to remove Contaminated Soil from the future Livingston High School Expansion Project.

 

“Notice to Bidders Project: Supply all labor, equipment, and materials to excavate approximately 120 bank cubic yards of contaminated soil from a property adjacent to the Livingston High School, and transport the soil to an appropriate off-site landfill.

 

 Notice is hereby given that the Board of Trustees of the Merced Union High School District (MUHSD) of Merced County California is calling for and will receive sealed bids for the award of a contract for the above project up to but not later than 2 pm on February 3, 2009 at the District Administrative Office located at Castle Airport 3430 A Street, Atwater, CA 95301.

 

All inquiries concerning this bid shall be directed to

·        Stuart St. Clair at URS Corporation at 30 River Park Place West, Suite 180, Fresno, CA 93720, telephone (559) 256-1462, e-mail stuart_stclair@urscorp.com, or to

·        Michael Belluomini, Director of Facilities Planning for MUHSD at Castle Airport 3430 A Street, Atwater, CA 95301, telephone (209) 385-6558.

 

Bidders may obtain a set of plans from URS Corporation. All work under the contract which may result from this bid shall begin on March 2, 2009 and be completed by April 17, 2009. The amount of liquidated damages shall be $500.00 per day. Requests to use alternate products shall be submitted to the District at least seven (7) days prior to the bid opening in accordance with the bid documents.

 

Contractors License Classification Required: A-HAZ.

 

Additional copies of the plans and specifications may be examined at:

·        Merced-Mariposa Builders Exchange, 410 West Main Street, Merced, CA 95340

·        Valley Builders Exchange, 1118 Kansas Avenue, Modesto, CA 95351

·        Fresno Builders Exchange, 1244 North Mariposa, Fresno CA 93703

 

A mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at 10:00am on January 14, 2009 at the Livingston High School Principals Office, 1617 Main Street, Livingston, CA, 95334.”

 

Although it is my understanding that this type of Contaminated Soil Removal is coordinated through the County, one would think the District would want to ensure the City of Livingston is fully “inside the loop”.

 

As of the date of this posting: that doesn’t seem to be the case.

 

To read the full Legal Notice, edited for easier reading, click HERE

 

Bid Your Bidding “Bye-Bye”?

Note: The Paragraphs which follow include excerpts from a Public Legal Notice by the Merced Union High School District available on www.legalnotice.org via the Merced Sun-Star. It has been reformatted for “ease of reading” purposes.

 

 

“Notice to Bidders Project:

 

Supply all labor and materials and place underground in a pipe of 1,530 feet of the Merced Irrigation District Arena Canal beginning at the southwest corner of the 7th Street and Peach Avenue then going generally west and south in Livingston California.

 

Notice is hereby given that the Board of Trustees of the Merced Union High School District (MUHSD) of Merced County California is calling for and will receive sealed bids for the award of a contract for the above project up to but not later than 2pm on January 20, 2009 at the District Administrative Office located at Castle Airport 3430 A Street, Atwater, CA 95301.

 

All inquiries concerning this bid shall be directed to

·        Garth Pecchenino of Fremming, Parson & Pecchenino Engineers of Merced located at 2816 Park Avenue, Merced CA 95348 (209) 723-2066 or to

·        Michael Belluomini, Director of Facilities Planning for MUHSD located at Castle Airport 3430 A Street, Atwater, CA 95301, phone (209) 385-6558.

 

Bidders may obtain a set of plans from Fremming, Parson & Pecchenino Engineers.

 

All work under the contract which may result from this bid shall begin on February 9, 2009 with inlet and outlet structures completed by March 1, 2009 and entire project complete by April 10 2009.

 

The amount of liquidated damages shall be $1000.00 per day.

 

Requests to use alternate products shall be submitted to the district at least seven (7) says prior to the bid opening in accordance with the bid documents.

 

Contractors License Classification required: B

 

Additional copies of the plans and specifications may be examined at:

·        Merced-Mariposa Builders Exchange, 410 West main Street, Merced, Ca 95340 

·        Valley Builders Exchange, 1118 Kansas Avenue Modesto CA 95351

·        Fresno Builders Exchange 1224 North Mariposa Fresno CA 93703

 

A mandatory Pre-bid conference will be held at 10:00 am on January 7, 2009 at the Livingston High School Principals Office located at 1617 Main Street, Livingston CA 95334. ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY

 

Miscellaneous Information Bids shall be received in the place identified above, and shall be opened and publically read aloud at the above-stated time and place.

 

There will be an $80 non-refundable charge to purchase each set of bid documents. No partial sets will be available.”

 

(Then follows several more paragraphs worth of technical information important to those Contractors with the right qualifications who might want to bid on the project. After that comes the last little of bit of “info” of interest to some of us “political junkies”)

 

“It is each bidder’s sole responsibility to ensure its bid is timely delivered and received at the location designated as specified above. Any bid received at the designated location after the scheduled closing time for receipt of bids shall be returned to the bidder unopened.

 

Date V. Scott Scambray Superintendent, MUHSD Advertised:

December 30, 2008 and January 6, 2009

 

Bid opening: January 20, 2008

 

Legal December 30, 2008 January 6, 2009”

 

 

Now wait just a minute…..anything having to do with relocating the MID Arena Canal is going to require coordination with the City of Livingston won’t it?

 

I mean. They can’t just bring in the bulldozers and backhoes and just start digging away. Can they?

 

If they start “tearing away” at the MID canal, won’t that affect traffic on Peach Avenue?

 (Ya think?)

 

The way I understand it, any discussion about what to do about the canal can’t really happen until the issue of Peach Avenue traffic is decided by the Livingston City Council. Last I heard there were 4 options on the table: none of which has been officially chosen as “the one”. When the topic first came up in June of 2008, there were several questions about exactly which option would be best for Livingston residents and just who would be “footing the bill”. The MUHSD was told in June, to come back with more details for the Council to consider. Only then, would they be able to properly decide during a Public Hearing, which of the 4 options would be explored.

 

The next possible opportunity for such a Hearing on those options is Jan 20th, (the same day these bids are to be opened!)

 

That being the case: Isn’t soliciting bids on the “canal relocation project” just a tad premature?

 

Or am I missing something?