Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1990/08/23Thursday, August 23, 1990 Council Conference Room 4:10 p.m. Administration Building Regular Council Conference CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Malcolm, McCandliss, Moore, Nader, and Mayor Cox (left at 5:55 p.m.). Growth Management Oversight Committee members: Susan Fuller, Vice Chair, Chuck Peter, Hugh Christensen, Frank Tarantino. Absent: Councilmember Malcolm. GMOC members: Will T. Hyde, Chairman, Steve Harm, Harry Hillock, Lupe Jimenez, Nancy L. Palmet. 2. REPORT ANNUAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR THE CI'IY OF CHULA VISTA FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1989 - The report reviews: 1) compliance with the City's standards was met for Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Parks and Recreation, Sewer, Drainage, and Traffic Thresholds; 2) compliance with the City's standards was deficient or less than satisfactory for Air Quality, Schools (both districts), Water (both districts), Economics, and Library Thresholds; and 3) changes to the current Economics, Parks and Recreation, and Traffic thresholds are proposed and recommended. Continued f~om the meet~ng of July 26, 1990. (Growrah Management Oversight Committee) /~J/~.~ Susan Fuller, Vice Chair of the Committee, highlighted the GMOC report. She stated the following threshold compliance had been met: Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services, Parks and Recreation, Sewer, Drainage, and Traffic. However, they found the thresholds to be less than desirable for Air Quality, Elementary and High Schools, Water, Economics, and Libraries. They had made some recommendations for changes to the Parks and Recreation, Traffic, and Economic thresholds. They also believed there should be some changes made to the water thresholds, although they did not offer any specific changes at this time. Since data for Economics was incomplete, they could not make a good assessment for this area. They also concluded that the threshold itself was unclear and needed some revisions. During their review, they became aware that the thresholds did not pay adequate attention to the impact of growth on the older part of the city. They were impressed with the work of the Water Task Force and concurred with their recommendations. They felt the city should take a proactive instead of reactive role in water management matters. Mr. Leiter, Planning Director, went over the areas where there was onformance with the thresholds, but where they had made some suggestions. A. Parks and Recreation Councilman Moore stated he felt it was time that all areas of the City have the same ratios for parks. He further expressed that another area to look at would be the swimming pool ratios. Discussion followed regarding this issue. MINUTES -2- August 23, 1990 MOTION: Moved by Cox, seconded by Moore to refer the following proposed changes made by the Growth ) Management Oversite Committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review and comment with a report back to Council: 1. The threshold standard for parks be revised to include a standard for new development west of 1-805 as well as addressing park deficiencies for existing residents west of 1-805. 2. Council approve the proposed definition of "new usable" park acreage and that future reports regarding compliance with the parks threshold address park acreage in terms of "net usable" acreage rather than gross acreage. 3. Park acquisition and development fees should be used solely for acquisition and development of new parks rather than for repair and maintenance of existing park facilities. 4. Park fees should be charged for all new residential development rather than only for developments which require tentative map approval. 5. The City Council should adopt a requirement that all new multi-family residential development provide private recreational areas wherever feasible. Motion was approved 4-0-1. City Manager Goss asked if staff could provide comments regarding the use of park acquisition and development fees for acquisition and development of new parks since it would make a change in existing city policy. He wanted to explore the impacts this would have on the budget. B. Traffic Councilwoman McCandliss asked at what level were the eight intersections listed in the staff report operating? i~t1~ ~t Dan Marurn, of JHK and Associates, responded that of the eight intersections listed, Hflltop/"H" and Industrial/"L" operate in the p.m. at a very low E level. The only one to have a problem both at mid-day and p.m. was at Third/"H" which was at a very low service level D. All data was collected in the baseline year 1989. Councilman Nader felt that the intersection of Broadway and E was far worse than any listed. He asked what service level was it? Mr. Marum responded that in the peak p.m. it was .78 C level. Councilman Nader clarified if level C was to be able to get through an intersection in one light cycle at the peak p.m. hour. Mr. Marum stated that was correct, but one of the answers il that this rating was an average for the entire intersection which was based on the critical movements through an intersection. In other words, if the majority of movements is at C or less, then the intersection is level C. This method of calculating was called the ICU method of calculating the service level. This was the method used by the City which uses the percent of theoretical capacity. There was another way of calculating which was call ACM which looks at MINUTES -3- August 23, 1990 each movement on each approach separately and gives a delay for every movement. Then at the end of all the calculations, it averages all the delays ragether and comes up with an overall intersection rating. Councilman Moore asked how the in~lling of R-1 to R-3 west of 1-805 was figured in; especially around Moss or E Sl~eet? Mr. Marum responded that for the interim year-end analysis, there would have to be some reliance upon phasing of development. For the build out, hopefully, those types of changes would be incorporated into the land use data base for the general plan. That general plan should have taken into account all the in~ll and land use change designations. Councilman Moore asked how the growth in traffic from Tijuana was figured? Mr. Marum answered that he would have to defer this to SANDAG. However, usually the growth forecasts do not include this traffic. Councilman Moore stated that not all the traffic problems are created by growth or infill development. Some of it comes to us from other areas such as across the border. Councilwoman McCandliss suggested that we adopt the suggestions from the GMOC, but have further discussion on this issue. Perhaps this should come back to Council as a single report. Mr. Leiter stated that staff would bring back a Resolution and then forward a Statement of Concerns to the outside agencies. MOTION: Moved by Nader, seconded by Moore to support the following GMOC recommendations: 1. Accept the JHK report dated December 1989 as the basis for the review of new development for the forthcoming year. 2. Revise Threshold Standard No. 3 as follows: "Citywide: No intersection shall operate at Level of Service E or F as measured for the average weekday peak hour." 3. Monitor traffic conditions at the intersections of Hilltop Drive at "H~ Street and "L" Street as well as Palomar Street from I-5 to Orange Avenue and determine whether traffic generated by developments east of 1-805 are adversely impacting traffic conditions at these intersections. This potential off-site effect should be considered in traffic studies of major new projects in the Eastern Territory. 4. Include in next year's Annual Traffic Review available data regarding the level of service at existing freeway interchanges for I-5 and 1-805. 5. Replace Item 3, Notes to Standards in the Threshold Policy with the following: ~The measurement of LOS at City arterials and fleeway ramps shall be a growth management consideration in situations where proposed developments have a significant impact at ' interchanges? and direct staff to return with a Resolution on those issues which require amendments to the threshold standards. Staff to also provide a more indepth analysis of the two methods used in calculating the thresholds and the appropriateness of use throughout the city, answer in more detail the questions which have come up such as how we can use the standard on the western part of the city, how the infflling is MINUTES -4- August 23, 1990 occurring, and how the EIR takes that into consideration. Staff also do whatever is necessary in monitoring ) Route 54 and come back with a report. Motion approved 4-0-1. C. Air Quality: I~l~ 3 MOTION: Moved by Moore, seconded by Nader to approve the GMOC recommendations to issue a Statement of Concern to the APCD with regard to the issue of air quality. Motion carried 4-0-1. MOTION: Moved by Nader, seconded by Cox to refer to GMOC, staff, and Resource Conservation Commission for recommendations which can be made to advocate specific measures to the regional air quality agency. Motion carried 4-0-1. D. Water: /~1~ MOTION: Moved by Nader, seconded by Moore to approve the GMOC recommendations to issue a statement of concern to the Sweetwater Authority and the Otay Water District. Motion carried 4-0-1. E. Schools: MOTION: Moved by McCandliss, seconded by Cox to approve GMOC recommendations to issue statements of concern to the Sweetwater Union High School District and Chula Vista City Schools. Motion ca_tried 4-0- 1. F. Libraries and Economics: /'~/~ 8 Mr. Leiter stated that the threshold for libraries has not been met. Staff will be coming back with a formal process for handling the monitoring of fiscal, employment, and economic impacts. MOTION: Moved by McCandliss, seconded by Moore to note concerns regarding libraries and economics and to refer to staff for a clarification of how the DIF covers libraries. Motion approved 4-0-1. G. Other: McCandliss inquired about the number of times a police office is called from an existing call for an emergency. She felt some statistics should be kept on this. As development increases, then the number of officers would need to increase. She realized that PAPE had a model in which they look at these things in general, but not when an officer was responding to a call and was caJ. led away for an emergency. She felt this should be referred to the GMOC and back to Council for consideration at budget time. Councilman Nader asked if anyone knew what priority an in-progress commercial burglary was assigned under the Police thresholds? Since no one could respond, he asked for a brief memo from staff on this. Mayor Cox called a recess at 5:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:00 p.m. with Councilmembers McCandliss, Moore, and Nader present. Mayor Cox left at 5:55 p.m. IVaNUTES -5- August 23, 1990 3. REPORT OTAY RANCH UPDATE - The members of the Otay Ranch Project Team will make a presentation on the status of the Otay Rancho Project. Included in the presentation will be information regarding the 'Project Team Alternative" and other plan alternatives that have been developed for environmental review purposes. Continued from the meeting of July 26, 1990. (Director of Planning). /q16~ John Silver, of Robert, Bein, and Frost, presented the report. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - There were none. 5. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS - There were none. 6. MAYORS REPORTS - There were none. 7. COUNCIL COMMENTS - There were none. ADJO~ The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. to the regular City Council meeting on August 28, 1990 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, Beverly A. Authelet, CMC City Clerk