HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1976/07/27 Item 06CITY OF CHULA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM N0.
6
FOR MEETING OF: 7/27/76
ITEM TITLE: Resolution~d~•Certifying EIR 76-2 and Approving the Dlodification
of "F" Street from Fourth Avenue to Church Avenue
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/City Engineer `~
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Public Works Department presented to the Council in the fall of 1975 three
proposed alternatives for the widening of "F" Street between 4th Avenue and
Church Avenue. The "F" Street widening is an approved FAU construction
project. After hearing the staff's presentation, Council directed staff to
meet with members of the community to seek their input and then return to
Council with a final recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
The widening of various portions of "F" Street from Interstate Route 5 through
and beyond 3rd Avenue has been considered by this City from time to time
since 1967. In 1971 the widening of the segment between I-5 and Ash Avenue
was completed. That work resulted in a curb to curb width of 64 feet being
provided throughout that westerly segment of the street.
The portion between Broadway and 2nd Avenue was listed as being deficient in
the "Topics" study prepared by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates in 1972.
Widening was recommended as a way of alleviating that deficiency. Of 19
projects listed, "F" Street was the only street widening recommended.
With the advent of the Federal Aid Urban (FAU) program, a widening project
between Ash Avenue and Church Avenue was submitted for fund allocation as
a Federal Aid project. The application has been approved on a regional
basis and funds allocated to a maximum of $139,000 for the work.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED
Agreement Resolution % Ordinance Plot Other X
Matrix
Environmental Document: Attached Submitted on Table
Priority
list
2;
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. Certify that EIR 76-2 has been reviewed, that the information therein
has been considered and that the EIR has been prepared in accordance
with CEQA, the California Administrative Code and the Environmental
Review Policy of the City of Chula Vista.
2. Approve full widening (Alternative #3) and the undergrounding of utilities
in the project area.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission - Alternative 1, striping only.
Environmental Control Commission - Alternative 1, striping only.
Parking Place Commission - Alternativ& ~,pfjgxl(; wY$l~ing.
Town Centre Project Committee - Alternativ y 3hefull widening.
COUNCIL ACTION City Council
of
Chula Vista, California
++wt8a,..........,,/...~._~.~...~ ............................ Form A-113 (Rev 5-75)
Supplemental page 2
Agenda Item No. 6
Subsequent traffic studies have shown the segment between 4th Avenue and
Church Avenue does provide a significantly lower level of service than the
remaining segments. Consequently the project has been limited to the area
between 4th Avenue and Church Avenue. While the maximum allocation of
$139,000 is still applicable, the precise amount which will be authorized
for expenditure is dependent upon the alternative selected and the quantity
of work considered "eligible" under FAU regulations.
DISCUSSION:
The alternatives for the project have been studied and are discussed in the
EIR as follows:
No project.
Alt. 1. Restriping "F" Street to provide left turn pockets and a continuous
left turn lane, totally eliminating parking on both sides.
Alt. 2. Selective widening of "F" Street to provide left turn pockets, one
through lane and free right turns at the major intersections and
partially eliminating parking.
Alt. 3. Full widening of "F" Street providing four lanes of traffic, left
turn pockets at the major intersections and 37 parking spaces.
The Public Works Department approached the Council in the fall of 1975 with
a recommendation to proceed with the partial widening project. Council
instructed the Public Works Director to meet with members of the community
and then return to Council with a final recommendation. The Director met
with the Town Centre Project Committee and also the Streets and Ilighways
Committee of the Chamber of Conunerce. Both of these organizations recommended
the full widening project (Alternative 3). Their basis of determination coast
1. Poore parking spaces provided.
2. Higher level of service provided.
3. Larger volume of traffic anticipated due to the Town Centre
Redevelopment Project.
Other boards and commissions of the City have reviewed the project and made
recommendations as described on page 1 of this report. Additionally, on
March 2, 1976 the City Council held a public hearing to recieve public input
concerning the widening of "F" Street.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS:
Attached for your information is a matrix listing several different criteria
for each of the four alternatives. Criteria include design features, service
level, parking, bike usage, trees and cost.
The Traffic Engineer has conducted accident and capacity studies, a summary
of which is appended to this report. These studies show both a capacity
and a safety problem at the major intersections, as well as in the area
between 3rd and 4th Avenue. Therefore, the "no project" alternative, as
discussed in the EIR, is considered not acceptable by staff.
Supplemental page 3
Agenda Item No. 6
Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 should all provide an acceptable level of service
for traffic and decrease the number of accidents. Although each alternative
provides an acceptable level of service, there are advantages and dis-
advantages inherent in each scheme. The decision as to which project to
construct then must be based upon the trade-offs between the good points and
bad points. A discussion of each alternative and a highlighting of the
advantages and disadvantages is given below.
Alternative 1•
The primary trade-offs involved here are preservation of the trees in front
of the library and wider pedestrian facilities versus complete elimination
of parking and a lower but still acceptable level of service. It is staff's
opinion that this alternative is an acceptable short term solution. F3owever,
should the Town Centre Project development become successful, it is doubtful
that this alternative will meet the needs of the business community.
Therefore, it is likely that full widening may be required at some future
time. This future widening may require the use of local funds.
Alternative 2:
This alternative would provide a higher level of service than Alternative 1
for both short term and long term. Separate lanes are provided at the
major intersections for right turns, left turns and through movements. This
is important because of the very high percentage of turning movements at the
major intersections. Additionally, this alternative would leave selected
segments along "F" Street with 16' parkway and/or sidewalk areas. This
alternative provides the maximum service level relative to City fund ex-
penditure ($27,000) in staff's opinion, and was therefore the project
alternative recommended in the fall presentation.
The disadvantages of this proposal is the fact that most of the parking is
eliminated, the mature California Peppers in front of the library will be
removed and the potential for requiring full widening in the future with
City funds (this potential, however, is considerably less than Alternative
#1)still exists.
Alternative 3:
The trade-offs involved in Alternative 3 are narrower pedestrian ways,
elimination of the mature trees adjacent to the library, larger commitment
of public funds, versus the highest level of service, the most number of
parking spaces, full utilization of available Federal funding, and would
provide for increased activity due to the Town Centre Redevelopment Project.
UTILITIES UNDERGROUNDING:
The City has adopted a priority list for the undergrounding of utilities along
major thoroughfares. The undergrounding of utilities along "F" Street in the
project area is not included on that priority list. Staff has checked with
SDG&E and has determined that the undergrounding costs for the project would
be $300,000 or more and that funds allocated to Chula Vista are available for
the undergrounding of the project_ If Council decides to underground utilities,
then all of the projects shown on the priority list attached will be post-
poned for 1 or 2 years.
Supplemental page 4
Agenda Item No. 6
ANALYSIS ATdD RECOBU4ENDATION:
Arriving at a recommendation after evaluating the above information
difficult process. However, that process is now complete and it is
recommendation that "F" Street be fully widened between 4th Avenue
Avenue.
was a
my
and Church
The major factor in my recommendation is the fact that for the Town Centre
Project to succeed it will need the ability to permit convenient access to
the area. The intersection of "F" Street and Third Avenue is the present
heart of the redevelopment area and it has congestion problems at this time
which will only increase as activity in the area increases. Alternative #3,
full widening, presents the best short term and long term convenience and
safety features.
Parking is anticipated to be both a short term and long term problem in the
Town Centre area. Alternative $3, although it eliminates some parking,
provides substantially more parking along "F" Street than either of the
other two alternatives.
The full widening will restrict pedestrian movement in the area and will
decrease the attractiveness of the visual perspective. These impacts,
however, can be mitigated by eliminating the overhead utilities, which
provides more pedestrian room and enhances the visual scene, and by pro-
viding attractive street furniture throughout the project.
SIX YEAR UTILITIES UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM
Revised 7/22/76
YEAR
PROJECT FUNDS
AVAILABLE
COST
BALANCE
INCOME
$300,000
1976 Broadway, E St. to F. St. $300,000 $216,000 $ 84,000
(1-77) $307,000
1977 E St., Broadway to 5th Ave. $397,000 $274,000 $117,000
(1-78) $355,000
1978 E St., 5th to 4th Ave. $472,000 $274,000 $198,000
(1-79) ~
$407,000
1979 4th Ave., E St. to F St.
4th Ave., I St, to J St. $605,000 $302,000
$259,000
$ 44,000
(1-80) $4.63,000
1980 I 4th Ave., G St. to I St. $507,000 $582,000 $-75,000
. ~
- .~
r
:1
Ilighway Design-Criteria 309
Table GI
LC•VEL OP SERVICE CIfAR,\C(LRISTICS 1!Y IIIGIIIVAY TYPE
Lcvrl of Ur ban and tiub~llr ban ConrrolkJ Access
Service Arterials High trays
Avenge over-all navel spend of JIl Fn•c Iloa•. Opcraline speak at or
mph ur mart. Prcc• Il,ttcm:: with })cater Ih.m GO mph. Service col-
volunte/capacity' IanP of O.GO. umc ni Id110 passcm'rr e:nspcr
A Load factor at untr.n'tinns near hour on 2-Imes, nn duraion.
Ibc limit of the U.0 ra m•t. I'cak- ISach adJilioual lane stn es vol-
hour (actor al about U.7U. ante of lUUO vplt lane.
Average over-all speeds Arop due Hither speed ranee of sglac Oow.
to inn•rscnion delay and inter- Opts rim; speed sr or greater Than
vchinilu conliicts, b:n remain a[ 55 mph. Service cclu mr on
25 mph or above. Uclay' is not 2-Imtea m one direnion not ercat-
B umcasunablc. Voluna's at Q70 of er than 2UO11 passe ncer veh¢las
rapacity and peak-hour factor per hour. Each addihowl lane
approxinta lily 0.60. Load iacmr above nvo in one direction can
at in lrrscctions approx. 0.1. serve 1500 vph.
Sen'ice volumes about 0.30 oC Operation still stable, but becom-
npaeiq•. Average over-all navel ine more critical. Oprraune speed
'- speeds of 20 mph. Opera tine con- of ?0 mph and service flow on
ditions at most intersections two-lanes ir. one direction at 75 io
C approximate load factor of U.3. of capacity or not more than 5
Peak hour factor approximately min. flow rate of 3000 paucncer
O.SS. Traffic flow sell stable with cars per hour Under ideal een.di-
acceplable delays. bons each additional lane zbove
Iwo in one direction would serve
1 S00 vph.
Beginning to tax capabilities oC Lover speed ranee of stable (low.
street section. Approaching un- Opera Lion approaches instability
stable flow. Senire volumes ap- and is susceptible to cltanrin¢
proach 0.90 of capacity. Average conditions. Opera line steeds
D over-all speeds down to IS mph. approx. 4U mph d~. service Onw
Dcla}'s at intersections may oe- rates at 90 0 of rapacity. Peak 5
come extensive with some cars min. Ilow under ideal conditions
waiting two or more cycles. Peak cannot exceed 3fi00 vph (or 2-
hour factor approx. 0.90; load lanes, 1 direction; 1800 vph each
factor of 0.7. added lane.
Sen•ice volumes at capacity. Aver- Unstable flow. Over-all operating
age over-all tmfCic ratable, but in speeds o! 30-35 mph. Volumes a[
area of 15 mph. Unstable Ilow. capacity or about 2000 rnh Lre
E Continuous back-up on ap- under ideal conditions. Traffic
proadres [o imersectinns. Load flow metered b}' design constric-
- (actor at intersections in range [ions and bottlenecks, but ton,
bcriccen 0.7 and 1.0. Peak hour back-ups do nut normally develop
factor likely Io be 0.95. upstream.
Forced flow. Average over-all oaf- Forced Oow. Freeway acts as a
tic speed below I S mph. AU storage (or vehicles backed-up
Intersections handling tratllc in' from downahram bot deneck.
exec ss of capacity with storagt Operrting speeds range tram near
F
' distributed thtourhnut the sec- 3U mph to stop-and-go operation.
lion. \'chiculr back-ups rnrnd
balk from onn~lbrd ~.. r......_