Roadways could get more crowded
San Benito County roads will be more crowded by 2035 – and not just because of population growth.
The San Benito County supervisors on Tuesday agreed to change language in the general plan revision that will require a minimum level of service for county roads of D rather than the current level of service C. The level of service for streets ranges from A, which is free-flowing with no delays, to F, which has forced traffic flow, where speed and flow may drop to zero with high densities.
Right now, the county roads are held to level C, the standard for rural counties, according to Public Works Director Steve Wittry. Planning director Gary Armstrong said the standard for urban areas is level D and the general plan covers San Benito through 2035 when it will be a much more urban place.
Level C is described as “stable traffic flow, with less freedom to select speed, change lanes, or pass. Some delay may be experienced.” Level D is described as “a traffic stream that is approaching unstable flow, with reduced speed and maneuverability.” The level of service is not related to the conditions of the road, but to the flow of traffic.
Wittry submitted a letter to Armstrong on Aug. 3 that stated his position on the change and also spoke at Tuesday’s meeting.
“The areas where the change of LOS would have an effect on LOS were at intersections where the improvements largely consist of signalization,” Wittry said, in the letter that cites the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Study from 2011. “There are many factors that can contribute to the requirements for intersection improvments, and because those costs are relatively minor, those costs were included in the (impact study) and the LOS of C was recommended and reaffirmed by the Board.”
Wittry said it is difficult to raise the level of service once it has been lowered. He urged the supervisors to maintain level of service C, especially since the traffic impact fees were set at a rate to support level C roadways.
Supervisors Margie Barrios, Robert Rivas and Jaime De La Cruz voted to lower the level of service to D and make amendments to the general plan draft, which has not yet been released to the public. Supervisors Jerry Muenzer and Anthony Botelho voted against the change. Several members of the public voted in favor of lowering the level of service to D, including representatives from L&G law firm.
Support for state amendment
At the Aug. 14 board meeting, Supervisor Anthony Botelho requested an agenda item to discuss support of state amendments Prop 30 and 31. He said the Regional Council of Rural Counties had asked members to poll their boards on the propositions so that RCRC can take a stance at the next meeting. Supervisors voted 5-0 to support Prop. 30, the state proposition from Gov. Jerry Brown that would increase sales tax by a quarter percent and increase income taxes for those making more than $250,000.
The proposition is estimated to bring in between $6.8 and $9 billion that will largely be used for K-12 schools and community colleges.
Proposition 31 would establish a two-year state budget cycle; prohibit legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified; permit governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if the legislature fails to act; require performance reviews of all state programs; require performance goals in state and local budgets; require publication of bills at least three days prior to legislative vote; and allow local governments to alter how laws governing state-funded programs apply to them, unless legislature or state agency vetoes change within 60 days, according to the state’s voter guide.
Supervisor Margie Barrios said when she attended the last California State Association of Counties meeting, they took a poll of members to see if there was support for the two propositions. At CSAC, there were enough votes to support Prop. 30, Barrios said, but it was not unanimous. They took a neutral position on Prop. 31.
Supervisors consider merger of two largest county departments
At Tuesday’s meetings, Supervisors reviewed a proposal from Alan Yamamoto, the director of Behavioral Health, on the potential merger of his agency with the Health and Human Services Agency. Yamamoto had proposed the concept when the county supervisors were recruiting for an interim director for HHSA upon former Director Kathy Flores’ retirement in May.
“This is a critical time,” said Yamamoto. “It’s obviously a fiscal hardship. We have a new realignment foisted on us by the state. This may have risks, but is also provides us with an opportunity.”
Yamamoto’s report highlighted the ways in which integrating the departments would create better efficiency and potentially save money for the county. He said many of the clients of the Behavioral Health Department also use the services provided at HHSA, which include child protective services, Medi-Cal eligibility, CalWORKS, environmental health, Community Services and Workforce Development, and other programs.
“We have a long history of working with the department on joint projects,” Yamamoto said. “But there are things we could do better.”
He said his agency also has Mental Health Services Act funding that can be used for capital projects. He suggested that it could be used to create a satellite office for HHSA and Behavioral Health employees to work together to provide child protective services and mental health services to families in a way that will not seem punitive to them. He proposed using a portion of a property at Technology Parkway, where public works, planning and sherrif’s department staff members recently moved offices, for the project. The Mental Health Services Act money would provide $324,000 to purchase the building from the county. In his scenario, the current offices on San Felipe Road would remain open.
Maria Corona, the interim director of HHSA, submitted a letter about the merger on Aug. 10, and also spoke at the board meeting. She expressed concerns that HHSA staff members had not been given adequate time to fully consider all the impacts of the merger. She also expressed concerns about merging the two large departments into one entity.
“We are the largest agency and Alan’s is the second largest,” she said. “We are considering being the largest and it’s imperative that we acknowledge that merging and increasing the workforce could be harmful rather than helpful to our community.”
She said she was supportive of looking at more opportunities for the two agencies to collaborate.
Supervisor Margie Barrios suggested both agencies go back and create something together.
“I don’t think that would be too difficult,” she said. “One department knows what they need and want…Come back with your thoughts and plans coming forward.”
The supervisors directed staff members to come back at a future date with a more thorough evaluation of the consolidation.
