Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1974/10/07 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Monday October 7, 1974 An adjourned special meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 276 Fourth Avenue, with the following Councilmen present: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde, Egdahl Councilmen absent: None Staff present: City Manager Thomson, City Attorney Lindberg, Director of Public Works Cole, Director of Planning Peterson, Assistant City Manager Bourcier, Assistant City Attorney Beam, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens, Assistant Director of Planning Williams, Traffic Engineer Sawyerr, Senior Planner Pass, Assistant to the City Manager Wittenberg, Administrative Analyst Smith PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) Mayor Hamilton explained the procedures to be CONSIDERATION OF AMZNDMENT carried out throughout the meeting, noting the TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT fact that if Council were to take any action PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR THE on this plan it would still have to be referred 450-ACRE PLAZA DEL REY back to the Planning Commission for report. COMPONENT OF EL RANCHO DEL REY Public hearing reopened This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Hamilton reopened the public hearing. Gene Coleman Mr. Coleman spoke about the overload of the 1670 Gotham Street present sewage treatment plant, adding that even the present sewage capacity is not being treated properly. He remarked that the City should be involved and required to provide information in regard to the capacity and treat- ment in the facility. City Attorney's comments City Attorney Lindberg explained that the City has been paying for in excess of 20,000,000 gallons of sewer capacity per day since it joined the Metro System in 1962 and it is about five to six million gallons under now. He said the City has a right to place into that system in excess of 20 million gallons a day. The Metropolitan Sewer System has a legal obliga- tion to satisfy the City's full capacity rights. In answer to Councilman Hobel's inquiry, Mr. Lindberg stated that requests for handling ad- ditional sewage are not handled on a priority basis. The City has the right to ask the State to handle the needs for which Chula Vista has been paying. Gene Coleman Mr. Coleman presented slides (Exhibit CC-"E") of Bonita Road and Rice Canyon taken in January 1973 and April 1974 and commented on rainfall statistics in the Sweetwater Valley. He remarked that faulty drainage and sewage treatment are reasons for disapproval of the DLB plan and that the location is based almost entirely on the use of the automobile. Mr. Coleman discussed the economics of rapid growth and gave statistics in regard to unemployment in this area as well as nationally. City Council Meeting 2 October 7, 1974 Mr. Coleman urged the Council to consider the future of all the people, not approve this development and call for a special election to consider purchase of the area for park and recreational purposes. Director of Public Works' Director of Public Works Cole stated that all comments members of the Metropolitan Sewer System have some responsibility in the use of the system although San Diego has the responsibility for the maintenance of the system. The Metropolitan Sewer System is working towards expansion. Mr. Cole remarked that the State Division of Highways has adequately provided for drainage in Rice Canyon. He said that raw slopes are not infrequent when, during new construction, grading is in before the drainage. Council discussion In response to Councilman Scott's inquiry, Director of Public Works Cole explained that the engineers' technique is to determine what they expect the development to be and the run- off coefficients are simply adjusted to reflect that. The 1962 map was made prior to our Gen- eral Plan. Mr. Cole explained the twin 84" culverts. Transit corridor Councilman Hobel explained that the transit corridor for the City is about a mile wide and not specific. It could be anywhere within the mile-wide corridor, not specifically Broadway. Damage to 84" pipes In response to Mr. Gene Coleman's question as to who would bear the costs of damage if the 84" pipes were to give out, City Attorney Lindberg explained that it is recognized that it is a burden upon cities in approving subdi- vision designs to avoid costs for damage. The engineers would see that there is proper engi- neering and that every precaution would be taken. Mr. Lindberg stated that extraordinary conditions are always a possibility. Raquel McDonald Mrs. McDonald displayed a box of various medic- 600-14 Sheffield Court inal remedies (Exhibit CC-"F") she uses for relief of physical problems related to exposure to smog and pollution. She cited air pollution statistics and remarked that "pollution has something for everybody"; it should be held down to a tolerable level. She spoke against the project for these reasons. Ann Marie Prather Mrs. Prather commented on the beauty of Rice 613 East "J" Street Canyon as it is today and asked that it be allowed to remain a natural open preserve for the community. Her family, along with others, would be willing to pay higher taxes to pur- chase this land so this may be done. She indicated she does not want to see downtown Chula Vista die. She called this project a "slaughter" of the ]and and urged the Council to reject it. City Council Meeting 3 October 7, 1974 Ed D'Lugo Mr. D'Lugo read an excerpt from Forbes 211 East Millan Ma~azine (Exhibit CC-"G") regarding shopping centers and inflation's effect on their suc- cess. He remarked that not one citizen has yet spoken for the Plan before the Council. Marise Corbin Ms. Corbin indicated she is totally opposed 320 Nocturn Court to the Plan for reasons of smog, pollution, traffic and noise generation. She opposes the dense housing which she feels is required to support the shopping center. Ms. Corbin said this plan would recreate Los Angeles for the City of Chula Vista. Ms. Corbin submitted two proposals which she felt should be con- sidered in lieu of the plan before the Council. They are as follows: 1. Leave area in open space with bike and hiking areas where people could go for rest and sanctuary; use revenue sharing funds to purchase land; work with the County to purchase it. 2. Modify General Plan, leaving half of area in open space; apply the Hillside Ordi- nance; grading to be done in other areas than where we are. Ms. Corbin said she believes some development could be made without destroying the area. She said she would be willing to again work for a referendum if this proposal is going to be approved. RECESS A recess was called at 8:35 p.m. and the meet- ing reconvened at 8:56 p.m. Mrs. Charles Bellis S6S East "J" Street Mrs. Bellis inquired as to the width of the drainage ditch at the top. She understood it would be ten feet across the bottom. Director of Public Works Cole stated it would probably be eight feet. Mrs. Bellis said she can't see why developers can't "sit on land and pay taxes on it." Carole Smith Mrs. Smith, referring to an article in the 87 "F" Street October 4, 1974 issue of the San Diego Evening Tribune (Exhibit CC-"H") and an article from the September 30, 1974 issue of U. S. News and World Report (Exhibit CC-"I"), discussed the "village" concept employed in Escondido and other shopping centers. She commented that some large shopping center construction is being halted because of the "shrinking dollar." Esther Lassman (The following is a transcript) 264 Rogan Road My name is Esther Lassman - I live on Rogan Road in the City of Chula Vista. I brought with me tonight the map (I had a transparency of that map that was most unreadable - that map is on the wall). I have here and I will submit six copies, both of the letter of City Council Meeting 4 October 7, 1974 explanation that went along with that map that came from the County on November 24, 1972 and a copy of the letter that came from Mr. Howard addressed to the Planning Department dated September 4, 1974. There are six copies - one for each Councilman and one for the record. We, and I think particularly I, have been ac- cused of being very emotional when I begin to talk about traffic and let me say that I thought I was so factual last year that I even began to bore myself with all the facts and figures that I dealt with. But I'm afraid I'm going to ask you to indulge with me again in a lesson from the primer and the primer is the Environmental Impact Report of the Plaza del Rey. I shall read from certain sections of that report. First is page 102 and this speaks to traffic and it speaks to the eight considerations taken in reference to the traffic and I will only read a few of them. Item 2 said that 65% of the residential trips generation were signed externally. Item 7 stated the County long-range full regional development traffic assignment development for the City of Chula Vista in November 1972. I think in essence what this was saying was that regional traffic flow, full regional development and the traffic flow for that regional development was con- sidered. Item 8 stated no reduction in auto- mobile travel due to traffic usage, car pooling and energy saving measures. And I will have to add on my own, were being applied. And I will add a ninth item of my own and I will say simply, no Hillside ordinance. Then I turn to the next page - page 103 - and this simply lists the land uses, the number of dwelling units, acres, trip factors and number of two-way daily trips for each and every aspect of the regional - of the greater devel- opment from the regional shopping center both at 750,000 square feet and then 1.2 million square feet and the various other aspects of use. And the final total of average daily traffic is 158,180 for the full development of the E1 Rancho del Rey project. Now, since on the previous page we read that 65% of this traffic is to be assigned exter- nally, therefore that leaves us with 89,817 average daily trips leaving that project and entering the freeway, entering "H" Street, entering other avenues outside of that project. I will next turn to page 108 of the Hnviron- mental Impact Report and that is entitled figure 3 - 5, the average daily traffic from the full development of the 1,400 acres. Now the tone here - by the way I must say that as I go from page to page, from section to section in dealing with similar figures and supposedly same calculations, at no time do any two sets of figures agree with one another. There have been constant discrepancies, constant conflict, and here the average daily trips is tabbed at 83,500. I just read previously if you took City Council Meeting 5 October 7, 1974 65% of the 183~000 trips it came out to 89,000 but perhaps 6,000+ trips are not that significant. Councilman Hyde Miss Lassman, is that figure here or is that adding these together? Miss Lassman I tabulated all the ingress, egress figures from this map in order to arrive at that fig- ure. I don't think I'm in error in assuming that approach, to arriving at a total figure and as I say, I came up with 83,500. Now, 45.4% .... Councilman £gdahl Could you tell me, pointing to that page, which figure.., how precisely you arrived at that? Miss Lassman Well, starting at 11,400, which is "H" Street west of 1-805, then 17,100 which is going north on 805, then there is 9,400 that's going south on 805 and then coming down the lower portion of that circulation map you'll see 5,700 traveling off on a street I know not the name of, coming further you'll see 4,700 leaving the project, traveling around you'll see the other end of "H" Street with 6,600 automobiles or average daily trips and then working your way around you'll see a street with 5,700 going up to Otay Lakes and then another street with - no - that is roughly it. No, up to Lynwood Hills a road that goes around Lynwood Hills with 16,300. These were the amounts I tabulated. And from calcula- tions taken from this EIR I have learned that 45.4% of the traffic is assigned to "H" Street. That's from these tabulations here, just simply working them without a little calculator or with a calculator and that means of that amount 30% will go onto "H" Street between 1-805 and Hilltop. That's 11,400 cars and 30%. Now we know - let me get back to the 45% - that 45% of these trips go on to 1-805 and we know that a freeway is at its fullest capacity at lO0,O00 cars. That's 85,000 to 90,000 cars brings you to a 10-mile an hour standstill in my estima- tion; 100,000 cars brings you to an almost absolute standstill. Various people in the State Department of Transportation state that, "Well, perhaps we could really bring it up to 110, 115,000 but at no time 367,000 cars could use one 8-lane freeway," and that's the figure that is on that traffic flow map on the wall. And so 45% of the trips generated from the full development of this regional - of the E1 Rancho del Rey will be going on 805 north. That is, in essence will be 17,100 as indicated here. I'm just trying to point out that as we pro- coed from map to map and from full development, partial development to full development to full regional development we are going to arrive at such astronomical figures that not one roadway can accommodate them, not two roadways can accomodate them but in this instance three freeways would be forced to accommodate them. And if you turn over the page and go to the full regional development you'll find the same City Council Meeting 6 October 7, 1974 sets of figures in reference to full regional development and I acknowledge that this is a 1990 projection. At no time do I feel that you can divorce the Plaza del Rey project from the fuller development of the E1 Rancho del Rey project and while we stand here tonight, discussing the Plaza del Rey project, we know that there is development that has been going on, is now going on and will be going on in areas surrounding this project. So the greater area is in a state of flux and is constantly being developed, has been developed, and will be developed so we have to consider this greater regional development and we recognize that there is an average 203,700 daily trips. Again, I arrived at that figure merely by tallying the ingress, egress areas to this development. Now, 186 - we won't discuss - this is with full development of the regional shopping center, 1.2 million square feet. This does not show any traffic - this map here on page 109 shows no traffic assignments on "H" Street west of 1-805. I will not say why I personally felt that the figure would have been so large it would have been frightening and therefore would have been unacceptable. Now using percentages, with full project devel- opment we can get an approximation of the amount of traffic that would be on "H" Street between 1-805 and Hilltop. We have seen some previous percentages given with full develop- ment of E1 Rancho del Rey that 30% of the traffic will be assigned to "H" Street. That means 61,110 cars will be traveling on that portion of a road on "H" Street between 1-805 and Hilltop. That is a six-lane road. And I spoke to the City Engineer this morning - a six-lane road could have a capacity, depend- ing on certain extenuating circumstances, of between 35 and 45,000 cars. Let us be generous - let us say 50,000 cars. If the capacity is 50,000 cars, it will never accommodate 61,000 cars. It will never accommodate 60,000, 66,000, 78,000 or 80,000. That's its capacity - it cannot be pushed beyond that. Now let us look at I-5 going north and from previous calculations we have learned that according to the EIR, 4S% of the traffic fun- nels out onto I-5. This means that 91,665 cars will be on I-S - average daily traffic. That means the cars will be coming not only from this project, but from the projects beyond this, but as a consequence of the regional shopping center of this magnitude, in this project. The highway is stopped to a stand- still beyond 100,000 and yet this region will contribute more than 90% of the traffic on that freeway. Now I want to turn to a back page - page 79, which is the public input of the EIR. I think there are several pages that have .... Now the City accepted the 367,000 desired daily trips projected on that map that's on the wall. This City Council Meeting 7 October 7, 1974 is not a real figure - Mr. Robens said it is not a real figure, but let me quote the EIR here in response to a query that I put at a previous time, and I quote, "It is expected that the subject project will contribute ap- proximately 15,300 daily vehicle two-way trips to 1-805 northerly of "H" Street. The County's daily two-way traffic desired projections for 1-805 northerly of "H" Street with the area fully developed is 367,000, which means that subject project contributes only about 4% of the total traffic desire for this facility. Four percent of a fictional number - of a fantasy number. It is more like 17 to 20% if you pick reality numbers, which is 100,000 and use this 15,300 but this figure 15,300 doesn't agree with any of the other figure assignments for that particular area. Again, that constant discrepancy that occurs when you deal with figure after figure dealing with the same area, even the same spot. Let me go further. Councilman Hyde Excuse my interruption - you're referring to "he." Miss Lassman Excuse me, I should say the City because this now becomes the City's EIR - is that not so? Councilman Hyde Yes. Well, in effect .... It has been accepted by the Planning Commission. Miss Lassman All right then. This is the City's EIR and let me say - I'm sorry to say the City has been derelict in not catching these consistent errors - in not correcting them and not arriv- ing at a realistic figure. As I say, Mr. Robens said that is a fictional figure - it is not real. It isn't real. It is the most unreal number one can imagine. It would take a three- decker freeway to accommodate those kinds of desires. Now we know there are 100,000 cars, ADT, is ~ maximum capacity for an eight-lane freeway. Now with 17,000 average daily trips contributed by the subject project, at full development it will then make up more than 17% of the average daily trips contributed to the freeway. That's if you accept one set of figures previously stated in one of these developmental maps. Now let us go to another statement in here and I quote, "The major east-west traffic carrier serving the area will be "H" Street. The im- pact of the project traffic will vary with the location on "IF' Street. Westerly of 1-805, the proposed development will generate 12,900 trips per day or about 20% of the projected total of 66,000." That's 30% I hope I have shown, I would sit down with any of you and go over this step by step, from previous state- ments made in the earlier part of the EIR that 30% of the traffic funnels out onto "H" Street at this particular point. And, again, this figure of 12,900 does not agree with any other figure given in the previous maps - traffic generation maps. And so if you begin talking City Council Meeting 8 October 7, 1974 to the amount of traffic on "H" Street, and "H" Street at this point is a six-lane road, and if we accept as the maximum and minimum parameters of traffic accormnodations between 35 and 45,000, whether you speak to 60,000 cars, whether you speak to 50,000, whether you speak to 80,000 - that street cannot acco~mnodate those cars. Now I would like to refer to the two items I handed out to you. Let us first refer to the statement - the letter that accompanied this map dated November 24. It was addressed to the Public Works Department. This letter did speak to the Sports World project. It offered four sets of fi§ures that are on that map, each of them indicated by various types of brackets and parentheses. There are alternates A, B, C and D. I will turn to alternate D on the sec- ond page. Alternate D states, "This alternate assumes no traffic generation from either the regional shopping center or the sports arena or the recreational-commercial area. This alternate anticipates that the traffic flow on "H" Street will still be greater than the pro- posed six-lane could handle." Let us turn to the letter I mentioned previously dated September 4 from the County Engineer, Mr. Taylor. Mayor Hamilton Miss Lassman, we did not get that letter. Miss Lassman This letter was in response to inquiries, evi- dently, sent to Mr. Howard in review of the general development plan for E1 Rancho. That is all that it says on the letter. I checked with both Mr. Howard and our own Planning De- partment and they both agree that it should have really said review of the general devel- opment plan for the Plaza del Rey. Let us again - I bring you down to those final two para§raphs where they state, and I must read again because I think it is so important, "The traffic generated by the regional shopping center and other high density uses could be as high as 80,000 trips per day. Most of the traffic would use "H" Street." Again, I think I showed you 30% and 45% figures. This could cause an overload on "H" Street and the "H" Street interchange would need to be signalized. Councilman Hyde Question, Mr. Mayor, if I may. When you refer to "H" Street, what are we talking about - "H" Street undeveloped or west of...? Miss Lassman West of 1-805. "H" Street to Hilltop liter- ally. That's the six-lane portion of the road. Mayor Hamilton Not really, I don't think. Councilman Hyde Six-lane bridge entering into four lanes. Miss Lassman Well, four lanes after it leaves Hilltop. Councilman Hyde Before it gets there. There's four lanes right off the bridge. Isn't that right? City Council Meeting 9 October 7, 1974 Assistant Director of There's two other running lanes in there. Public Works Robens Councilman Hyde Negative. Well, I beg your pardon. There's no parking. There's four lanes, four running lanes. Miss Lassman Well, the Engineers Office this morning - and I called to double check - I know that there's argument in our own group because Mr. Watry knows how this issue went - I was told this morning that it was four lanes up to Hilltop and from Hilltop to 1-805 six lanes plus the parking bays. If it is less, this problem be- comes even more of a flagrant misuse of our circulation system. Before approving this plan, and I'm continuing to read, the circula- tion route should be tested and may I stop here and say they are in the process of being tested but I was told again it would take per- haps until the end of the year before that whole test was put through. To see if the pro- posed land use is too dense it may be necessary to add circulation routes, decrease land use density or do a combination of the two. Keep- ing this in mind, let's look at "H" Street - west of 1-80S, which I've been assuming is a six-lane wide road and if its a four-lane wide road its capacity is 25,000 to 35,000 - 58,000 cars. You will look at that map under alternate D. "H" Street west of Hilltop - four lanes, 46,000 cars. "E" Street at Hilltop - four lanes, 55,000 cars average daily trips a day. Bonita east of 1-805, 81,000 cars. You know these figures are screaming at me and why they do not make you gentlemen sit up and say this cannot happen to our community - not because we don't want it but simply because the circu- lation system cannot accommodate it. You can- not widen "H" Street any further than it is. You cannot tear down a row of houses just to build a street to accommodate a development. This cannot be done. It can be done in the future with future planning but in this instance we have what I'm forced now to call old Chula Vista or west Chula Vista, that there be east Chula Vista, but you cannot destroy that which is old Chula Vista. And let me also go one step further to say that I have felt strongly in reference to the environmental impact rul- ings and I would like to make a correction here of a statement that was made last Wednesday in reference to those rulings. The Indirect Source ruling will apply to any project begin- ning as of January 1, 1974. Parking management - excuse me - will apply to any project of 1,000 or more ears. This project involves well over those 1,000 cars. The Parking Management Plan has been postponed until June 30. They go hand in hand, the Parking Management Plan is a far more stringent group of regulations than is the Indirect Sources but the Indirect Sources will make corrections if corrections are necessary, will make suggestions on how you pare down a development to meet their regulations. I think it is almost incumbent on you as people con- cerned about this community to say to a City Council Meeting 10 October 7, 1974 developer~ as was said to a developer when the Hillside Ordinance was a pending Hillside Ordinance, will you abide by a pending Hillside Ordinance, will you abide by a pending Environ- mental Protection Agency ruling as of January 1975. Now - this is what I feel is so essential - thank you. (End of transcript) RECESS A recess was called at 9:4S p.m. and the meet- ing reconvened at 10:05 p.m. A1 Krier, Regional Manager Mr. Krier discussed traffic figures for the Transportation Planning entire 1,400-acre area. He indicated he had Allen Voorhes and Associates used County traffic assignments which are regional in scope. Mr. Krier said that Plaza del Rey is just a portion of this assignment and feels that the street system within the project is adequate for present and long-range development. He did not reduce his traffic figures for some of the future considerations like rapid transit. "H" Street construction Mr. Krier discussed the construction of "H" Street, number of lanes along its route and the fact that it is not constructed to freeway standards. He concurs with the four recom- mendations made by County Engineer Howard Taylor. He remarked that the interchange at "H" Street and 1-805 will be signalized. Mr. Krier commented on the figure cited by Miss Lassman (138,000 trips per day), saying that it is not additive in any sense of the imagina- tion - it has a mixture of land uses on which the trip generation table is based. He stated that the November 24, 1972 map (Exhibit CC-"A") is a "desire assignment" map and the County is well aware of this. Impact on streets west In answer to Councilman Hyde's inquiry as to of 1-805 whether an analysis had been made on the impact of City streets west of 1-80S, Mr. Krier stated that the County did make an investigation of that area and he recalls a general statement that with the exception of "H" Street, there is no appreciable impact. Assistant Director of Public Works Robens, re- ferring to the November 24, 1972 map (Exhibit CC-"A"), said that according to the map there would be between 2,000 to 8,000 additional cars per day difference between having the "Sports World" shopping center there and no shopping center at all (this figure from the "H" Street extension to Fourth and "H" Streets). These 6,000 cars would be dissipated to other streets in the City. In answer to Councilman Egdahl's inquiry in regard to formulation of traffic figures (referred to Page 109 of the EIR), Mr. Krier stated that (1) he is looking at external traf- fic (one can go around the perimeter) and (2) he agrees there will be congestion on "H" City Council Meeting 11 October 7, 1974 Street; however, there are streets which can be used which are not serving their capacity. Donald Worley Attorney Worley, representing the applicant, Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins DLB Corporation, offered the following in and McMahon regard to the project. 5005 Fourth Avenue San Diego 1. The plan is an integrated community. 2. 1-805 exists and will be extended along the subject property and will become a major north-south route from San Diego. 5. "H" Street will be extended to Otay Lakes Road even without Plaza del Rey. 4. 1-805 and "H" Street and Plaza del Rey will be the geographic center of Chula Vista by 1990. 5. There is a need for substantial additional commercial facilities in the County of San Diego. 6. The United States is still a democratic government; private property cannot be confiscated without compensation to owner. This area belongs to DLB Corporation. 7. This property is worth tens of millions of dollars when used to its highest and best use. 8. The promoter of this project is Dr. Bloom; DLB Corporation owns the property. 9. Many people will be involved in building this center. Merits of plan Mr. Worley then discussed the merits of the plan. He stated that the General Plan desig- nates this area for substantial real estate development. The Plaza del Rey plan cuts the density of the General Plan in half. Mr. Worley explained the density is planned for 3.1 dwelling units per acre in the single- family residential area, 4.4 dwelling units per acre in the townhouse area, and 14.15 dwelling tmits per acre in the multi-family dwelling area. The housing will be a mixture of dwelling types; there will be low- or medium-cost housing; the homes in the "ring road" will be 80 to 90 feet above the shopping center. Mr. Worley further added that DLB Corporation would accept the City Manager's recommendation of up to 1,200 units; however, they cannot ac- cept the Planning Director's recommendation of up to 1,000 units. He stated that reduction in density could be achieved by eliminating townhouse area on Exhibit DLB-"C" and moving the elementary school to the single-family area on the same exhibit. City Council Meeting 12 October 7, 1974 Shopping center Mr. Werley commented on the ultimate 1.2 million square foot development of the shopping center area. DLB Corporation would agree to the 750,000 limit for the first phase in accordance with the recommendation of the City Manager. Deterioration of Third Avenue In regard to reference made to the possibility of this center's contributing to the deteriora- tion of Third Avenue, Mr. Worley remarked that this deterioration began long before the shop- ping center was thought of and before the Broadway Shopping Center was built. Commercial acreage Mr. Worley stated that DLB Corporation would be agreeable to reducing the commercial acreage from 120 to 100 as recommended by the City Manager. Environmental Impact Report Mr. Worley indicated that pollutants will not issues be "trapped" in this area. He also noted the explanation of the heat island referred to in the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Worley said the open space (approximately 88 acres) will be available to the public. He said this development will not be another "California Terraces" in appearance. Grading The first phase of the shopping center will be a balanced grading operation; the cut will equal the fill. The remaining area will be graded as it is developed. Carole Smith (The following is a transcript of this testimony.) 87 "F" Street Let us begin tonight by answering some of the questions concerning traffic which is a vital consideration. I'd like to say first of all that in our year or more of discussing a couple of projects before you, the Public Works staff has always taken the position that traffic will go somewhere. Or people will choose not to use the streets. The choice is rotten and obviously Mr. Krier agrees with the Public Works Department. It must be a traffic man's disease. This is not a pencil and paper game. Certainly we can stay home or flood the Chula Vista streets. This is a great ration- alization but a lousy solution. Do the citizens of this community have to be forced to take this kind of street abuse that we can make the air and car placement game work? Please remem- ber Mr. Krier was hired by Dr. Bloom and he was using his expertise for Dr. Bloom and in that respect he is an expert but only in that respect. The traffic figures are made by the developer's traffic people to fit the stipulation5 of this City. This is obviously part of the problem with the indiscretion in the EIR. The problem again is not to justify the over-crowding, not whether it is 60,000 or 80,000 cars - it is still way past capacity. And if the trip gen- eration table in the EIR has inadequate figures, as inferred by Mr. Krier, then please correct City Council Meeting 13 October 7, 1974 them. Miss Lassman did, by the way, compen- sate for internal trips. The real point of concern is agreed - there will be an excess amount of traffic. If we use Chula Vista streets to get rid of this excess then we'll have the problem we've been telling you about over and over and over again. I'd like to go down Mr. Worley's points briefly one by one -"God let us change what can't be changed." 1. Interstate 805 exists. That's true. But putting pollution upon pollution does not make good sense. No fixed pollution source should be put next to a freeway and we all know it. 2. "H" Street can and should benefit the com- munity ~ not be too crowded to travel. 3. The heart of Chula Vista should not be a congested mess. 4. Is there indeed a crying need for a super regional center? We think not. 5. Concerning the 5th and 14th amendments we have no intention of confiscating land with- out compensation but this City does have great powers of discrimination and allowable discre- tion in development and has not only the right but the duty to exercise this. If we don't, in January we'll be helped with these consid- erations. 6. Concerning the question raised on law suits, I have only two points to make: 1. Why was it necessary for Dr. Bloom to form a sec- ondary corporation less than a year after Sports World was heard by this Council? 2. Why did Mr. Worley not answer points concerning Dr. Bloom's large land lien which forces massive development to compensate for this lien? To speak to the environmental issues raised by Mr. Worley, I believe the question of the smog being trapped and filtering east was in the National City EIR, not ours. However, if pollutants are not trapped in Rice Canyon then I can assume we can all enjoy them. Open space is mostly vertical and you are digging a good percent of the open space that you're putting in. The facts are that the majority of this untouched acreage is straight down. It is economically infeasible to develop that portion. It is a generous gift to the City, but not too generous. I'd like to go back over our own case briefly. Plaza del Rey's trade area does not have suf- ficient buying power to support a high quality regional center of any size. Any center actually built would consist primarily of more of what we have - low and middle income stores. Plaza del Rey~s trade area does not have sufficient population or buying power to support a 1.2 million square foot center without doing great City Council Meeting 14 October 7, 1974 damage to the existing commercial areas of Chula Vista. The Plaza del Rey center and existing Chula Vista center are not physically close enough to one another to be able to offer a cumulative attraction. The approval of any large regional shopping center would morally obligate the Council to approve almost un- limited development in the future in order to provide the market support for this center. The traffic generated by the Plaza del Rey development would, of itself, be sufficient to change the character and quality of life in Chula Vista. The very high density is not compatible with the current style of living in Chula Vista. While there may be a tax advan- tage to Chula Vista from this first phase of Plaza del Rey, the entire project will cost us more than the tax revenues can be expected to bring in. The Council should not pretend that Leonard Bloom or DLB Corporation are a dif- ferent circumstance. They should ask their staff to review the defendant's docket and the grantor's index. In consideration of traffic and air quality standards, the Plaza del Rey cannot be divorced from the larger E1 Rancho del Rey development. The E1 Rancho del Rey development is only one among a number of the development projects in the greater regional area. We need a thorough investigation of the traffic figures, as I think you understand tonight. The daily traf- fic review, the daily traffic sources, "H" Street in particular west of 1-805. We must not only be concerned with "H" Street but we must be concerned with all of the traffic to be projected through all of Chula Vista - a decision which I think has not been reached by anybody as to how much traffic will flood over onto our streets. Concluding the summation tonight I think per- haps the time has come to focus in on the real heart of my concern - of all our concerns. We feel that a decision will be made on this pro- posal based on fantasy and not on reality. We read Mr. Hyde's suggestion last Thursday in the Star-News concerning sharing tax revenues with National City while he put the shopping center off "H" Street. It seems incredible to us that this City is so intent upon this huge center that you would consider taking half the revenue and all the degradation. We believe this Coun- cil has in mind an image which only reflects that which each of you would like to believe concerning the benefits and nature of this massive shopping center. It is very easy to make a glamorous picture of reality in your mind, and mine too, with only encouraged imagination as a foundation. I see many shopping centers in various communities while attending speech tournaments with my husband and I can tell you from personal experience that there is no appreciable difference between Broadway and May Company centers. These centers are geared to upper and middle class in some areas and City Council Meeting 15 October 7, 1974 middle to lower class in others and the facts show that this area and its economy does not dictate the kind of center of which you dream, as any businessman would know. We are all aware that whenever you ask specific questions of the developer of the proposed center he answers you only in broad generali- ties. This is an excellent technique to en- courage each man to envision his own creation rather than be concerned with facts. Mr. Young showed a rendering of the Tucson shopping cen- ter. Where were the parking lots? Where were the reams of traffic? Where was the smog? He was asked by the Mayor to leave this art work on display. When Mr. Watry showed slides of an actual shopping center, he was not asked to have a picture made so it could be left on display. We agree with your judgment. A rendering is much nicer than the real thing. You have been told by consultant after con- sultant that in this day and age the only kind of center sensible to build is a super regional shopping center. If that is true, and I think we have shown you tonight it isn't, in 5 to 10 years it will be a super, super regional center that will be necessary further east. Each center destroying a smaller one left in its wake. What kind of nonsense is this that we'll buy this kind of planning with the knowledge we possess today? We can hardly believe that we can be so pressured by the hucksters - let them get it now or never - as to give one moment's credibility to this kind of thinking and we object to serious land use decisions being made on this basis, often decisions that involve the future physical and economic well being of an entire community. I don't condemn you for the positive image concerning the shopping center. In truth, I too had an image for this proposed development. However, during the course of these hearings and the hearing before the Planning Commission, talk- ing with individual Councilmen and thinking and thinking and thinking on this project, I've come to the realization that I cannot justify to myself support for this huge center, even phased, at this time on this portion of Dr. Bloom's land which would, if built, demand absolutely full development for the whole area beyond and I am in no way alone in this stand. I'm asking tonight on behalf of so many who have spoken here and so many who stand behind these individuals to give us all a dream we can live with and build upon. A village con- cept, unique shopping center, 700 or less dwelling units, some small industry, perhaps a City-owned recreational area, the Hillside Ordinance for the rest of the 1,000 acres and, if Dr. Bloom will agree to reasonable develop- ment and his track record in this area is pretty poor, then purchase the land through bonds to be leased by the City with good solid plans to accompany this leasing. We will support this effort 100% and then some. City Council Meeting 16 October 7, 1974 Again we ask you to look at the realities of what a huge, medium quality, over-trafficked shopping center and massive supporting housing will do to this community. Because if the concerns we have voiced tonight involving your private dreams versus the imminent reality of this development have any truth, and I firmly believe they do, we foresee in the near future the strong possibility that your heartfelt dream will become our enduring nightmare. (End of transcript) Applicant's rebuttal In rebuttal, Attorney Worley stated the fol- lowing: (1) Many hours and much money has gone into the plan; (2) the center must meet market demands, so must be of sufficient size; (3) the Engineer says the system will handle the load;(4) the City Manager has recommended the proposal with reduction in residential; (5) 1-805 will be completed next year; (6) builders are ready to go; (7) there is a lot of work ahead in the precise planning stage. Mayor Hamilton asked City Manager Thomson when the staff might be ready to make its final presentation. Mr. Thomson stated that it will be necessary to prepare a transcript of testimony presented this evening. Staff could come back with a reco~nendation on Thursday. Motion to continue to It was moved by Councilman Egdahl and seconded October 15 by Councilman Hyde that this hearing be con- tinued until Tuesday, October 15, 1974, to be put as one of the first items on the regular Council meeting agenda. City Attorney's comments City Attorney Lindberg remarked that at such time of receipt of additional staff input and some decision is arrived at there are certain other legal steps to be taken; the Council is not acting on a final document until some time after that. City Manager Thomson advised that the agenda for the meeting of October 15th will probably be heavy because of the fact that there will be no Council meeting the following week (October 22). Substitute motion It was moved by Mayor Hamilton and seconded by Councilman Scott that the City Manager present a report on Tuesday night (October 8) on whether or not the information will be avail- able for a meeting on Thursday night (October 10). (Continue the public hearing until October 8, at which time a decision will be made as to when it might further be continued to hear additional information from staff.) Councilman Scott noted that this means the hearing would be continued to October 8th for the sole purpose of setting another date for continuance - no testimony would be taken at that time. City Council Meeting 17 October 7, 1974 Motion withdrawn Mayor Hamilton withdrew his motion; Councilman Scott withdrew his second. Planning Director's comments Director of Planning Peterson, in reference to Mr. Worley's comments on density in single- family, townhouse and multi-family dwelling areas, remarked that these are gross densities and include all sloped areas. He clarified his position on limit of dwelling units, stating that it was his recommendation to start out at 1,000 and be allowed to go to 1;200. As to the shopping center, Mr. Peterson remarked that the nature of the proposal before the Council is for 750,000 square feet - this does not represent a reduction. Motion to continue to It was moved by Councilman Scott and seconded October 8 by Councilman Hobel that this hearing be con- tinued to the regular Council meeting of Tuesday, October 8, 1974 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Councilman Hyde objected to the vagueness of the motion, stating it may lead people to believe that testimony will be heard that evening. Motion clarified Councilman Scott clarified his motion to state that the hearing is to be adjourned to Tuesday, October 8, at which time the Council will decide on another date to which the hearing will be adjourned (at that time they will receive tes- timony); no testimony will be received at the October 8 meeting. Motion carried The motion carried by the following vote, to- wit: AYES: Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Egdahl Noes: Councilman Hyde Absent: None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to the meeting of Tuesday, October 8, 1974 at 7:00 p.m. Deputy City Clerk