HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/02/10
MEMORANDUM
February 10, 1993
SUBJECT:
The Chairman and Members, Chula Vista Planning Commission
Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning Ijl
John Lippitt, Director of Public Works f/I/
Report on the Status and Conclusions of the Interim SR-125 Study
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
The purpose of this report is to brief the Planning Commission on staff's proposal to introduce
a separate fee, supported by a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to provide sufficient
funds to construct an interim facility designed to serve the transportation needs of the South
Bay region in the event that construction of SR-125 does not occur in a timely fashion.
Attached to this report is a summary of the latest proposal for updating the Chula Vista
Transportation DIF (T-DIF).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes that the Planning Commission accept the HNTB report, provide advice and
comments regarding staff's recommendation that the City Council adopt an interim SR-125
Development Impact fee (by ordinance) of $1,290 per equivalent dwelling unit for the purpose
of constructing or improving seven road segments.
BACKGROUND
In January 1991, the State of California identified four projects eligible for franchise agreements
which would enable private entities to operate these facilities as tollways. The portion of SR-
125 running from SR-905 on Otay Mesa to San Miguel Road is one of these four projects. The
state subsequently entered into a franchise agreement with California Transportation Ventures
(CTV), a private consortium to allow CTV to construct and operate the tollway for a period of
35 years.
The agreement allows CTV to choose not to construct the tollway providing that it exercises
that option before construction of the roadway commences.
CalTrans is currently in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report that
considers western and eastern alignments of a freeway and in some cases as a toll road.
Completion of the EIR will enable the State to designate and adopt an alignment and construct
the facility. Route adoption is currently proposed for late 1995.
WPC F:\home\wpc\otay\SR-125
Chairman and Members, Chula Vista Planning Commission
February 10, 1993
Page 2
CalTrans has not identified or allocated funding for the subject portion of SR-125 as a freeway.
CTV has indicated their desire to construct the toll road as soon as possible if the project is
found to be viable. In the absence of construction as a toll road, this portion of SR-125 is not
currently proposed for funding by CalTrans.
Staff has been aware for years that SR-125 is an essential regional facility, and that there are
limitations on growth that can occur in the South Bay without such a facility. Chula Vista has
been collecting fees to construct an interim facility since 1985. Staff and property owners also
recognized that it would not be feasible or appropriate to attempt to collect sufficiently large
fees to enable the City to construct a freeway-style facility.
In January of 1992, the City Council approved a contract with a team led by Howard Needles
Tammen and Bergendoff (HNTB), an engineering consultant, to study the implications of the
proposed toll road, investigate alternatives and advise the City. Other members of the team
include NBS/Lowry, Wilbur Smith & Associates; Brown Diven & Hentschke; and Fieldman,
Rollapp & Associates. Accompanying this staff report is the report containing HNTB's analysis
and conclusions.
INTERIM SR-125 REPORT
Initially, the HNTB report investigated the feasibility of constructing a freeway-style four lane
facility from Orange Avenue northerly to SR-125. The rationale behind this proposal was the
desire to avoid construction of "throw-away" facilities, in which a road constructed to City
standards would have to be demolished and replaced with a road constructed to CalTrans'
freeway standards. This alternative produced a very expensive road, with high fees which,
when combined with the Transportation DIF fees, would have increased the total fee from
$3,060 to over $6,000. Many of the property owners expressed concern regarding the high fees,
and the ability to receive any sort of refund when the freeway was funded by CalTrans. They
also questioned the demand and need for this high volume facility.
As a result of this concern, several transportation programs were investigated that utilized
circulation element roads as much as possible. All of the programs considered Orange Avenue
as the primary east-west facility to be constructed and a north-south facility in the general
vicinity of the existing Proctor Valley Road (from East H Street to San Miguel Road). The
fundamental difference between programs was how the connection was made from the "Proctor
Valley" facility to SR-54. Several alternatives were reviewed, considering the extension of
Conduit Road and the widening of Bonita Road (north of San Miguel Road) and Sweetwater
Road. The alternative that was selected for further study consists of the following seven road
segments.
WPC F:\home\wpc\otay\SR-125
Chairman and Members, Chula Vista Planning Commission
February 10, 1993
Page 3
Segment 1 Sweetwater Road (Bonita Road to SR-125)
Segment 2 Bonita Road (Sweetwater Road To San Miguel Road)
Segment 3 San Miguel Road (Bonita Road to Proctor Valley Road)
Segment 4 Proctor Valley Road (San Miguel Road to SR-125 corridor)
Segment 5 SR-125 Corridor (The SR-125 corridor is the right-of-way reserved
through Eastlake and Salt Creek 1)
Segment 6 ,.
Eastlake Parkway (SR-125 to East Orange Avenue)
Segment 7 East Orange Avenue (Eastlake Parkway to Sunbow property)
The study area or area of potential benefit was scaled to match the anticipated capacity of the
interim roadway. At this time, it has been emphasized to property owners that the nature of
the study area was to approximate traffic levels and was not intended to suggest any
development entitlements or lock in any particular development phasing for any particular
project.
The specific study area used to approximate the traffic levels is shown in Table 8.1 of the HNTB
report (Appendix A).
Financing the Facilities
The HNTB study identifies 7 facilities that would need to be constructed to serve a total of
352,763 new or additional trips (generated since July, 1990) generated from the Chula Vista
General Plan Area. Of the 352,000 trips, 252,564 can contribute financially to the system. The
remaining 100,000 trips fall into two categories:
1) development that has occurred since 1990;
2) properties exempted from SR-125 participation
through development agreements.
The HNTB report projects that this would, when combined with other T-DIF improvements,
provide capacity in the transportation system to the Year 2007.
The cost of the proposed facilities (in 1992 dollars is $27,953,000. Using cash flow analysis
methods, it has been projected that potentially $12 million in bonds would have to be sold to
finance construction. The cost of issuing bonds and debt service is proposed to be included in
the fee amount, since the cost could be associated with any combination of facilities, depending
on the development pattern that actually occurs (if San Miguel develops earlier and Sunbow
WPC F:\home\wpc\otay\SR-125
Chairman and Members, Chula Vista Planning Commission
February 10, 1993
Page 4
later, the northern improvements might be required sooner than the western improvements,
or visa versa).
Once the number of "benefitting trips" and financing costs were established, a recommended
fee per trip was established at $129.00 ($1,290.00 per EDU).
The fundamental financing method proposed to pay for the construction of the facilities
(including financing costs) is collection of fees. This method is workable, providing fees
received each year are at least adequate to payoff debt service on bonds issued. The worst
case becomes the situation where development slows and fees collected are not sufficient. Staff,
therefore, recommends that a Community Facilities District be established over the entire area
of benefit so that an "undeveloped land tax" could be imposed. The tax would only be
imposed on vacant, undeveloped land within the area of benefit, and would only be used to
pay debt service (principal and interest) on bonds and costs incurred in administering the
interim SR-125 DIF. Staff intent is that the CFD would be used as a fallback mechanism, only
to be used if development levels drop below those necessary to pay bonds through collection
of fees. Development would have to fall to less than 1/2 the projected normal year rate. If this
was to occur at the worst time (immediately after construction), some tax would be necessary
to make up the shortfall. Any property required to pay such a tax would receive a credit for
such taxes towards payment of interim SR-125 DIF fees when the property develops.
Split Zone Concept
Several of the developers have requested that staff consider establishment of a tiered fee
structure, based on actual anticipated usage of the proposed system. In this proposal, an
attempt would be made to determine the actual impact of each project on the proposed facilities
(such as percentage of overall trips) and apportion fees accordingly. The HNTB study analyzes
a two-tiered zone system with Paseo Ranchero as the general zone boundary. Properties west
of the zone boundary would pay 75% of the fee while those east of the boundary pay 100%.
Staff, however, does not recommend a tiered fee system. Further discussion of the split zone
or tiered fee concept is contained in the following "Issues" Section.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
Many technical issues have been raised regarding the staff proposal and the ability of staff to
implement it both physically and financially. Attachment "A" contains comments from property
owners and other interested parties regarding the HNTB report and proposed program.
Attachment "B" to this report is an "issues paper" which, in a question and answer format,
attempts to explore many of the issues raised and provide staff's response.
WPC F:\home\wpc\otay\SR~125