Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Reports/1993/02/17 (4) Interim State Route 125 - Circulation Network AnalysIs t.. , , / " 1-.-.... I ,-' SEGMENT 1 SEGMENT 2 4 SR 125 i 1"-" CORRIDOR'-..-' ! / I JA,,',AL LOWER OTAY RESERVOIR / , iUPPEROTAY : RESERVOIR I \ \ '-. "-"=:f.::;::;t ~-' ~T-j u SEGMENT 7 .~__.J ,/ / OTAY Vt.LI~EY AVE -..- .-., 11 -_._------_._.__.~ o ~ ., ~ 1._________________ L , v \ ~-<\: . ':J _..- .- -' .- -.' LEGEND v~ '" --- ~ INTERSTATE ~ STATE ROUTE _ _. STATE ROUTE /25 CORRIDOR CITY STREET o FULL INTERCHANGE o PARTIAL INTERCHANGE _.._.n CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE No Scale Figure i. Circulation Network Assumptions for Mid Range Development Transportation DIF Update In January 12, 1988 Council established by Ordinance No. 2251, and amended by Ordinance No. 2349, 2289 and 2431, the "Interim Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee" (TDIF) to provide for the construction of additional transportation facilities necessary to accommodate new development in the eastern territories. Pursuant to Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2251, Engineering Department staff has conducted a study to review and update the fee. Attached for your information is the complete 1993 TDIF update report This TDIF is designed to support the General Plan as adopted in 1989 and subsequently amended. Staff recognizes that a major General Plan Amendment is contemplated for the Otay Ranch, however, this update is already overdue and could not comfortably be delayed to incorporate the Otay Ranch G.P.A. Staff anticipates that the Otay Ranch GPA will be incorporated in the next annual update. The original area of benefit has been expanded to the south to include the proposed Village 1 and 5 of the Otay Ranch. The south boundary now follows the proposed alignment of East Orange Avenue. The north (Bonita Road), east (sphere of influence) and west (1-805) boundaries remain practically the same. In addition, a review of the remaining development and the corresponding number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) was made to reflect new allowed densities and land use changes. A total of 28,431 EDU's are projected for construction within the area of benefit Table 1 of the report presents the revised land use forecast. The 39 public facilities which are the subject of the fee are presented in Table 2 of the report They include 23 projects (No. 1 through 23) that are currently in the TDIF program. Since the program inception,13 projects have been completed for a total of $38,608,626. The program also includes 16 new projects (No. 24 through 39) which have been identified as additional facilities necessary to accommodate the projected traffic generation. Projects 1 and 2 dealing with the SR-125 construction are proposed to be deleted from the Eastern Area Transportation DIF program and included in the SR-125 DIF program. Additionally, projects 13, 24 and 37 are also included in the recommended interim SR-125 facility. These projects are to be jointly financed by both programs since the interim SR-125 program does not require full improvements for these facilities. The "TDIF program support" allocation (Project "A" of Table 2) is designated to provide for general studies, monitoring, and administration of the TDIF program. Programs like traffic monitoring, growth management, TDIF update, etc. are supported by this fund. Following a review of actual expenditures during the last 3 years, it is recommended to increase the support allocation from 2% to 4% of the total estimated construction cost. This would provide the necessary funding to carry out these activities during the TDIF program duration. The total cost of the improvements including program support to be funded by the fee is $87,420,000. The table below shows the proposed Development Impact Fee rate for transportation facilities in the Eastern Territories. The fee per EDU is proposed to be increased from $3,060 to $3,075. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION PER EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT Total Cost of improvements Total EDU's = $87.420.000 28,431 EDU's = 3,074.81/EDU USE 3,075/EDU REVISED EASTERN AREA TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Present Revised Category EDU's FEE FEE Single-Family Detached DU 1.0 $ 3,060 $ 3,075 Single-Family Attached DU 0.8 2,448 2,460 Multi-Family DU 0.6 1,836 1,845 Commercial Acre 40.0 122,400 123,000 Industrial Acre 20.0 61,200 61,500 Religious Institution Acre 4.0 12,240 12,300 Olympic Training Center Acre 3.33 10,190 n/a Golf Course Acre 0.80 2,448 2,460 Medical Center Acre 65.0 199,875 J(xo/'3 ~ ......,;; ,-..:.,. ~ <.~ 1~ ~;.'.n 'i' \ \. '~:- ....,.. ': The Baldwin Company Craftsmanship in building since 1956 ~ ~ t;? 1.>' ..... ; ~ 4'.. 1.-." ..- r ,., " -','" 1. " ~\ January 26, 1993 Cliff Swanson CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 4th Ave. Chula vista, CA 92010 Dear Cliff: Enclosed please find our comments and concerns on the HNTB draft study, particularly as related to the finance plan component. 1. The study should indicate that the "best case" scenario is where interim 125 financing is not required and the funding program only pays for Orange Avenue. The HNTB study evaluates an alternative finance plan in the event that an interim 125 facility is required. 2. The study should evaluate the highly likely alternative where the adj acent property owners construct Orange Avenue, Eastlake Parkway and Proctor Valley Road. The SR125 funding program would then fund $2,358,888 for construction of segments 1, 2, 3 and their adjacent at grade intersections, plus a share of the funds expended by adj acent property owners who constructed the facil i ties. 3. On page 70 of the draft study, why is the special tax levy required to be paid off prior to close of escrow from developer to property owner? On page 74, if the developer is required to payoff the special tax levy, why would CTV reimburse the residents? Whoever is paying off the debt should receive the benefit. 4. The study needs to sufficiently determine that project revenues can support financing the facility costs at the time they are needed. (That was the original study purpose). The text on page 70 states "the actual trip mix and what projects are included at what level in what timeframe is yet to be resolved" and on page 75 "an absorption study...would assure that the plan could reasonably be expected to generate sufficient revenues to fund the program" suggests minimal confidence in the study results. 11975 El Camino Real. Suite 200 . San Diego, CA 92130 . (619) 259-2900 5. The study does not evaluate debt service coverage ratios, the 2% max tax or future bonding capacity reserved for OWD, schools and other infrastructure. This may be an issue down the road which limits financing capacity. 6. Our understanding is that scenarios A-D, alternatives 1-4 and corresponding text in the draft document will be replaced by Tables 12 (revised) & 11 as handed out at our last meeting. Please include an explanation of best case and worst case alternatives along with these Tables. For example, explain that the rational behind the worst case scenario is that the greatest exposure occurs after bonds are issued therefore the scenario assumes development stops immediately thereafter. A statement regarding the fact that the worst case scenario is highly unlikely would also be appropriate. 7. We understand that the vacant land tax in the worst case scenario applies only to acres remaining after year 2001, which we estimate to be roughly 600 acres. Per our last meeting, the 10,000 acre estimate in Table 12 is being revised to reflect acres remaining in Eastlake, Salt Creek Ranch, San Miguel, otay Villages 1 & 5, and Telegraph Canyon. It is our understanding, and we are only in agreement to include Villages 1 & 5 of the Otay Ranch for purposes of this study (including bonding capacity and vacant land tax calculations) . 8. The fee assigned to Commercial seems disproportionately high at $45,160 per acre. Our experience indicates that roughly $1 per square foot is the maximum assessment commercial land can support. We suggest the consultants adjust the spread on commercial land accordingly. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft HNTB Study. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either Steve Doyle or Liz Long. Sincerely, , ) / -./.>1 ,., ~. /~I "15.... 'J 1,"\ i U Y , . I I LH Long ( Project Manager January 15, 1993 Mr. John Lippitt Director of Public Works CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, CA 92010 Re: Draft Eastem Area Development Impact Fee for Streets - 1992 Revision Dear John: I have completed a review of the January draft of the Eastern Area Development Impact Fee for Streets. The technical information and development summaries contained in the report appear to adequately represent the conditions as we know them today. I think that you and your staff have done an excellent job of tailoring this document in order to eliminate confusion regarding overlapping programs being constructed under the new interim SR 125 program. As I mentioned to you in our meeting the other day, I would request that the City include a discussion of the application and use of the state and local transportation partnership program within the document. I would recommend that the discussion of the SLTPP detail, (1) the requirement of making applications for state funding for DIF projects, (2) descriptions of when and how that funding would be recognized by the DIF program and (3) include discussions relating to the uses of the funds actually received from the state. Your consideration of these matters is appreciated. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ~~ Bruce N. Sloan Project Manager BNS/jb cc: Cliff Swanson, City Engineer, City of Chula Vista Steve Thomas, Engineering Dept., City of Chula Vista Lombardo De Trinidad, Engineering Dept., City of Chula Vista ''13 .t... ..... c.' /i':'i,;: ... ~ ..... E'ASTLAKE DMlOPMENT COMPANY 900 Lone Avenue Suite 100 Chura Vista, CA 91914 (619) 421-0127 FAX (619) 421-1830 <.. l::.""""'cH M : .::JPL J Cf5 I) I-/to 13 ~',. C/. 9,9S0 (.,'i....,'/ January 26, 1993 ....<. ... ~:'A'\ ,"~ . .\\.\lc\1illin ~lIllWW~S ';;t:- ~. -. \ . ,..:> ~" cP ,;.. \' \" :) ".~ " ~ Mr. John Lippitt, Director Departrnent of Public Works CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 \." -6 .' ~ \' Re: Interim SR-125 Facility Feasibility Study Dear John: The following are our comments to the January 25, 1993 draft of the referenced report. Our comments are not directed to any specific page or section of the report but are directed at the City's application and implementation of the proposed fee/special tax program as it applies to Rancho del Rey. 1. Ail properties that have prepaid the existing Transportation DIF though assessment district financing should be exempt from the proposed SR-125 DIP. The current TDIF includes a SR-125 component for which each prepaid unit has paid. These properties will be paying for SR-125 twice unless they are exempted or the new DIF is adjusted to reflect the existing prepayment. 2. The amount of the proposed fee should be proportioned to reflect the extent of benefit received. The City has previously analyzed a fee based on "zones of benefit" with the fee being lower for properties with less benefit and higher for those with greater benefit. Current traffic studies reveal that Rancho del Rey can be developed without the Interim SR-125 improvements. A select link study should prove that a small percentage of the total trips on the Interirn SR-125 improvements are generated by Rancho del Rey. The City should reconsider "zones of benefit" for the fee and/or Mello-Roos. 3. Before the SR-125 DIF is implemented the total program should be endorsed and approved for participation by the County of San Diego. Any property that develops within the benefit area, regardless if it is in the City or County, should be paying the fee. Concurrence with the County should also be achieved in order to permit City collected DIP's to be expended on County owned improvements. A process should be established for a Chula Vista developer to prepare and process a "Chula Vista Requirement" through County of San Diego Engineering Design Department. .- Mr. John Lippitt January 25, 1993 Page Two 4. Finally, we are concerned that the total annual property tax on developed lots will exceed 2.00%. Neighborhoods in Rancho del Rey currently have total tax payrnents at 1.89% (without the most recent Otay Water District general obligation bond sale in December, 1992). Additional tax would push taxes above the 2.00% threshold. Thank you for allowing us to comment on this proposal. Please contact me if you may h"},,,,, !l....." rn.pctJ'or.~ l"'PC<"1J'r1ino O'lr "~Jnmpnt< ~...... -. "'...) .1.....""'.... !...~ ....0... ~... I:> ...... ."J....... ..,. Sincerely, RANCHO DEL REY PARTNERSHIP CF /trh cc: George Krempl, Deputy City Manager Cliff Swanson, City Engineering u: :T~LJ ~C') '- ,-":" ~, SUNBOW~J .' -,"., --' ..< .- - F::}l -3 -. ~,.'" fh HI 1,2'; 1'"'- ~.'8 i"I" ..) dIc- it fJ (J'-,fi January 29, 1992 Mr. John Lippitt Director of Public Works CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Reference: Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study Dear John: Six months and eight City sponsored working sessions have passed since our first letter to you regarding the Interim SR-125 Facility Feasibility Study. While several of our concerns as outlined in the attached July 16, 1992 letter have been resolved, the key issues as we see them have yet to be dealt with in a manner consistent with the City's goal of fair application of Development Impact Fees and CFD's. Government Code Section 66000 which establishes Development Impact Fees requires that a City establish a reasonable relationship, or nexus, between a development project and the public improvements for which a developer fee is charged. There must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of that facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. On Page 73 of the Study, you state that the underlying methodology for the calculation of the 125-DIF Fee is ''to assess property according to the level of benefit received from the interim facility". Additionally, you then define benefit as ''the number of trips generated by the property". The irony here is that unless you utilize select link analysis to determine where the traffic from each project is going, you cannot determine the true level of benefit. Your methodology assumes that a DU in Sunbow which is less than one mile from 1-805 yet greater than five miles from Interim SR-125 would utilize Interim SR- 125 with the same frequency as a DU immediately adjacent to SR-125. 2445 Fifth Avenue, Fourth Floor, San Diego, California 92101-1692, (619) 231-3637, FAX (619) 232-4717 Mr. John Uppitt January 29, 1993 Page 2 While analysis of "zones of benefit" was discussed during a few of the working sessions, it was not a part of the January 5, 1993 study. Even if incorporated as discussed, the magnitude of the differences in required DIF contribution for the different projects is far less than the differences in actual benefit received. A select link study or similar methodology should be utilized to determine the degree of contribution/DU each project should contribute via SR-125 DIF and CFD financing. Until this analysis is done, the nexus requirement cannot be met. We understand the development of an Interim SR.125 Facility is a vital step in allowing the future growth of the Eastern Territories. We simply request an equitable methodology be incorporated into your study. Very truly yours, SUNBOW ASSOCIATES ~ Bob Cummings Project Manager Attachment cc: George Krempl Cliff Swanson sr125-1 CTV <oIIf...T....sportatloo Y_tslo<. 1230 CaIumIoia Street Soil. 640 S. Diego, Calif..... 92t01 619-338-8385 FAX 619-338-8123 Iocorporated by Parsons Brindcerho/l Development Group, In~ Fluor Daniel Development Corp. . Transroute Prvdentio~Boch. Capital Fancfmg February 1, 1993 I' '9c:7 ,J ;,) F: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 ATIN: John Uppitt, Director of Public Works Steve Thomas RE: Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study Eastern Area Development Impact Fees Program 1992 Revision Dear Messrs. Up pitt and Thomas: With respect to the above-mentioned documents, which we only received at the working session held at the City of Chula Vista on January 19, 1993, we wish to make the following general comments: We understand the Interim Facility is a continaencv plan for the City and land developers to provide additional roadway capacity in the event that the SR 125 toll road project is not approved by Caltrans, the CTC and FHWA; or not constructed by CTV. As you are aware, the SR 125 Development Franchise Agreement between Caltrans and CTV (Section 6.4) provides that CTV shall commence construction upon completion of the environmental process and, in any event, within three years of the filing of a Notice of Determination by Caltrans and a Record of Decision by the FHWA. The current schedule for the environmental process commits Caltrans to complete the EIR/EIS approval by July 1995. Until environmental approval, neither the toll road nor any interim facility could be constructed within the proposed SR 125 corridor. We believe that while Caltrans and CTV have committed to make the EIR/EIS data available to the City, a separate EIR would have to be prepared for any interim facility within the SR 125 right of way. We do not agree that the proposed Segment 5 of the interim facility could be "easily integrated" in a future toll road if it is initially opened as a free facility. We believe opening this segment to the public as a free facility would jeopardize the implementation of the toll road option and, therefore, delay the entire SR 125 project for many years. We also believe your current plan for phasing would allow for the proposed SR 125 toll road to have ample time to be implemented while the City would implement other elements of the "interim facility" which are complementary to SR 125 such as Orange Avenue. Therefore, we request the conclusions of the report and the recommendations to the City Council be clarified as follows: The DIF fees and CFD would be approved at the proposed level to provide the necessary financial resources should the toll road not be constructed for whatever reason. Seament 5 of the proposed Interim Facility within the SR 125 right of way would only be constructed (under the DIF program) if CTV has not commenced construction of SR 125 within the time frame imposed by the Franchise Agreement and after the appropriate environmental clearance. (CTV would commit to give priority to this section in the toll road construction phasing.) Property owners within the CFD would receive a credit for any unused portion of the DIF fees or the CFD special taxes. As proposed in the study, this could be in the form of a reduction in toll charges for residents of the CFD. We believe these clarifications by the City would resolve potential legal issues and would help expedite the SR 125 environmental review, final design, financing, and construction in cooperation between Caltrans, the City, other local authorities, land developers, and CTV. More specific comments are provided in Attachment A to this letter. A1TACHMENT A COMMENTS ON 'INTERIM SR 125 FACfUTY FEASIBIUTY STUDY' Paae/Section!Paraarach Comment 5 4:Segment 5 We do not believe that the proposed roadway could be integrated into the ultimate tollway, for practical, economic, psychological and political reasons. Sufficient ROW should be preserved for SR 125 beside this roadway. 6 2nd Paragraph The Caltrans EIRlEIS for SR 125 will not provide environmental clearance for any segment of the proposed interim facility. 9 1.6 Legal Parts of the Interim Facility (including Segment 5) are deemed to be 'Competitive Facilities' under the SR 125 Franchise Agreement 11 2.0, Paragraph 2 1998 is the currently scheduled opening year for SR 125. 13 Last Paragraph See comments on p5 and 6 above. 30 Paragraph 2 We are surprised that an at-grade intersection at San Miguel Road could provide LOS C with 72,000 ADT. 31 Stage 6 - Paragraph 1 No half-diamond interchange is provided at Eastlake Parkway under SR 125 EIRlEIS, but land is to be reserved for possible future expansion. Paragraph 3 See comments on p.30 above. 34/35 There are some discrepancies between traffic figures on the map p.34 and in the text and tables p.35. ~ 15,000 ADT instead of 19,000 on SR 125 between Eastfake Parkway and East H Street 44 4.3 See comment on p.6 above. 54 4.6 See comment on p.6 above. 57 5.1 See comment on p.5 above. 57 5.2 See comment on p.31, paragraph 1 above. U2 05/93 12:27 ~l 619 338 8123 CrY PH ;;D - _._~. ..---------- ----- IiZJ 002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PETE WilSON, Go.mor February 5, 1993 @ 11-SD-125 PM 0.0-11.2 11202-926475 Mr. John Lippett City Engineer City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Lippett: We have reviewed the January, 1993 draft of the "Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility study" we received at the January 19, 1993 working session held at the city of Chula Vista's offices. We would like to make some general comments regarding the current draft and reiterate some of the concerns we expressed in our comments to the JUly, 1992 draft of the same study (copy attached). Many of the original comments outlined in the attached July 29, 1992 letter still apply to the current draft of the study. In particular, the comments made regarding alternative discussion, interchange improvements at East Palomar Street and Interstate 805, and the need for legal review of the "tax-exempt" status of bond financing continue to be of concern. In addition, it is of utmost importance to reiterate the position that the environmental document for the ultimate transportation facility will not provide environmental clearance/approval for an interim project within the same corridor. It is likely that a separate environmental document will be needed if the interim facility is to be implemented. It is prudent that the City and land developers desire to formulate a contingency transportation and financing plan for implementation if the Route 125 project is not approved or is subject to unexpected delays. The phasing plan included in the current draft of the feasibility study does not propose construction within the future State right of way (Segment 5 of the proposed interim facility) until well beyond the current schedule for the Route 125 toll road project. However, the fact that it is a continqency clan needs to be emphasized in the feasibility study. This is particularly true in regard to Segment 5 of the proposed interim roadway network. Opening and operating this segment of the roadway as a "free" facility could jeopardize current or future plans to utilize a direct user fee financing strategy for constructing a regional transportation project in the same corridor. The City should delay construction within~this segment until all reasonable efforts to provide a regional facility in a timely manner have been exhausted. 02/05/93 12:28 ~1 619 338 8123 CTY PB SD I4i 003 J. Lippet Interim 125 Draft Feasibility study Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to review the current draft feasibility study and we look forward to continued coordination of all efforts to provide for the transportation needs of this area. Sincerely, JESUS M. GARCIA District Director By ~~ft CHARLES "MUGGS" STOLL Project Manager Privatization CMS: Attachments cc:Dale Dunlap - HNTB 02 03/8:! 12; 28 '0'1 619 338 812~_ CTI' FB SD ......~It: ut l.AUH.JHN'-\_ ~ lliAN.St'Ofr 1"K.)HAHO ttOU&HG~ :j1J 004 .-~ ----- --- - ..- --.. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11. P.O. BOX 85400. SAN DI(GO 92111&-5400 PETE WILSON, Governor July 29, 1992 Mr. John Lippett City Engineer City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 11-SD-125 PM 0.0-11.2 11221-926475 Dear Mr. Lippett: Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft "Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study" and for your invitation to the meeting concerning this document on July 14, 1992. We offer the following comments: The environmental document for the ultimate toll road/freeway will not provide clearance/approval for an interim facility. The impacts of an interim facility may be substantially different than the ultimate project. Many impacts associated with major construction could occur twice and less than full landscaping may be planted on interim slopes. If a western alignment is adopted through our studies, it does seem reasonable that the interim route follow the same corridor. However, although we are working closely with the City in our studies, this may not eliminate the need for a separate environmental document if an interim facility is pursued. Page 36 should be revised. The interim facility design should eliminate the interchange at Eastlake Parkway and include the loop ramps at the Telegraph Canyon Road interchange (page 28). Right of way for the loop ramps is being reserved for the ultimate facility. In addition, the half-diamond design concepts (as shown on page 58 and as estimated on page 43) could never be accommodated on an ultimate freeway/toll road due to the limited distance to the East H Street interchange. The first paragraph on page 31 should discuss the fact that there are other alignment variations for Route 125 still under consideration at the south end from Otay Mesa Road to south of Orange Avenue ("Johnson Canyon," "Brown Field," and other modified alignments). Some reference to the fact that we are still studying alignments to the east of the Sweetwater Reservoir should be made. The "Ultimate Expressway as Planned by Caltrans" typical section shown on page 33 is incorrect (see attached). 02. 05g:~ 12: 28 'a'J n19 338 8123 CTY PH SIJ iiZj 005 John Lippett July 29, 1992 Page Two ~ The toll road is planned a~.ten lan~s including accommodation for a public" 'transportation facility. It does not necessarily allow for both HOV lanes and light rail. The "Off-Corridor Improvement" section states that the construction of a half-dia~ond in~rchange at East Palomar Street on I-a05 was included in the traffic analysis. This project would require local funding if it proves to be feasible at all (interchaQge spacing on the Interstate facility is limited- at minimum, would require expensive braided bridge structures to eliminate weaving maneuvers). The timing of the San Miguel Road to Route 54 portion of Route 125 (included in TransNet) must be'coordinated with SANDAG's Plan of Finance. The Right-of-Way discussion on page 35 regarding acreage and parcel counts is dependent on which alignment is adopted. Route 125 could ultimately relocate over 100 homes. However, south of San Miguel Road, the number is highly variable depending on alternative alignment selection and the degree to which Chula Vista continues to develop within the corridor. We have not examined the interim costs in detail and have no comments on them at this time. However, we note that substantial mitigation costs would be part of any road, including: noise barriers, landscaping, biological resource replacement, etc. We have no costs yet en these items for the ultimate Route 125 project. In addition, the interim facility cost could vary significantly depending on which alignment is ultimately adopted. Therefore, it may be premature to begin an assessment program. The Caltrans noise study is not complete, but based on past similar projects in quiet existing areas, we expect that eVen with reasonable mitigation, noise levels would substantially increase with either the interim or ultimate highway. - The interim project proposes an at-grade intersection in phase one and two for San Miguel Road. This design would require the widening of San Miguel Road. We are studying alternatives to avoid construction on this two-lane road. We believe the City should also attempt to minimize the interim road impacts to the community character of Bonita. 0~,05 93 12:30 ~I 619 338 8123 en PB~_ '. .' . -----.-~_.- ---..-...-----..-.--- i!!J 006 John Lippett July 29, 1992 Page Three We concur that there is a need for legal review in regard to the "tax-exempt" status of bonds used to finance an interim public road that may ultimately be taken over as a privately-run toll road. The Caltrans "Draft Relocation Impact Report" of 1991 was for the western alternative alignments only and is not appropriate as a reference for other public documents. We request that it be deleted as a reference. We appreciate the city's efforts regarding this project and we look forward to continued coordination of all efforts to provide for the transportation needs of this area. If you have any questions, please call Charles "Muggs" stoll, Project Engineer, at (619) 688-6136. Sincerely, JESUS M. GARCIA District Director By ap ~~>- (of G E. GRAY Deputy District Director Local & Private Partnerships GEG/CMS:wkb Attachments bcc:GGray,TRVasqueZ,SGlasgoW,CMstOll, MSpeigal-CTV ilT1J; CIlIl4H.J T J3 ISSUES 1. What if the toll road is constructed? The purpose of the study and the proposed fee establishment is to provide a facility in the event that a freeway or a toll road is not constructed in the SR-125 corridor identified in the Chula Vista General Plan. Many of the facilities in the study, however, are parts of the complete transportation system proposed on the Chula Vista General Plan. These facilities which are complementary to SR-125, such as Orange Avenue and Eastlake Parkway, will still be required to be constructed. With respect to fees collected for the portions of the interim SR-125 program that may be included in the toll road alignment (segment 5 and parts of segment 4 from Eastlake Parkway to San Miguel Road), there are many options available, including rebates, reduced future fees, funding of cornplernentary transportation facilities such as public transit or additional ramps, equity participation in the toll road or reduced future tolls for property owners. These matters will be the subject of future hearings when the toll road issue itself is resolved. 2. What if an eastern SR-125 alignment is selected by CalTrans? Traffic models have confirmed that a surface roadway of some kind (in the western corridor) would still be needed. 3. Can the interim facility be used as a part of the toll road if a western alignment is selected? Which portion of the interim facility? While it is within the realrn of possibility that portions of the interim facility could be turned over to CTV and operated as a portion of the toll road, there are potential obstacles to this occurring. Fundarnentally, CTV has expressed concerns. "Once a road is open and operating as a free road, it is generally not acceptable to the public to later covert it to a toll road." The other major issue is that the HNTB study proposes roadway materials (asphalt) that will not conform to freeway standards (concrete) but do conform to city street standards, to minimize costs. However, the grade and alignment will conforrn to freeway standards at so that with the proposed alignment the facility could be modified to freeway standards with a minimum of cost and inconvenience. 4. Is the interim facility in conflict with the CalTrans/CTV franchise agreement? CalTrans and CTV have advised staff that the do not consider the interim facility in conflict with the franchise agreement since the facility consists of either currently planned surface roads or roads that would be physically replaced by the proposed toll road. They further understand that the program is intended as a contingency to the event that the freeway Itollway is not constructed in a timely fashion. Their main concern is that, if segrnents 4 and 5 are constructed as free surface roads, it may not be possible to replace them with a toll road at a later date. This could be of significant consequence to the toll project, since portions of the corridor have been developed and do not leave room for both a free road and a toll road. 5. What if a toll road is proposed, but the timing of the toll road does not meet the transportation needs identified in the HNTB study? The HNTB study is based on certain general assumptions regarding development timing and phasing. Staff will continue to monitor development as it proceeds, and revise and update scheduling of facilities. Interim SR-125 roads may be needed sooner than projected - or later, or in a different order. Staff will work with CalTrans and CTV to make every effort to reconcile their scheduling to Chula Vista transportation needs. However, there are no guarantees that unresolvable conflicts will not arise. CTV particularly has expressed concerns with respect to Chula Vista constructing and operating a "free" surface road at locations where they may propose a future toll road. CTV indicates that experience has shown conversion of a free road to a toll road is unacceptable to the public. This is one of the problems that cannot be addressed at this time, due to the uncertainty of timing of the toll road as well as timing of interim SR-125 facilities. 6. How does this program relate to the transportation DIF (T-DIF)? This program is designed to supplement the 'T-DIF. Staff's recommendation for the interirn SR-125 DIF program includes four segrnents currently contained in the TDIF. The reason that the two DIFs are proposed as separate is fundamentally to assure that funds are segregated and available for the needed interim SR-125 facilities. 7. Why does staff proposed that the fee be unifonn throughout the area of potential benefit, rather than relating the fee to each project's impact on the facility? Staff's recommendation is based on several considerations: 1) The origins of this fee are based on the TDIF established in 1989. Four of the seven facilities in this program are proposed to be transferred from the TDIF program (which has a uniform fee per trip). 2) If the interim SR-125 is tiered, then staff recommends that the T-DIF should also be tiered. 3) To attempt to identify each project's traffic contribution to each facility would be a very complex process, subject to tremendous uncertainties. The suggested method of resolving this by using Select Link Analysis (which identifies the origin-destination of trips traveling through each link) is subject to external influences. It is also very dependent on other assumptions, such as which other roads are in existence. Several property owners have suggested that distance from SR-125 and proximity to I-80S be used as the basis of developing a tiered fee system, however, the proposed road system contains north-south and east-west components, so it could also be argued that proximity to SR-54 be used as the criteria. Staff's recommendation is that the prograrn be considered in its entirety since each project benefits from the existence of the overall system. An additional reason for this recommendation is that the proposed fee is based on financing assumptions that require uniform contributions to the system. 8. Who would be taxed by the CFO, and when? As emphasized in the staff report, the CFD itself is intended to provide a fallback revenue stream, in the unlikely event that fees generated from the SR-125 OIF fall below revenue requirements for bond service. If this happens, then additional revenues must be generated in the form of taxes. Staff's intent was that these taxes be only imposed on vacant land, within the benefit area, to minimize conflicts with other taxing authorities such as school districts, water districts, etc. The taxes would be lirnited to the difference between actual fee revenues and bond service payments. It is possible to avoid a CFD entirely by requiring developers to construct the facilities and repay them as funds become available. Because of the large costs associated with some of the facilities, this presents potential funding problems. 9. Can a developer pay interim SR-125 OIF fees through the fonnation of a Mello- Roos CFO? This is a completely different issue from the above question since the above described CFD tax would be on vacant land, and would vary in amount from year to year. A proposal to pay fees by CFO would probably require a separate CFD to avoid a nexus issue. Beyond that, the question is fundamentally a policy issue and should be dealt with on a project by project basis. Staff does not recommend payment of fees through formation of a CPD because cash flow projections used to establish the fee presume that the fee is paid upon issuance of a building permit and generates interest until it is required to construct a road. With a CFD, the tax is collected over a 20 to 25 year period. 10. Would the fee change if the property owner is required to construct the portion 11. Is the County of San Diego involved in the proposed project? County involvement in implementing the proposed interim SR-125 facility program is critical to its success, since rnost of the proposed roads and many of the properties currently lie in the unincorporated territories. Ultimately, County cooperation will be necessary for construction or widening of any roads in County jurisdiction. Additionally, the County rnust agree to allow a CFD to be placed on any property in County jurisdiction. County Public Works staff has been monitoring the process of developing the interim SR-125 program from the beginning. They have cooperated with the City and consultants throughout the process. Their primary comment at this point has been to advise City staff that there may be objections to widening roads in Bonita that comprise the northern portions of the interim SR-125 facility. 12. What will happen if the County does not cooperate? Based on current projections and analysis, most of the roads required prior to the Year 2003 are in areas proposed to annex to Chula Vista. Thus, the level of cooperation required of the County prior to that time would fundamentally be their approval to construct a portion of Proctor Valley Road south of San Miguel road, and this is not projected to be required before 1999. Hopefully, long before this time, it will be clear whether the toll road will be constructed, which would eliminate the need for this facility. Staff is aware of the County's concerns and the concerns of the property owners that County cooperation is essential. Staff's recommendation is that the program be implemented so that the fees may be collected. As more refined traffic and development information becomes available, and as the toll road process becomes clearer, we will be able to better address the concerns of the County. In the meanwhile, staff would work to obtain County approvals in a timely fashion. F: \home \ wpc\otay \SR-125.?