Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1991-16403 RESOLUTION NO. 16403 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARD AND THE ECONOMICS THRESHOLD STANDARD OF THE CIT¥'S THRESHOLD STANDARDS POLICY The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, this item includes an amendment to the Threshold Standards Policy as recommended by the Growth Management Oversight Commission in its 1990 report; and, WHEREAS, these amendments would change the Traffic Threshold Standard from the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) method and change the focus of the Economics Threshold Standard to fiscal matters, including an annual review of the development impact fee programs; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, Montgomery Planning Committee, and Growth Management Oversight Commission, recommended approval of the proposed amendments as part of their review of the 1990 GMOC report on July 10, 1991; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on October 9, 1991, and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the amendments; and, WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments are categorically exempt from environmental review under Class 5 of the CEQA Guidelines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the Traffic Threshold Standard and the Economics Threshold Standard of the City's Threshold Standards Policy as contained in Exhibit "C", a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Presented by Apr~o~o~ed as to for/~ by Robert A. Leiter Bruce M. Boogaard Director of Planning City Attorney Resolution No. 16403 Page 2 EXHIBIT THRESHOLD STANDARD POLICY AMENDMENTS TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARD - AND FISCAL THRESHOLD STANDARD Resolution No. 16403 Page 3 TILAFFIC (Revised by City Council on November 5, lg91) GOAL: To provide and maintain safe and efficient street system within the City of Chula Vista. To establish a performance measurement methodology enabling the City to accurately determine existing levels of service for motorists. To define a level of service value that represents a high quality of traffic flow under constrained operating conditions during peak periods of traffic activity. To establish a performance standard which is consistent with the Regional Growth Management Standards. To maintain consistency in terms of LOS ratings between the previous Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU} methodology and the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCH} methodology. OBJECTIVE: 1. Ensure timely provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in response to planned growth, maintaining acceptable levels of service {LOS). 2. Plan new roadway segments and signalized intersections to maintain acceptable standards at build-out of the General Plan Circulation Element. THRESHOLD STANDARD: 1. City-wide: Maintain LOS "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. 2. West of 1-805: Those signalized arterial segments which do not meet the standard above, may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. Resolution No. 16403 Page 4 Notes to Standards 1. Arterial Segment - LOS measurements shall be for the average weekday peak hours, excluding seasonal and special circumstance variations. 2. Urban and suburban arterial are defined as surface highways having signal spacing of less than 2 miles with average weekday traffic volumes greater than 10,000 vehicles per day. 3. Arterial segments are stratified into three classifications: a. Class I arterial are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 35 mph and 45 mph and the number of signalized intersections per mile is less than four. There is no parking and there is generally no access to abutting property. b. Class II arterial are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 30 mph and 35 mph, the number of signalized intersections per mile range between four and eight, there is some parking and access to abutting properties is limited. c. Class III arterial are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 25 mph to 35 mph and the number of signalized intersections per mile are closed spaced. There is substantial parking and access to abutting property is unrestricted. 4. The LOS measurements of arterial segments at freeway ramps shall be a growth management consideration in situations where proposed developments have a significant impact at interchanges. 5. Circulation improvements should be implemented prior to anticipated deterioration of LOS below established standards. 6. The criteria for calculating arterial lengths and classifications shall follow the procedures detailed in Chapter 11 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and shall be confirmed by the City Traffic Engineer. 7. During the conduct of future Traffic Monitoring Program field surveys, intersections experiencing significant delays will be identified. The information generated by the field surveys will be used to determine possible signal timing changes, geometric and/or traffic operational improvements for the purpose of reducing intersection delay. 8. Level of service values for arterial segments shall be based on the following tables: Resolution No. 16403 Page 5 Level of Service Averaqe Travel Speed {mph) Class1 Class2 Class3 A > 35 > 30 > 25 B > 28 > 24 > 19 C > 22 > 18 > 13 D > 17 > 14 > 9 E > 13 > 10 > 7 F < 13 < 10 < 7 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: Should the GMOC determine that the Threshold Standard is not being satisfied, then the City Council shall, within 60 days of the GM0C's report, schedule and hold a public hearing for the purpose of adopting a moratorium on the acceptance of new tentative map applications, based on all of the following criteria: 1. That the moratorium is limited to an area wherein a casual relationship to the problem has been established; and, 2. That the moratorium provides a mitigation measure to a specifically identified impact. Should a moratorium be established, the time shall be used to expeditiously prepare specific mitigation measures for adoption which are intended to bring the condition into conformance. Resolution No. 16403 Page 6 FISCAL (Revised by City Council on November 5, 1991) GOAL: To provide land uses and activities which respond to the economic needs of the residents and the City of Chula Vista. OBdECTIVE: Use Fiscal Impact Reports (FIRs) and Public Facility Financing Plans (PFFPs) to evaluate and plan for healthy fiscal attributes in balance with environmental, social, and public policy criteria. Objective 1. Monitor the impacts of growth in the community on the City of Chula Vista's fiscal well being, considering both operating and capital improvement cost and revenues; and, 2. Monitor the development impact fee programs, considering the appropriate and timely use of such funds. Threshold 1. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report which provides an evaluation of the impacts of growth on the City, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12-18 month period, and 5 to 7 year period. 2. The GMOC shall be provided with an annul "development impact fee report," which provides an analysis of development impact fees collected and expended over the previous 12-month period. Implementation Measure Should the GMOC determine that a potentially serious problem exists with respect to the fiscal threshold standard, it may adopt a formal "Statement of Concern" within its annual report. Such a "Statement" requires the City Council to consider the adoption of a resolution reflecting that concern during the public bearing on the GMOC's report. Resolution No. 16403 Page 7 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 5th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: YES: Councilmembers: Grasser Horton, Malcolm, Moore Rindone NOES: Councilmember: Nader ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Tim Nader, Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A.Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 16403 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council held on the 5th day of November, 1991. Executed this 5th day of November, 1991. Beverly A.~Authe e; City Clerk