Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1992/11/24 MINUTES OF A JOINT CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING Tuesday, November 24, 1992 Council Chambers 1:00 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER 1. ROLL CAI/,: PRESENT: Councilmembers Horton, Moore, Rindone, and Mayor Nader ABSENT: Councilmember Malcolm 2. APPROVAL OF MINIITES: - None 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None 4. CONTINUATION ITEM: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ON THE OTAY RANCH Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, stated staff wanted to review the methodology on the transportation analyses. Dan Marum, Transportation Planner, JHK & Associates, presented an overview of the transportation planning done on the Project. He focused on three major areas: 1) analysis process, 2) application of the process to the Project; and 3) implementation strategies. Three primary parcels were dealt with in the modeling of transportation alternatives, i.e. the Otay River parcel, Proctor Valley parcel, and San Ysidro parcel. The Otay River parcel was a more intense pocket of development and SR-125 would provide critical linkage to the Project. Six alternatives were analyzed in detail for the Project: 1) the original submittal, New Town Plan, 2) no project alternative, 3) composite General Plan alternative, 4) Phase I Progress Plan, 5) environmental alternative, and 6) Phase II Progress Plan. Four other alternatives were qualitatively analyzed: 1) Project Team alternative, 2) Fourth alternative, 3) Low Density alternative, and 4) staff recommendation. Therefore, they were able to draw conclusions for the EIR on the level of impact that may be associated with the four plans that were analyzed qualitatively. Supervisor Williams stated they had talked about widening the freeways and questioned whether the leaving distance off the freeway had been reviewed. Mr. Marnm responded the analysis of leaving conditions of the freeways in the Southbay was a function of the design of the freeway at the time it was modified or constructed. In the instance of SR-905 or SR-125 there would be a lot of emphasis placed on the spacing of those interchanges. The number of interchanges per mile was directly related to the frustration experienced in trying to leave the freeway. There was a need to keep a close eye on I-5 and 1-805 in terms of their capacity to carry daily traffic, especially during peak periods. As projects were developed in the SouthBay, both on Otay Mesa, in the City of Chula Vista, and the County, there may be a need for widening the two facilities. Supervisor Williams stated the cost of installing a rail system needed to be included and questioned whether the costs of widening the freeways had been analyzed against the costs of developing a rail system. Mr. MaPam responded they had received two comments in the EIR related to that issue. They consulted with MTDB regarding the process for funding transit on the Ranch and included that in the EIR as a mitigation Minutes November 24, 1992 Page 2 ) measure. The other issue that arose in a review from Caltrans was that a portion of the light rail transit system in the SouthBay was tentatively planned for the Highway 805 right-of-way between SR-54 and "H" Street. If that light rail facility had to occupy the same right-of-way as the fleeway, that could preclude opportunities for additional vehicle capacity. He continued his presentation stating that with the increased density on the Otay Ranch ,the two primary roads impacted by the inclusion or deletion of Alta and LaMedia Roads were Highway 805 and SR-125. A toll road analysis of SR-125 had been conducted for the Phase I Progress Plan which was included in the EIR. The need for construction of SR-125 was critical and was in advance of the need to expand I-5 and Highway 805. Impacts of a international airport would be in a study being prepared by SANDAG and were not included in the EIR. The impacts of a flee trade agreement or a modification to the types of metering currently in place at the border was not included in the forecasts. The capacity standards were intended to provide a guideline to the transportation planning process for the project and identify where there would be an impact on the circulation system in the SouthBay. He then reviewed the proposed thresholds and mitigation measures. A summary of the issues and concerns was presented: 1) the ten lane freeway capacity issues; 2) arterial connections to and from the development; 3) monitoring of the future Otay Mesa industrial trip potential; 4) freeway toll road impact; 5) international airport impact; 6) border crossing issue; 7) trip reduction strategies; 7) village design issue; and 8) congestion management plan. They were in the final stages of responding to comments on the EIR and the next step would be plan selection. Supervisor Bailey questioned what the effect would be of the timely construction of SR-125 based on the capacities designed into it on the noted need of expansion of 1-805. Mr. Marnm stated the City of Chula Vista was doing a study on the feasibility of Interim 125 to serve some of the needs in the City as opposed to the needs for servicing other Southbay development beyond the limits of the City by the 125 toll road project. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, responded the City was currently doing a study on Interim 125 which would take some of the traffic from 1-805. There was not a good understanding as to a time when 125 would be needed to alleviate impacts on 1-805 or the need to go to ten lanes. It would depend on when Otay Mesa developed. Mr. Marum stated the ability of 1-805 to handle additional growth in the Southbay would have to be monitored as projects were reviewed. The Congestion Management Plan would require that review to determine whether the impact of a given project or of cumulative traffic would cause a failure on that facility. The need to expand I-5 and 1-805 was found to exist even under the adopted Chula Vista General Plan. Without SR-125 there would be a significant obstacle to development in the Sourbay based on the current level of traffic volume seen on I-5 and 1-805. SR-125 was a critical link in the Southbay and could not be understated. Supervisor McDonald questioned the designation of property for the university. Mr. Marnm stated the parcel of land that was to be dedicated to the university in the various alternatives analyzed was coded as a university site and was included in the analysis of the regional and local impacts. Councilmember Moore stated it was his opinion that if Otay Ranch was not developed and southern San Diego was developed under their current zoning, SR-125 would still be needed. Mr. Marnm responded that he would have to look in detail at the no-project alternative to see if that was correct or if the cumulative volumes outside the ranch would necessitate the SR-125 facility. He did believe Minutes November 24, 1992 Page 3 Councilmember Moore was correct and that the Otay Ranch could affect the sizing of SR-125 over time as it was developed. City Manager Goss stated there was a wide range of traffic that would be coming out of the industrial area and felt it was important there was a recommendation to closely monitor that traffic. Even though the County was being responsible in their planning for their part of the mesa, he was not as convinced that the City of San Diego in their planning of the mesa was making the same efforts as the County to control the nips. Hopefully, the City as well as the County, would be vigilant in terms of monitoring what was happening on the City of San Diego's part of the mesa as it was the bulk of the industrial land. Mr. Lettieri stated it was true that in reviewing the no-project alternative that the volume levels on SR-125 ranged from 157,000 vehicles per day up to 184,000 vehicles per day. 1-805 had volumes that were over the 200,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, if under no-project conditions, 1-805 and I-S would not be capable of accommodating additional traffic and SR-225 would still be necessary. Detailed comments had been received from the community planning groups of Sweetwater, Spring Valley, Valle del Oro, and 3amul/Delzura. Staff had tried to respond to their concerns in as detailed a manner as possible. There would be a need to continue to monitor the impact of project contribution to the facilities on the fringe area of the study area. Avocado Boulevard and Jamacha Road were forecasted to experience failure or high level of congestion in terms of average daily traffic forecasts. When looking at the no-plan alternative, or the new-town plan alternative, the level of service on those facilities would be Senrice F. The build out level of analysis assumed all of the infrastructure and circulation systems in the SouthBay would be in place. There was a mechanism in place to review each level of development on the Otay Ranch that would require the identification of actual project impacts and mitigation. Supervisor Bilbray stated the issue of transportation would be the "hot" issue to the average citizen. He felt the agencies needed to have a hyper-sensitivity to make sure those impacts were minimized. S. SERVICE/REVIEW PLAN - Purpose, Status Report on Micro-analysis, and Macro-analysis. Mr. Lettieri stated the Service Revenue Plan at the General Development/Subregional Plan level was a fiscal analysis of both the operation and maintenance costs for the City/County and there were major assumptions made to produce the product. Joe Monaco, RBF and Associates, gave a background of the Service Revenue Committee. Lyman Christopher, Director of Finance for the City of Chula Vista, member of the Service Revenue Committee, stated the first phase of the Plan was a macro-analysis which was based on the proposed general development and the second phase was a micro-analysis based on a specific proposed development scenario. The purpose of the macro-analysis was to provide a general comparison of three different development scenarios to illustrate the relationship between the intensity of the project and the fiscal impact. The results of the macro-analysis based on the data and the assumptions were as follows: 1) all three development alternatives on a cumulative basis resulted in operating revenues that exceeded the service costs for the furst thirty years of the project; 2) the highest density alternative had the highest surplus of revenues exceeding costs and the lowest density had the lowest surplus of revenues exceeding costs; 3) the analysis measured the fiscal impact on the City and the County as separate entities. While the overall fiscal impact on the two entities was positive, there was substantial differences on a year to year basis of the impact between the City and the County depending on the development scenario. While the overall fiscal impact was positive, there were certain limitations relating to the period that was measured, the general estimation techniques used, and the limited use for the information provided from the macro-analysis. The limitations were being addressed in the micro-analysis. The macro-analysis did suit the purpose for which it was intended which Minutes November 24, 1992 Page 4 . ) was to provide a general evaluation as to whether or not the project, as it developed, would generate enough revenue to cover the cost of providing the local government services to the area. Joan Vokac, County of San Diego, Parks and Recreation Department, stated the micro-analysis was intended to be a vehicle for looking at the project and establishing conditions and determining what the impacts of the project would be. The three products from the process were: 1) the model, 2) preliminary look at the capital plan, and 3) the policies in the general development plan. The committee was still going through the consultant reports so there were no final results. City Manager Goss stated the 11/13/92 memo from Mr. Lettieri pointed out that the costs and revenues would be carded out further and beyond the build out period in order to determine the long term project impacts. The statement which indicated that City revenues were not as impacted as the County's upon build out was misleading. It was true that the City received sales tax but it only amounted to about 20% of total revenues. Supervisor Bilbray stated that Baldwin had paid for the staff time utilized in developing the computerized model and questioned whether it should be free and in the public domain. There was a general benefit of the process that went far beyond the property owner of Otay Ranch. 6. ADJOM There being no further comments from the Council or Board, the Mayor adjourned the joint hearing to the /,' next joint hearing scheduled on Thursday, December 17, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. in the Chula Vista Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC, City Clerk by: Vicki C. Soderquist, DeputY~erk