Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1980/05/22 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday - 4:00 p.m. May 22, 1980 An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California convened at 4:00 p.m. on the above date in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue. ROLL CALL Councilmen present: Mayor Hyde, Councilmen Gillow, Cox, McCandliss, Scott Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Cole, City Attorney Lindberg, Development Services Administrator Robens, Director of Planning Peterson, City Engineer Lippitt REPORT ON "H" STREET Development Services Administrator Robens outlined the purpose DEVELOPMENT REIMBURSEMENT of the Conference: 1) East "H" Street Development Plan - to PROGRAM provide information and receive Council, staff and public comments regarding "the plan". He noted that staff felt it was not necessary to make any decisions at this time. 2) Hidden Vista Tentative Map - to finalize conditions on the tentative map regarding offsite improvements -- whether the tentative map (or Rice Canyon SPA) should be part of "the plan". City Engineer Lippitt referred to the Specific Plan approved in August of 1978 noting one of the conditions: Prior to development east of Rice Canyon SPA, a plan must be prepared by the developers to insure the construction of "H" Street. He also commented on the Long Canyon area; noted that staff placed a condition on the tentative map for Rice Canyon -- that they participate in the reimbursement district. He con- cluded by stating that Council would be determining what the Gersten Company's "fair share" would be in their participation of the construction of "H" Street. EAST "H" STREET DEVELOPMENT Representing the Gersten Company, Mr. Dick Brown presented PROGRAM the proposal to construct Long Canyon, and in determining their "fair share" for the construction of "it" Street. He referred to one of the conditions of approval which Council adopted "that the developer shall agree to pay his fair pro- portioned share of the cost of providing major off-site im- provements on "H" Street between Rutgers Avenue and Inter- state 805." He continued by noting the three conditions: 1) a plan is required which ties the development schedule with the construction of east "ti" Street to insure that un- acceptable traffic conditions do not occur; 2) the City can be certain that public funds will not have to be used to complete the construction of east "H" Street; $) a way to distribute tho construction costs for development so that all property owners and public agencies pay their fair share. Mr. Brown indicated the purpose of their proposal would be to provide: an orderly phase construction of "H" Street from 1-80S to Rutger5 Avenue; a procedure to determine the fair share of "H" Street construction required by the proposed land development projects; for the construction of "H" Street; for reimbursement and credits and for road construction con- sistent with development demand. ESTABLIShmENT OF AREAS OF Mr. Brown stated thnt an area of benefit should be established: BENEFIT westerly boundary at 1-805; easterly boundary at Rutgers Avenue; southerly boundary--all those properties which have contributed to the construction of Telegraph Canyon Road or are involved in reimbursement districts or both have their basic responsibility for off-site improvements and everything north of that area should be responsible for the construction of "H" Street. He added that the northerly line coincides with the ownership of Watt Industries and the Gersten Company. City Council Meeting -2- May 22, 1980 ALLOCATION OF COSTS FOR THE Mr. Brown said that the traffic generation system was the CONSTRUCTION OF "H" STREET method used to determine the costs for the construction of "H" Street. He added that the factors used for traffic generation were the exact figures the City uses for the traffic signal system. Mr. Brown said that all plans used were the actual proposals from Gersten, Watt Industries and E1 Rancho del Rey. Their estimates indicate that approximately 89,045 trips per day would be generated from this entire area. "H" STREET CONSTRUCTION The 18,840' of "H" Street to be constructed have been divided STANDARD - TABLE 3 into seven "reaches" (sections). Mr~ Brown explained that the first reach (from 1-808 to Street "K" Watts development) is to be eight lanes; the second reach is from Street "K" to the end of the Watts property; the third reach is from that point to Paseo del Rey; the fourth reach would be from Paseo del Rey to Pasco Ranchero; the fifth reach would be from Paseo Ranchero to the point at which construction exists; the sixth reach is from that point up to Otay Lakes Road and the final reach would be from Otay Lakes Road to Rutgers Avenue. DIVISION OF "REACHES" Mr. Brown explained that the "reaches" were divided in such a manner which would make it reasonable for construction to start. He remarked that the difference in costs between various reaches was due to a variation from grading and drainage 4:24 p.m. - Mayor Hyde opened the public hearing and noted that all remarks up to this time would be included in the hearing. PROPOSAL OF PHASE CONSTRUCTION Mr. Brown continued his presentation and said that in an effort TABLE S to obtain the actual connection at the earliest possible date, before all of the developments occurred, a "phase construction" is being proposed: Phase I would grade the entire width of the road, paving only 30' (2-lane road); Phase II would complete the other side of the median and pave two more lanes; and Phase III would put in the outside two lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalks completing the road. He added that this would all be under the sole control of the City of Chula Vista. DEVELOPMENT AT EASTERLY END Mr. Brown stated that "the plan" provides for reimbursements and credits and explained the development conditions which state that development may occur at the easterly end when one or more of the following items exist: 1) the existing road system is adequate to meet the travel demands of the present development plus the increase; 2) improvement5 to the existing road system will be adequate to meet the travel demands of the existing development plus the proposed increase; 3) constructior of new streets other than east "H" Street would produce a road system which is adequate to meet the travel demands. He said that each case would be reviewed with an individual traffic analysis. In answer to a query from Mayor Hyde, Mr. Brown defined the word "reach" as used in their plan as a length or distance. Mr. Brown noted that "the plan" proposes that tho first roach would be eight lanes and the remaining reaches would be six lanes and added that the cost5 shown are merely estimate5 (approximate costs of grading) based on an average cost of $336.00 per foot. REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION - Referring to Table 4 of the proposed "H" Street Development TABLE 4 Program, Mr. Brown indicated that Rice Canyon would have an actual length of 5,S00 foot (for roach nos. 1 and 2) and, by using the proposed formula their "fair share" requirement would be 6,567 feet. City Council Meeting -3- May 22, 1980 DETERMINATION OF Councilman Scott asked what the mechanics would be for reim- REIMBURSEMENT bursement. Mr. Brown responded with an example: I£ Watt Industries were required to go out to Paseo del Rey (more than its plan would necessitate) then the developers of the other properties in this area would be required to reimburse the developer who went further than he should at the average price as noted in the plan and not on an "inflated price". Mr. Brown added that if density were increased or decreased, the per unit value would be recomputed as provided in the plan. STAFF RESPONSE TO THE City Engineer Lippitt outlined the unresolved areas of "the PROPOSED PLAN AS SUBMITTED plan": 1) should Long Canyon be in this district; 2) traffic BY THE GERSTEN COMPANIES generation factors; 3) grading (cost sharing); 4) west to east portion of the plan; 5) units costs; 6) reimbursement process is vague; 7) southerly boundary; 8) right of way and 9) the absence of a "schedule". RICE CANYON SPA City Engineer Lippitt concluded by stating that based upon the figures in Gersten's report, if they built full width improvements within their boundary on a dollar basisj they would fulfill their "fair share" and the fact that they are going west to east, they would not need to be part of the reimbursement district. PROVISION OF OPTION Following a discussion concerning the Rice Canyon SPA, the development of "H" Street six lanes (all the way to the eastern boundary of that property) and the City's "practice" to complete two lanes and half of the median, Councilman Scott suggested providing an option -- the developer either provide six lanes or 500'. Councilman Scott noted the inflation factor and the fact that the road would be expeditiously developed by providing this option. In answer to a question from Councilman Scott, Development Services Administrator Robens commented that he felt it fair that the City proviso two lanes and one half of the median (except for the portion in front of the commercial area). He added that if all of the staff's concerns are resolved, then "the plan" would be supportable. Councilman Cox commented on the City's advantage of spreading the obligation over a number of years as development occurs. MR. JIM MC CASE Mr. McCabo advised that Watt Industries is in agreement with MC CABE ENGINEERING the staff's recommendations and reserved any further comments on "the plan" until such time as any decisions are made. THE GERSTEN COMPANIES' Mr. Brown commented on several issues: that the traffic SUMMATION generation factors used are those that the City has been using for signal systems; that the "H" Street commercial area [at Otay Lakes Road) indicates 7,000 trips will be generated by that area; that Watt Indu~trie~ could obtain dirt from the Gorsten property for an off-site extension; that the vertical grade in reach no. 3 wa~ designed on the basis of serving the adjacent development; that the Gersten Companies concurred with the City staff in their concern for the r~ght of way (it is their intent to d~di¢~te~ if ~n ~greoment is re~ehed, thc right ~£ way whenewr it i~ needed); the west to east development plan throughout the area would not be feasible for the Ger~ten Companies; if the City felt that Long Canyon has ne responsibility for the construction of "H" Street west of Otay Lakes Road, and the ~ity desires to "drop it out", the Gersten Companies would concur resulting in a decrease in cost of ~11 other unit£; and di£~greed that it would cost ~1.4 million for the off-site improvement~ for Watt Industries and that th~ fair ~hare would be ~atis£ied by builSing the six lanes through the property. City Council Meeting -4- May 22, 1980 Development Services Administrator Robens commented that staff has no firm recommendation at this time with respect to the responsibility of the Rice Canyon SPA for participa- tion eastward of their own property line and recommended that the hearing be continued until the sixty-day period. City Engineer Lippitt added that the City's obligation does not include absorbing half of the costs for the street lighting as indicated in "the plan". Mr. McCabe asked for deletion of the off-site construction requirement for Watt Industries. Motion made and carried It was moved by Councilman Cox, seconded by Councilman Scott and unanimously carried that the condition of the off-site construction requirement of "H" Street be lifted for the purpose of satisfying circulation requirements. Motion to continue the It was moved by Mayor Hyde, seconded by Councilman Scott and public hearing unanimously carried to continue the public hearing until Thursday, June 26, 1980 at 4:00 p.m. in the Com~cil Conference Room. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hyde adjourned the meeting at 5:59 p.m. to the regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 27, 1980 in the Council Chambers of the Public Services Building. JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC CITY CLERK