Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1974/10/15 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Tuesday October 15, 1974 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7:06 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Councilman absent: None Staff present: City Manager Thomson, City Attorney Lindberg, Assistant City Manager Bourcier, Director of Public Works Cole, Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens, Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Senior Planner Pass, Traffic Engineer Sawyerr, Assistant City Attorney Beam, Environmental Coordinator Reid, Director of Parks and Recreation Hall, Community Redevelopment Coordinator Henthorn, Personnel Director McCabe, Assistant to City Manager Wittenberg, Administrative Analyst Smith The pledge of allegiance to the Flag was led by Vice-Mayor Egdahl followed by a moment of silent prayer. EXECUTIVE SESSION It was moved by Councilman Hobel and seconded by Councilman Scott that the Council recess to Executive Session for personnel reasons. The motion carried by the following vote, to- wit: AYES: Councilmen Hobel, Hyde, Egdahl, Scott Noes: None Absent: Mayor Hamilton The Council recessed to Executive Session at 7:08 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:28 p.m. (Mayor Hamilton arrived at the meeting during Executive Session.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Councilman Hobel, seconded by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that the minutes of the meetings of October 2, 3, 7 and 8, 1974 be approved, copies having been sent to each Councilman. INTRODUCTION OF GUEST Mayor Hamilton introduced Allen Miller, Chairman CO~4ISSIONER of the Environmental Control Commission, as guest commissioner for this meeting. Mr. Miller urged all citizens to participate in local gov- ernment by either becoming a member of a com- mission or attending these meetings. PROCLAMATION - DRUG Mayor Hamilton presented a Proclamation to ABUSE PREVENTION WEEK Mary Ann Jarvis of "Our House" proclaiming the week of October 20 through October 26, 1974 as "Drug Abuse Prevention Week." City Council Meeting 2 October 15, 1974 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Esther Lassman Miss Lassman asked if anyone would be allowed Rogan Road to give additional testimony tonight concerning the public hearing on Plaza del Roy. Mayor Hamilton commented that at the last meet- ing he gave everyone a chance to testify and then to make rebuttals; therefore, it would be his intention tonight to ask for the staff's presentations and then to close the hearing. Council discussion followed in which it was con- curred that the additional testimonies for both sides should bo given but limited in time and confined to new evidence only. Mayor Hamilton concluded that the time limit should not exceed 15 minutes for both sides of the issue. Councilman Scott indicated it should be 5 minutes, since the Council has already gone through three nights of public hearings on this subject. Peter Watry Mr. Watry referred to the newspaper article 81 Second Avenue appearing in the Sunday edition of the SAN DIEGO UNION in which the City Manager indicated that the cost to the City to purchase the 1,400 acres (as proposed by Mr. Eugene Coleman at a previous meeting) would be prohibitive. Mr. Watry said he is now working on a study, along with a few other people, and what they will come up with will be a feasible and real- istic plan for City purchase of this property. Mr. Watry commented on Mr. Thomson's statements in the article stating they were "incorrect and terribly misleading." He requested that "both we and the City Manager refrain from discussing this matter further until we have developed a more definitive plan - uneducated guesses on either side serve no purpose." City Manager Thomson Mr. Thomson explained that he was responding to an inquiry by a reporter and not to the proposal, and tried to give the reporter "his best guesses" and that these figures were checked with the Finance Department and could not be classified as "uneducated." Mr. Thomson commented on some of the statements made by Mr. Watry and to his (Watry's) request to refrain from further dis- cussion of this matter - that unless he is so directed by the City Council, whenever he is asked a question by a reporter and it is in the public interest, he will do hi5 best to respond. PUBLIC HEARING (CONT'D) Mayor Hamilton made some preliminary comments CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT regarding the procedure of the meeting stating TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT the findings which must be made by the Council; PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR THE staff comments on the public testimonies will 4S0-ACRE PLAZA DEL REY be heard; public hearing will be closed at the COMPONENT OF EL RANCHO conclusion of the staff comments; Council will DEL REY certify to the environmental impact report; a Resolution will be brought back on October 29, 1974. City Council Meeting 3 October 15, 1974 Patricia Valenski Mrs. Valenski said she was representing the 93 East Shasta Hilltop Homeowners Association and stated that they object to the proposal on environmental grounds; to the extension of "H" Street with six lanes of highway on 80' width of street; to the speedway; to the noise; and to the haphazard planning of this project. Esther Lassman Miss Lassman stated she read the EIR for "H" Rogan Road Street and concluded that this extension be- came necessary only for the proposed project. She referred to an article appearing in the Sunday edition of the STAR-NEWS (October 13) in which she indicated there "appeared to be a rush to push "H" Street through" - a rush also to "slide under Environmental Protection Agency standards." She understands that "H" Street is to be a four-lane road with two parking bays. When necessity makes it so, the two parking bays can be put together to become the fifth lane. She was told by Assistant Public Works Director Robens that the anticipated traffic volume on this road will be 60,000 cars a day - that is the Wabash Freeway~ Miss Lassman emphasized that this "will be our money used to finance this street." She noted other areas in the City in which this money could be used. Miss Lassman indicated that Mr. Robens referred to the validity of the figures ef the 1972 County Map (Exhibit CC-"A"), and claimed that reference to those figures is made in the EIR. She referred to the "mythical" figure in the EIR of the 367,000 cars a day at the inter- section of "H" Street and 1-805 is used to denote a small percentage of what the develop- er's proposal will contribute to 1-805. Miss Lassman added that the State anticipates llS,000 in 1990; in reality there will be as high as 125,000 ears a day - hut never 367,000 cars a day. She declared that the figures on the map are valid and the Council "must accept them as fact." Mayor's comments Mayor Hamilton commented on the inference that the City is pushing ahead on "H" Street to accommodate the developer. He declared that funds were appropriated for this project in 1969-70 fiscal budget. Miss Lassman referred to a statement which she attributed to the Director of Public Works indicating that the Council is attempting to push this project through to avoid EPA regula- tions. Mr. Cole, Director of Public Works, claimed the article did not state what Miss Lassman is now indicating. The reporter asked whether the project, by being done prior to January 1, 1975, would avoid the EPA regulations, and he answered it would. City Council Meeting 4 October 15, 1974 Lots along "H" Street Council discussion followed regarding the City- owned lots along "H" Street purchased by some of these people. City Attorney's explanation Mr. Lindberg explained that the City spent $110,000 to purchase a portion of the subdivi- sion that was developed on "H" Street (east of Hilltop Drive) with the clear intent of utiliz- ing a major part of the land purchase for the extension of "H" Street right-of-way. The people who purchased the property were informed and were well aware of this information. Donald Worley, Attorney Mr. Worley, attorney for the applicant, stated he had no further testimony to offer. RECESS A recess was called at 8:07 p.m. and the meet- ing reconvened at 8:24 p.m. Statement by In a report to the Council, Director of Planning Director of Planning Peterson stated that testimonies presented at the hearings have not altered the recommenda- tions of the Planning Department. It is still their recommendation to: 1. Reduce the size of the center to 60 acres and 600,000 square feet. 2. Reduce the number of dwelling units from 1,454 to 1,000 with the provision for increasing the number to 1,200 based on the excellence of the plan at the precise plan stage. 3. Specification that the high density area on the north side of "H" Street be developed under a "village concept" with varied topography and dwelling unit types. 4. Elimination of the street stubbing out into Rice Canyon to the east. City Manager Thomson commented that he does not agree with the Planning Director regarding the shopping center, and felt that the 1,000 to 1,200 dwelling unit range for the residential should be a range specific and not as worded by the Planning Director. "H" District Application Councilman Hyde questioned the "H" zone appli- cation to the residential areas. Mr. Peterson commented that the "H" District should not be applied to the high density area within the ring road. The intent of the District, at least, should be applied to the areas moving north away from "H" Street. Recreational-Commercial In answer to Councilman Hyde's query, Mr. Peterson said his recommendation on this area is to approve the use as proposed by the applicant. 600,O00-square-foot In answer to Councilman Egdahl's question, Mr. shopping center Peterson explained that his recommendation is for the 600,000-square-foot shopping center, but that the ultimate size is a policy deci- sion of the Council. The site, however, is suitable for some type of shopping center. City Council Meeting 5 October 15, 1974 Referring to the Hillside Ordinance, Mr. Peterson declared that~ under the applicant's plan, the areas outside the high density ring are considerably above the hillside regulations. "H" Street extension Director Peterson, in answer to Councilman ttobel's query, stated that he agreed with the Public Works Director's recommendations regard- ing the extension of "H" Street eastward. Shopping center size Councilman Hobel asked for the Planning Director's rationale regarding his recommendation of the 600,O00-square-foot shopping center. Director Pcterson explained that he is speaking of reducing the size from 1.2 million square feet to 600,000 (and not 750,000 square feet). He added that the Mexican trade was included in Mr. Sweet's market analysis, which he claimed was a very competent analysis. Change in City's Council discussion followed regarding what character impact on the City this proposal would have. Mr. Peterson indicated that there would be a change in the character of the City, especially in the area around the proposed shopping center and the streets giving access to this area. Statement by Director of (Mr. Cole's statement is attached to these Public Works minutes.) Sewerage Mr. Cole referred to the statements made by Mr. Eugene Coleman at the previous meeting regarding the treatment facility at Pt. Loma. He talked to Mr. Delaney of the Regional Quality Control Board and was told that the sedimenta- tion based on capacity was within the 80 million to 90 million gallons a day and, therefore, the overload is in the area of 30% to S0%. The current expansion of the facility will provide a total capacity of 130 million to 140 million gallons a day. The full design of the total facility is for 234 mill±on gallons a day. With the present overflow, there is a dilution of 400 to 1; therefore, as noted by the Air Quality Control Board, there are no deleterious effects upon the receiving waters and"no emergency measures have been imposed by the Regional Board." Drainage Mr. Cole referred to Mr. Coleman's statements regarding the City's liability because of damage in drainage flooding and explained that the culverts have a design capacity of 1,600 cubic feet per second. The anticipated flow from the City's Fogg Report shows a 50-year present of 1}YU6¢ubic feet per second, with an ultimate of 2,300 cubic feet per second. ~lr. Cole added that if the two pipes were absolutely plugged, it would take a 50-year storm two hours to fill up the reser- voir capacity before it would top "H" Street. RECESS A recess was called at 9:15 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 9:38 p.m. City Council Meeting 6 October 15, 1974 Density Councilman Hobel questioned the Public Works Directorts figures of 4~1 dwelling units per acre, moderate development; 15 dwelling units per acre~ heavy density, In those density assignments, Mr. Cole claimed he was referring to the E1 Rancho del Rey area and not the full development of the area. Mr. Peterson commented that the overall density in the Plaza del Rey development was 8.4 units per acre. This is based on gross density for the 171 acres designated for residential use. Councilman Egdahl indicated he had a figure of S,75 dwelling units overall. i~lr. Peterson said this included the shopping center and school areas. Grass-lined channel Councilman ltobel inquired as to the feasibility of having a grass-lined channel. Mr. Cole answered that it would not be a good solution to put a grass-lined channel in the periphery of the commercial area; however, beyond that area, getting further up into the canyon, it might be a practical way to handle the drainage -- this is Rice Canyon beyond the immediate 450 acres. Traffic Mr. Cole responded to Councilman Hyde's inquiry that a smaller center would generate less traffic than a larger-sized one. Traffic Engineer Sawyerr said this is true in general terms; however, it is difficult to determine specifics as it depends on the type of uses in the center. As to the number of cars on "H" Street at Hilltop Drive, Mr. Cole explained that the expected traffic is 56,000. This could be increased to 62,000 by striping a fifth lane. Mr. Sawyerr remarked that the highest traffic generated in the City is now at "E" Street, east of Interstate S -- that has approximately 30,000 cars a day. 1972 Traffic Map Assistant Director of Public Works Robens commented on the figures as shown on the 1972 Traffic Map, noting the increase of traffic on certain streets in the City by this proposed development. He referred to the "capacity level" of traffic generation, stating that a full regional development would be "C" at the vicinity of Hilltop and "H" Street. Mr. Cole mentioned that the growth of traffic in Chula Vista during the last five years has been S% a year - this is moderate and will continue with or without this development. City Council Meeting 7 October 15, 197~ City Manager's Statement City Manager Thomson discussed the 4.4 argument in terms of square footage of the proposed shopping center (as indicated by Mr. Watry at a previous meeting)~ He commented on the figures used by the opposing party stating that anyone can work with statistics but the approach used in arriving at these figures is questionable~ Affluency Index Mr, Thomson stated that the affluency index was a composite of weighed factors. He re- ferred to the Economic and Demographic Profile, San Diego County, 1970 U. S. Census figures in arriving at certain figures as used by the opposing psrty. Construction phases City Manager Thomson added that little recog- nition has been given to having the shopping center constructed in two stages, especially in view of the staff's report to have a market and traffic analysis before proceeding into the second stage of development. This incre- mental approach provides some safeguards. Recommendations Mr. Thomson stated that his recommendations have not changed. The argument of flexibility to have a feasible shopping center is a valid one, and the road systems being developed should be considered which would extend the market area beyond the "circle" proposed in the market analysis. He then commented on the cost revenue picture. Density Director of Planning Peterson explained that if one takes the "gross gross" density - the 45D acres divided into the 1,454 dwelling units - it comes out 3.2 units per acre. Taking the area devoted to the residential uses together with the 51opes would come to 5.7 units per acre. Deducting the slopes from that so that it would be just the de- velopable residential area, it comes 8.48 units an acre. Fill In answer to Councilman Scott's question, Director of Public Works Cole stated that the four million to five million cubic yards of fill will come from the adjoining areas - there will be no import of fill. Air quality in the City Discussion ensued as to adverse air quality conditions in the City. Environmental Coordinator Reid explained that the Environmental Protection Agency has pro- mulgated health standards on the various types of pollutants. In some eases, the State has adopted different standards. He remarked that for one quarter of the year 1973 there had been adverse readings regis- tered in Chula Vista (one hour a day or 43% of the days of the year). City Council Meeting 8 October 15, 1974 Traffic standards Mr. Reid added that to clean up the air to meet the EPA standards of January 1, 1977, there would have to be a tremendous reduction in the miles traveled within the air basin, and a tre- mendous change in everyone's life style. To Councilman Hobel's inquiries, Mr. Reid alleged that given more time, there could be technological breakthroughs in improving the air quality, The automobile is the number one offender along with other facilities associated with the automobile. If the vapor systems were installed, there would be a significant ~ecrease in the amount of reactive hydocarbon generated. Open space Councilman Hobel referred to the Planning Commission report regarding land uses in Plaza del Rey which stated that 132.3 acres will be open space. Mr. Peterson said this is 88 acres of natural open space and 44 acres of manufactured slopes. Esther Lassman Miss Lassman claimed that Mr. Cole "erred 264 Rogan Road grievously" in analyzing her computations. Chula Vista She added that Mr. Cole has not responded to her request for the impact on all of the Chula Vista streets. In addition, he missed her conclusion, drawn from her computations; namely, the impact on Chula Vista streets. She asked the Council to consider the overall traffic figures projected for Chula Vista streets with the project development and the full regional development. She asked the Council whether they will permit a suburban community to be destroyed for this develop- ment or any other development. Jim Hutchinson Mr. Hutchinson referred to Engineering recom- Wilsey and Ham mendations - No. 12 - as outlined in their 1400 Sixth Avenue report of August 30~ 1974. For the first San Diego phase, Engineering indicated extension of the north one-half of "H" Street easterly to pro- vide connection to Otay Lakes Road. It also specifies construction of Street 5 from "H" Street southerly to Telegraph Canyon Road. Mr, ~Btchinson declared that if "H" Street is to be constructed easterly in the first phase, they request that requirement No. 12 regarding Street $ be deleted in the Engineer- ing conditions of development. Modification of plan Councilman Hyde asked about the applicant's proposal to modify the Plan. Mayor Hamilton stated this was not a part of the hearing as advertised. City Attorney Lindberg explained that his objection to the presentation made by Mr. Hutchinson as well as the alternate plan offered by the Planning Commission was that he did not feel it appropriate for the Council to consider three separate plans and choose among them. The Council can take the ideas presented by both the Planning Director and Mr. Worley's presentation and modify the plan accordingly. City Council Meeting 9 October 15, 1974 Motion to include It was moved by Councilman Scott~ seconded correspondence into record by Councilman Hobel and unanimously carried that all correspondence received be made part of the permanent record of these proceedings. Letter read into record City Clerk Fulasz read the letter submitted by Mrs. Susan Watry in which she asked the Councilto continue these hearings to the nor- mally scheduled City Council and Planning Commission meetings "in order to accommodate the citizens for whose benefit these hearings and meetings are in part held." Public hearing closed There being no further comments, either for or against, the hearing was declared closed. RECESS A recess was called at 10:47 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 11:00 p.m. Motion for adjournment It was moved by Councilman Hobel and ~econded by Councilman Hyde that this meeting be ad- journed to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 16, 1974 to take up the remaining items, and at 8:45 p.m., time certain, the Council to con- tinue deliberations on the Plaza del Rey proposal. Substitute motion It was moved by Councilman Hyde that the Council adjourn this meeting at 11:30 p.m., or complete the item under discussion at that time. No second to motion The motion died for lack of second. Motion carried The motion to continue the meeting to 7:30 p.m, on Wednesday, October 16, 1974, carried as follows: AYES: Councilmen Hobel, Hyde, Egdahl, Scott Noes: Mayo~ Hamilton Absent: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER PROMOTED City Manager Thomson announced that Assistant City Manager Bourcier has been named as City Manager of National City. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 16, 1974 at 7:50 p.m. City Clerk City Council Meeting 10 October 15, 1974 Statement of Mr. Lane Cole, I am going to proceed in what for me is an un- Director of Public Works/ usual fashion this evening. I intend to read City Engineer a good portion of Public Works Department testimony. The purpose of this is to provide precise response to the testimony of Miss Lassman, who at the Council meeting of October 7, put forth many facts and figures which she claimed showed "constant discrepancies and constant conflicts" in the traffic section of the EIR. My procedure will be to state certain broad facts here at the outset and then proceed through the testimony of Miss Lassman to point out obvious discrepancies in her testimony and to validate thereby the information contained in the Plaza del Rey EIR. Bill Robens, Assis- tant Director of Public Works and Olu Sawyerr, Traffic Engineer, are both here to provide backup and, along with me, to answer Council questions at any time. The development of the traffic projections as displayed in the EIR began several months ago. The Public Works role was to establish the para- meters which dictate the quality of the projec- tions and to review the methods used by the consultant to ensure compatibility with the latest acceptable traffic engineering techniques. In our role we were adversaries with the consul- tant. The criteria which we established were not in many cases those which the consultant wished to use. To use our criteria resulted in larger traffic volumes than the criteria pro- posed by the consultant. Two examples of these criteria are: 1. Requiring the consultant to use the County program for full regional development as input to determine the impact of full regional devel- opment into the E1 Rancho del Rey area. We could have selected a State program for regional input. The State program however assumes lower densities for regional developments and there- fore results in lower traffic volumes. For example, the traffic volume according to the State Department of Transportation study on 1-805 between Palomar Drive and the Sweetwater Freeway is 120,000 vehicles per day in 1995. This compares to the 367,000 cars per day shown on the study performed by the County. 2. The roadway widths in the circulation net- work in Plaza del Rey were determined on the basis of peak hour volumes. The traffic engi- neering standard to determine peak hour volumes is to use 10% of the projected ADT. In this instance, we require the use of 11% to ensure a margin of safety in determining roadway widths. There were many other parameters established in consultation with A1 Krier of Voorhees and Associates but the above two examples are typical of our approach to this problem. As you know, the EIR when accepted by the Planning Commission, becomes an official City document. Therefore, the Engineering Division policy when City Council Meeting 11 October 15, 1974 reviewing, writing and rewriting EIR's regard- less of whether or not they are prepared by a consultant or by a member of City staff, is to recognize that this is an official City publica- tion. As much care is exercised in reviewing a consultant's work as is used in preparing our own documents. Foundation I will now proceed to respond specifically to the testimony of Miss Lassman. Miss Lassman included much detail in her testimony and it is necessary for me to respond in detail. She used her detailed analysis to discredit the City's EIR for Plaza del Rey. The foundation of her testimony is the figures which she de- rives from her reading of the EIR. The purpose of my response is to indicate the error in Miss Lassman's testimony and to thereby validate the figures in the EIR. I would like first to discuss the approach that Miss Lassman used in many of her calculations. In her presentation she develops a figure of 45.4%, she says for the traffic assigned on "H" Street. In fact, 45.4% represents the per- centage of traffic on "H" Street immediately east of 1-805 as compared to the total external traffic from full development of the 1,400 acres. This value of 45.4%, which is a simple arith- metical calculation, applies only for one given set of conditions. It includes only traffic generated by the E1 Rancho del Rey development. She uses the value of 45.4% however throughout her testimony when discussing full regional development· This use is invalid. I have stated that the value of 45.4% is a simple arithmetical calculation. I would like to state that for the most part traffic assign- ments are not derived from such simple calcula- tions but from a series of complex approximations which take into account the road network, land use and trip generation factors. When one con- dition of input changes, assignments to all streets within a network must be reworked in order to have valid roadway assignments. This explains why values from page 108 of the EIR cannot be applied to page 109 or other pages of the EIR. Elsewhere within her testimony Miss Lassman states that "of that amount, 30% will go onto "H" Street between 1-805 and Hilltop." In reading the transcripts from Miss Lassman's testimony, it is difficult to determine from what "of that amount" means. However, it does happen that the volume on "H" Street west of 1-805 is 11,400 cars, which is 30% of the volume on "H" Street east of 1-805, which is 37,900. Mr. Robens called Miss Lassman Monday morning to discuss this 30% figure with her and other figures which she used in her testimony, as we did not wish to make assumptions concerning her material. Later on in her testimony Miss Lassman used that 30% figure to discredit a figure of 20% which is used on page 79 of the City Council Meeting 12 October 15, 1974 public input section of the EIR. The 30% figure assumes a condition of traffic analysis which pertains only to the E1 Rancho del Rey project and assumes no traffic from regional develop- ment. The 20% figure includes all of the traffic in the E1 Rancho del Rey project and includes the traffic from regional development. This is a totally separate set of conditions and the two figures are simply not comparable. In later testimony, a figure of 203,700 ADT is presented. This appears to be the total number of external trips into the E1 Rancho del Rey area from full regional development. This number comes from page 109 of the EIR. Miss Lassman applies the 30% and the 45% figures, which I discussed previously, to this 203,700 trips. These percentages were valid only for a set of conditions which did not include full regional development. They were derived from calculations from page 108. Therefore, any data derived for full regional development using these figures is invalid. Trip Generation Table The Trip Generation Table had quite a bit of attention and so we'll go next to that. Next I would like to discuss the figures given in testimony by Miss Lassman concerning the trip generation table which is shown on page 103 of the EIR. Miss Lassman again develops figures from the EIR which she uses in an attempt to invalidate the EIR itself. My testimony will show that the figures used by Miss Lassman are incorrect and will validate the figures in the EIR. Early in her testimony she states that by add- ing the two-way ADT from the trip generation table on page 103 of the EIR, the final total ADT for the full development of Plaza del Rey is 138,180 vehicles. In adding all these fig- ures together she has, because of the very nature of the figures, unknowingl7 added in- ternal trips twice, which inflates her total. Referring to the transparency showing the trip generation table, it must be recognized that some of the trips generated within the residen- tial zones go to the shopping center and back. Other residential trips go to other residential zones and return. You will notice on the trans- parency that 60,000 ADT for example is already shown for the shopping center. Some of these trips come from residential zones within the Plaza del Rey area. These trips are, however, already tabulated on the trip generation table for these residential zones. Therefore, if a direct addition is made, many trips will be counted twice. The actual number of trips developed within the E1 Rancho del Rey area for a 1.2 million square foot shopping center is 120,400. This is the value requested by Mr. Hyde at the last meeting. I have forwarded to you a memo (this is the memo City Council Meeting 13 October 15, 1974 you have) dated October 15, 1974 from Krier which goes into some detail to explain this value. Miss Lassman then proceeded to multiply her fig- ure of 138,180~ which is the sum of the two-way ADT values shown in the trip generation table, which I have indicated is invalid, by 65% which she says is traffic to be assigned externally. However, as noted in paragraph 2 of page 102 of the EIR, the figure of 65 is valid only for residential trip generation assigned externally. It cannot be validly used for commercial, pro- fessional or any other land use except residen- tial. Her method of application of the 65% includes assorted land uses. Therefore, the product which she derives of 89,817 average daily trips leaving that project is invalid. Further in her testimony she calculated the number of 89,817 is compared to the number of 83,500 which she determines from page 108 of the EIR is the number of external daily trips. She notes that the discrepancy between these two figures is 6,000 ADT and uses that dis- crepancy to invalidate the EIR. Since her com- putations are incorrect, nothing has really been proved. Freeway and Street Capacities The next portion of my testimony concerns free- way capacities and street capacities. Miss Lassman used certain capacity figures to indi- cate an absolute maximum for various roadways. Generally speaking, there are no absolute maxi- mums but for any given set of conditions, a range of capabilities for certain levels of service can be determined. She states in testi- mony and I quote, "and we know that a freeway is at its fullest capacity at 100,000 cars. 85,000 to 90,000 cars brings you to a 10 mile an hour standstill in my estimation; I00,000 cars brings you to an almost absolute standstill." This testimony was publicly refuted by Mr. Krier at the last public hearing. Further testimony, however, (in my testimony anyway) my review of the 1974 traffic flow map for the San Diego metropolitan area, prepared by the City of San Diego, discloses that 1-8 has a volume of about 120,000 in the vicinity of State Route 163 and 170,000 between 1-15 and Fairmount Boulevard. Furthermore, State Route 94 has 115,000 near Wabash, I-5 has 115,000 near Mission Bay and in downtown San Diego and 125,000 between Wabash and National City. 1-805 will be an eight-lane freeway with a projected 1995 volume of 120,000 ADT. That's the State projection. All of these figures are well above the 100,000 figure quoted by Miss Lassman as a maximum capacity. As you know, "H" Street between Hilltop and 805 has been approved by the Council for construc- tion as a roadway with four driving lanes and two parking lanes. Miss Lassman discussed this road after claiming she spoke to the City Engi- neer, which is myself and which she did not, and indicated that it is a six-lane road. She City Council Meeting 14 October 15, 1974 then assigned certain capacities to four-lane roads and six-lane roads. For example, she stated a six-lane road would have capacities of between 55,000 and 40,000 cars. While it is true that in some cases those are reasonable limits, these limits are determined not by generalities, but by the specific conditions that affect each roadway. These conditions have to do with numbers of driveway openings, traffic signals, parking lots, on-street parking avail- ability, pedestrian crosswalks, lane widths, etc. To give you some comparisons, Wabash Avenue is a four-lane road between 1-5 and 1-805. Between I-5 and State Highway 94, Wabash in 1974 carried 59,000 vehicles per day. It should be noted that there are two traffic signals and some pedestrian activity in this area. The same four- lane roadway extends between State 94 and 1-805 and carries 64,000 vehicles per day. There is much less congestion on this four-lane roadway in this area, that is "H" Street from Hilltop to 1-805, however, because there is little side interference and there are no traffic signals. "H" Street - Hilltop - 1-805 There has been a lot of discussion and some ap- parent confusion concerning "H" Street between Hilltop and 1-805. As stated above, "H" Street in this area has a 64' roadway which provides two through lanes in each direction plus two parking lanes. Statements were made by Miss Lassman at the last hearing which reflect upon the capacity and the ADT of this street. Most of the following information is not available in the EIR, but it will provide Council with information showing that "H" Street between Hilltop and 1-805 can be anticipated to accom- modate full regional development with some con- gestion. There are, however, mitigating measures which we can apply to relieve that congestion such as converting the street into a five-lane roadway using the fifth lane to accommodate either eastbound or westbound traffic at the appropriate peak period. Emergency parking would be eliminated under these conditions. It is important to know that there is practically no side interference at all in this section of "H" Street between Hilltop and 1-80S. The meter, that is the delimiting factor, of this roadway capacity will be the traffic signal at Hilltop and "H" and not be a roadway width. There are two specific comments I would like to make con- cerning this matter. First: Whether or not this road will have suf- ficient capacity has been studied. The projected volume on "H" Street in this area is about 56,000 vehicles per day. This assumes full regional development and a 1.2 million square foot shopping center for Plaza del Rey. The approximate capacity for comparison purposes, as determined by computations by the Traffic Engineer is 50,000 ADT. This assumes two lanes in each direction plus emergency parking lanes. If capacity on this section becomes critical, the travel portion of the roadway could be City Council Meeting 15 October 15, 1974 restriped to eliminate emergency parking and provide for either five or six lanes of traffic, as stated above. This would increase capacity to about 62,000 vehicles per day. Second: All the County figures assumed full regional development. The County standard for density for full regional development when they first ran the program and submitted information to the City back in 1972 was as follows: Medium density - 8 DU/Ac. High density - 15 DU/Ac~ This is much higher than what exists or has generally been assumed would be the ultimate residential development within Chula Vista, For example, the average density in the E1 Rancho del Rey area is 4.1DU/Ac. Therefore, the data received from the County is considered to be raw, unrefined data and is subject to consider- able reconstruction when used for traffic analysis. Reassignment of traffic volumes would occur through the application of constraints on the circulation network which were not used in the County program. If these constraints of speed and capacity were applied, we believe the reduc- tion of traffic on "H" Street would be significant by how much we simply do not know at this time. However, I am convinced that modifications as stated earlier can be made if necessary on "H" Street between 1-805 and Hilltop Drive to pro- vide the capacity that will carry the traffic when full regional development is accomplished. Public Input Section Speaking to the public input section of the ETR. Reference is made to page 79 of the public input section of the EIR~ Page 79 responds to Miss Lassman's testimony at the Planning Commission meeting. This portion of the EIR was inserted into the document by the Environmental Review Coordinator after the public hearing on the EIR. This information was not reviewed by the Public Works Department staff. It is information ~or the most part used for the Sports World project and was applicable to the Plaza del Rey project only as a general discussion item. Some of the figures used on pages 79 to 82 are valid; other figures are not applicable due to the change in the development. These figures for Sports World, which are not applicable for the Plaza del Rey development, vary a relatively small amount from the Plaza del Rey figures and these figures impact traffic, street widths, etc. within the City only insignificantly. Further- more, the explanation as shown on pages 79 to 82 of the input section of the EIR in no way invalidates the traffic analysis discussed in the basic document since each discussion is independent unto itself. The discussion starting on page 79 generally speaks to the impact of traffic on Chula Vista roads outside the E1 Rancho del Rey area. As these figures were derived from Sports World development instead of Plaza del Rey development, City Council Meeting 16 October 15, 1974 they do not apply exactly as shown. However, since the scope of the developments is similar, the general discussion on these pages in terms concerning traffic on Chula Vista City streets outside the E1 Rancho del Rey area is OK. ~iss Lassman compares figures from the input section with figures from the basic document. I know that some of them, even though they are in the same range, are not the same for reasons mentioned above. However, using these figures, she makes the point that "H" Street between Hilltop and 1-805 will not have sufficient capac- ity for vehicles anticipated to be on the street from full regional development. I have shown that the anticipated traffic in this section of "H" Street can be accommodated by restriping the street. The next item which Miss Lassman discussed was the letter from Howard Taylor, the County Engi- neer, to Jim Peterson, the Planning Director, dated September 4, 1974. In this letter the County made four recommendations. Let me say that all of these recommendations have been met by the conditions imposed upon the development by the Engineering staff. These conditions, as a matter of fact, were stipulated many months prior to receipt of this letter. The County reviewed only the application made by the developer and did not review the condi- tions delineated by the Engineering staff. In the letter from Mr. Taylor he indicated that traffic generated by the Plaza del Rey develop- ment could be in excess of 80,000 ADT. We recognize that fact. The total trip generation has been determined to be about 120,000 ADT. He states that most of the traffic will use "H" Street. We have provided an analysis that shows exactly how much traffic will use "H" Street and have conditioned the development to accommodate that traffic; that is, we require "H" Street to be eight lanes just east of I-g05 and six lanes east of the westerly interchange within the Plaza del Rey area. We have also required the construction of two complete grade separation interchanges. The County Engineer did not know this at the time of review since he did not re- view our conditions but simply the application of the developer. In spite of the fact that the staff has several times during these public hearings stated the width of "H" Street between Hilltop and 1-805, Miss Lassman persists in saying that it will have six lanes plus the parking bays. But from her testimony tonight, she's changed that, of course. This is simply not true, as I have indicated here previously tonight. She also discusses the ulti- mate traffic volumes of "H" Street west of Hill- top, of "E" Street at Hilltop and of Bonita east of 1-805 as derived from the projections from the City's study performed by the County. The figure she cites does come from the map which we have been displaying here before. City Council Meeting 17 Oetober 15, 1974 However, they are a result not only of the devel- opment in the E1 Rancho del Rey area but full regional development. Regional development in- cludes areas far south and far east of Chula Vista and over which Chula Vista has relatively no control. These figures have not been examined for the Plaza del Rey development as they pertain to a much larger problem; that is uncertainties associated with County-wide land use types and density, and circulation networks. Conclusion This has been a long presentation, the purpose of which has been to refute the testimony of Miss Lassman and so to validate the traffic analysis and the basic document of the EIR. I would like to say that the approaches made in traffic analysis by Miss Lassman might seem like reasonable approaches. In fact, they are reason- able methods for determining traffic impact for a person with limited knowledge and background in traffic analysis, traffic assignment, etc. I have tried to make it clear that the methods used by Miss Lassman to invalidate the figures in the EIR are in themselves invalid methods. They cannot be applied to the data in the EIR with any meaningful result. I am convinced and my staff is convinced that the data provided within that basic document is good data and suitable data for use by the Council in their determina- tion of approval or disapproval of the subject project. (Conclusion of statement.)