GREATER GOLDEN HILL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
December 8, 2010
Meeting Agenda is found in Attachment 1 at the end of these minutes.
Meeting was held at Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse – Golf Course Drive. Called to order at 6:33 pm by Chair Pat Shields. Agenda had been posted in accordance with Brown Act. A quorum of members was present.
Members present: Ruchell Alvarez, Maureen Burke, Carole Caffey, Scott Glazebrook, John Kroll, Anita Margolis, Barbara McGill, Jessica Richter, Richard Santini, Pat Shields, David Skillman, Marie Skillman, David Strickland, Angela Vasconcellos Members absent: Richard Baldwin
Addition/deletions to Agenda none
Chair’s Report. Shields explained the purpose of the meeting was to bring out more information about the 25th Street Renaissance Project – and what we could consider within the time constraints the project has with funding deadlines. She said that Brian Hannegan of RRM Design Group, the consultants hired for public input portion of the project, would be presenting the footprint of the project for approval. He would also present the most maintenance cost estimates, in reference to questions about the project being revenue neutral.
Shields said she expected the committee to vote on the general project footprint, in sufficient detail for planning to go forward, including some estimate of maintenance costs.
Strickland asked if there would be discussion during the presentation. Shields asked that questions be held until the presentation was completed. McGill said that in regards to the maintenance cost estimates, she wanted to know the funding source.
Approval of Minutes, Treasurer’s Report: not given due to time constraints.
PUBLIC COMMENT.
Matt Thomas, South Park Community Group. Thomas had attended the City Land Use and Housing Committee meeting earlier in the day, presenting them with petitions requesting more comprehensive community input in the Community Plan Update process, including additional charettes. SPCG is planning a community meeting on January 15, 2011 from 9:30-12:30, probably at Christ United Presbyterian Church.
GOVERNMENTAL REPORTS.
City Council District 3 - Anthony Bernal: Passed out copies of the December District 3 Dialogue and highlighted Community Coffee to be held 1/22/11 at the Senior Lounge in the Casa Del Prado at Balboa Park.
City Council District 8 – Melina Meza: Bernal introduced Melina Meza, who will be our contact person for Councilman David Alvarez.
CONSENT AGENDA - none
INFORMATION ITEMS - none
ACTION ITEMS.
25th Street Renaissance Project. Brian Hannegan of RRM Design Group had posted a more detailed map of the project than the one presented at earlier meetings. He reviewed the project timeline to date: Project was introduced on 9/8/10. The concept for the plan dates back to 2005. Community input (two workshops) has identified preferences for wide sidewalks, “complete streets”, reverse angle parking, no planted medians, bringing Balboa Park to 25th Street, and “green streets” concepts. Concerns identified are right-of-way issues, irrigation and routine maintenance, how to handle multiple driveways, and project phasing.
Referring to the map, work in Segment 1 (Balboa Park to B Street) will include extending the medians and making wider parkways, cul-de-sac entrance to Balboa Park at Russ, wider sidewalks, bike lanes and parallel parking on both sides of the street.
Segment 2 (B Street to Broadway) will include diagonal back-in parking on the east side of the street and parallel parking on the west side, sidewalks as wide as possible (17.5 ft maximum), street trees in larger planters, softening of streetscape, hopefully saving existing trees. Patterns for sidewalk scoring have not been decided.
Segment 3 (Broadway to F Street) will include landscaped parkways and widened sidewalks. D. Skillman asked if diagonal parking could be added later – Hannegan said no change to current curb and gutter arrangement is planned now. In this segment, bulbs out intersections create a challenge with drainage. Percolation tests are underway. In some areas, there is concrete beneath the asphalt.
Hannegan stressed that what he has presented is a concept. There is still another level of design before construction documents are drawn up. This is only 30% completed. More details will be added during the next phase. Additional workshops and community advisory group meetings will be held. Between now and this next round of meetings, lots of questions will be answered.
Hannegan then presented the conceptual cost estimate, totaling $3,200,000. Segment 1, $900,000; Segment 2, $1,300,000; Segment 3, $1,000,000. The total when doing three segments separately is more than if everything could be done at once. Hannegan noted that these costs are lower than originally projected due to the current low construction costs and the fact that not much of the infrastructure is underground.
Maintenance costs for this conceptual project are hard to pin down. Much of what is being proposed could be concrete. Narrower sidewalks would require less power washing, but more landscaping requires more irrigation. In the northern part of the project, many changes are proposed to streetscape, but the southern portion remains much the same as it is now. All this being said, the estimated annual maintenance cost for the entire project is $15,000 - $25,000. The current Maintenance Assessment District allocates $12,000 - $15,000 to this area.
Hannegan addressed questions about the Phasing. Currently Segment 2 is proposed to be done first. Whether Segment 1 or 3 would be done next is not decided. It might be possible to combine work in all segments, such as having all of the road striping done at once.
Following the current project schedule, the construction documents will be completed during the first half of 2011. Construction would begin in fall 2011 and be completed by summer 2012.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Lisa Vela (resident) – what are the components of the phasing? They hope the sidewalks, bulb outs, planting in Phase I can move along block to block from the core area implementation.
D. Skillman - is the entire $3,200,000 in the current grant? $2,300,000 is now available
Strickland – who would handle contingencies? City would be doing consultant management.
Burke – are the phase costs the same if all is done at once, or not? These costs are if all was being done at once. They need to find out what can be accomplished if not all the funding becomes available.
Burke – where is the money coming from? $2,388,000 is available: Federal Pilot Smart funds, ($1,400,000), San Diego Trans Net funds ($288,000) and Federal Transportation Enhancement funds ($700,000)
Margolis – the project funding is $900,000 short, more when Phasing is taken into account. Are there priorities or additional funding sources? They are looking for additional sources, and the priority is to do the core area (Segment 2), and move forward as far as possible.
Vela - how much is actually approved? The $700,000 in Federal Transportation Enhancement funds is only allocated, not promised. Final decision on this will come in Spring 2011.
Strickland – could we lose any of this money if the construction documents are not done by summer? Yes. The amount of work completed on the project in just 90 days has been incredible. The community is really focused.
Kathy Vandenheuvel, (President of Greater Golden Hill CDC) – said she is really excited for the project to move forward. What is the timeline for approval process? The design stage work needs to be done and fees worked out. They are hoping to do more than Broadway to B. Design work should be completed in January, a preliminary Design Workshop will be held in February, and then the construction documents will be drawn up in March – June. 3 additional cost documents are required.
MOTION
D. Skillman asked what we are being asked to vote on. Footprint and concepts, dotted lines? Shields said she thought we were voting on the shape of the project. After some discussion about having our motion refer to the slides we had just seen, Shields made a motion, seconded by Strickland:
“The motion is to approve the 25th Street Renaissance Project based upon the descriptions and concepts presented in the slide show. The slide show will be included in Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee Documents. “
Discussion:
Kroll – changing 25th Street from 2 lanes each way to 1 lane each way is not included in the key points. If traffic flow is reduced, what will the impact on adjoining streets? Hannegan said that traffic studies showed no major impacts to adjoining streets.
McGill - had questions about maintenance. She wanted to know the source of the figures for current MAD of $12,000-$15,000. Kathy Vandenheuvel said that GGHCDC had looked at the current MAD budget with the Zone 1 (commercial) ratio of linear square feet. She noted that some of the maintenance items are not covered by the MAD, including lighting. McGill said she could not decide without further details. Vandenheuvel said they would look at various sources for maintenance funding, not just the MAD. She noted that water drainage is another unanswered question that is not part of MAD.
Shields – noted that available funding for maintenance should drive project design. Hannegan said that grass in parkways would be replaced with water efficient plants, and the new lighting would also be energy efficient. Pedro Anaya (Executive Director of Greater Golden Hill CDC) said that the CDC has encouraged project to have low maintenance costs.
Vela – voiced her concern about voting on a plan without removing details. What about plants shown that cannot ever be funded?
Margolis – are additional needed funds to come from the GGHCDC or the MAD? Hannegan said that $12,000 - $15,000 in MAD funding is allocated to the project area. He clarified that no extra money from MAD is available.
Burke – is $15,000 - $25,000 needed for all 3 segments? Yes, need increases as segments are completed.
Shields said she would like to amend her motion to be sure the documentation includes the cross sections. Glazebrook cautioned against parsing this too much. Santini said he thought the palm trees should be taken off. He urged us to vote on this to assure keeping the funding.
Shields called the question. The motion as originally stated was approved, 12 in favor, 1 (McGill) opposed, 1 (Alvarez) abstained.
The committee was then asked to express opinions on IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT.
Glazebrook – we would get more bang for the bucks if Segment 2 were done first, then #3.
D. Skillman – does our vote allow the project to move forward? Do we need to vote again later on more ideas? Hannegan said they would like us to give direction now rather than question everything later.
Vandenheuvel said there would be further community workshops. She again noted that maintenance funding is still very questionable. Must we vote on phasing?
Glazebrook - what is Hannegan’s contract? If we decide the segmenting now, will it help to get the contract rolling? Yes.
Shields - GGHPC could state an opinion now and wait on re-commenting.
Vela - how will our concept ideas matter?
Hannegan - needs to have our sense of the construction process: that will guide what documents need to be presented. He said that the next phase of the project would include more detail overall and cost and maintenance estimates. They should have a contract with the city to do so many feet. It would help his firm focus to get our opinion.
Margolis – what is the Core? Could the project proceed in both directions from the Core rather than just South or North? The idea is to extend as far as possible, including intersections and ends of streets.
Member of the public – what is Hannegan’s opinion of the way to go? Hannegan thinks the north end of the street looks pretty good already; south does not look so good. Improving the south could make the entrance to the community grander. The southern end of the project is also less expensive.
Shields – concept as Hannegan described it is good.
Vela – likes the gateway option.
Shields made a motion, seconded by Strickland:
“At this time, the Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee supports in concept having the project work on the Core (Segment 2) first, then the southern (Segment 3) as recommended by the consultant”
Discussion.
Santini – what about getting additional funding? It is easier to get more funding if part of work is already done.
Vasconcellos – suggested Hannegan consult CalTrans to try to work with them on the I-94 widening project at the southern end. Strickland mentioned cut & cover on the overpass.
Shields called the question. The motion was approved, 13 in favor, 1 (McGill) opposed.
Margolis suggested another motion requesting that the project be moved from center in both directions. Idea died for lack of a second.
Strickland asked Hannegan if we would get monthly status reports. We probably will after the next round of community meetings. Strickland stressed his desire for regular reporting, especially since we are all open to giving additional input.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Margolis offered her resignation from the GGHPC at this time. She was thanked by all for her service.
Shields thanked Santini for purchasing a screen, so that GGHPC has one available for presenters. $84 was collected to reimburse Santini. Storage of the screen will be discussed at another meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting adjourned by Shields at 8:00 pm.
Marie Skillman
Secretary
ATTACHMENT 1. MEETING AGENDA
GREATER GOLDEN HILL PLANNING COMMITTEE
December 8, 2010 at 6:30 P.M.
Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive
http://www.gghpc.blogspot.com
Monthly Meeting
6:30 CALL TO ORDER – please be punctual
1. Additions/Deletions to Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Treasurers Report & Pass-the-Hat – Carole Caffey
6:40 GOVERNMENTAL REPORTS
a) None
6:45 PUBLIC COMMENT – non-agenda items, 3-minute limit
7:00 CONSENT AGENDA – Consent Agenda allows the Committee to consent to the actions of Subcommittees in a single vote without presentation or debate. NONE
7:01 INFORMATION ITEMS. NONE
7:02 ACTION ITEMS
a) 25th Street Renaissance Project. Brian Hannegan
This is a $2,388,000 project to revitalize 25th Street between Russ Blvd and Hwy 94 to be implemented in 3 phases. This agenda item considers only the overall design “footprint” and major features. Other aspects such as maintenance will be addressed at a future time. Details at:
http://www.sandiego.gov/engineering-cip/projectsprograms/25street.shtml
b) Approval of projection screen purchase. Less than $150.
8:25 SUBCOMMITTEE & LIAISON REPORTS. None
8:30 ADJOURN MEETING
*Times are estimates – Action Items may also be taken before Information Items
The City of San Diego distributes agendas via email and can also provide agendas in alternative formats as well as a sign language or oral interpreter for the meeting with advance notice. To request these services, please contact the City at 619-236-6479 or SDPlanningGroups@sandiego.gov
Regular Meeting Schedules
Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee
Monthly*: Second Wednesday of the Month at 6:30PM
Location: Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive
Land-Use Subcommittee
Monthly*: Last Wednesday of the Month at 6:30PM
Location: Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive
* Traditionally there are no meetings in the month of December
