Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1974/10/03 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Thursday October 3, 1974 /%n adjourned special meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, was held on the above date beginning at 7:30 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 Director of Planning Pass, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens, Senior Planner Williams, Traffic Engineer Sawyerr PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) - Mayor Hamilton asked the City Clerk to read a CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT letter submitted by Carole Smith. TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR THE City Clerk Fulasz read the letter from Mrs. 450 ACRE PLAZA DEL REY Carole Smith, 87 "F" Street referring to what COMPONENT OF EL RANCHO she termed an "argumentative stance taken last DEL REY evening with several speakers" by the City Council. She asked that the Council direct questions, and only questions, to the speakers. Mayor Hamilton noted the order of proceedings for the adjourned meeting. If it is necessary to adjourn the meeting this evening, he would suggest that it be adjourned to Monday evening, October 7, 1974. Mayor Hamilton commented on the impression given by a few people last night that the hearing was being rushed through without hear- ing ail comments pertaining to the project. He declared that he shares this concern but also is concerned about the fact that there be no delay for the sake of delay. As to the accusation that the Council was argumentative in questioning Mrs. Joy Sheresh at the hearing last night (October 2), the Mayor apologized for this misunderstanding explaining that all parties are privileged to challenge comments that are made by an7 witness or staff but that the proceedings should not be argumentative. Public hearing reopened ~is being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Hamilton reopened the public hearing. Donald Worley, Attorney Mr. Worley stated he is representing the DLB Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins, Corporation, the applicant. He stated that McMahon a number of expert consultants to builders 3003 Fourth Avenue have participated in the formulation of this San Diego proposed plan. Six have been invited to make presentations to the Council. Two were heard last night and four are here tonight. Mr. Worley asked that these gentlemen be heard and that he be given a chance to present his re- marks at the close of the testimonies by the opponents. City Council Meeting 2 October 3, 1974 James Hutchinson Mr. Hutchinson stated they were the planners Wilsey and Ham and engineers for the project, and have been 1400 Sixth Avenue the engineers for this area since 1968 (El San Diego Rancho del Rey). He explained the P-C plan and development schedule (July 29, 1974). Planning Exhibit "C" Referring to this exhibit, Mr. Hutchinson de- tailed the proposed site plan, noting the street pattern, elevations, storm drain chan- nel location, and the grading plan. As noted on page 6 of the General Development Schedule, between 1,120 and 1,500 residential units are proposed: 12% to 20% - single-family 40% to 46% - single-family attached 36% to 41% - apartments of various types Exhibit DLB - "A" and "F" Mr. Hutchinson presented this exhibit showing Combined the general layout of the general area com- menting on the densities of the projects and those surrounding the proposed development (Whispering Trees, La Bonita Apartments). School sites The school sites were noted, and Mr. Hutchinson commented that 545 elementary school children would reside in the area. Using the City's Environmental Review Manual, 880 would be calculated. The K-6 capacity is 960 students, so both figures are below the capacity. Park Mr. Hutchinson commented that a 7.4 acre park is proposed next to the school site (Planning Exhibit "C"); however, 8.7 acres would be re- quired according to the Park guidelines. This additional acreage would be made available through administration of the Park Ordinance in its requirement of a planned park-school site to the southeast. Exhibit DLB-"A" Exhibit DLB-"A" is the developer's General Plan which indicates compatible land uses. Exhibit DLB-"B" This exhibit is a detailed schedule of the Plan. Mr. Hutchinson noted the breakdown of the acreages and the phases of development. He then discussed the residential, open spaces, and access routes. Exhibit DLB-"E" This exhibit is DLB's modifications to the P-C Plan for Plaza del Rey. Mr. Hutchinson noted that they have relocated Street "B" to intersect with Street "A" on the east; reduced density in the northeast area from 465 townhouses to 240 single-family units; relocated the school and park to the east of Lynwood Drive; reduced the commercial area to 100 acres and added 20 acres of open space; specified 650-750 dwelling units, or up to I0 dwelling units per acre within the north ring-road loop. Mr. Hutchinson remarked that DLB still supports the original proposal; however, if the Council wishes to condition the map, DLB is willing to accept the above- mentioned modifications. City Council Meeting 3 October 3, 1974 City Attorney's comments City Attorney Lindberg questioned the admis- sion of this new map into the proceedings. Planning Director Peterson stated he has not seen this modified map prior to this time; the staff has not analyzed it. Mayor Hamilton indicated that the Council should question Hr. Hutchinson on this modi- fied map after hearing all testimonies if, at that time, it wished to consider modifi- cations to the Plan. Mr. Hutchinson remarked that Mr. Vince Patralia of the M. J. Brock Company was here to speak tonight on one clement of this modi- fied plan -- a single-family project in the northeast corner. Attorney Lindberg stated that the only plan that has been noticed and presented to both the Planning Commission and City Council and thoroughly analyzed by the staff is the plan shown as Planning Exhibit "C." Donald Worley Mr. Worley said he understood that his client, as well as staff and opponents, could recom- mend certain modifications -- most of these are reductions. He asked that Mr. Patralia, who must leave early tonight, be permitted to speak on one aspect of this modification. RECESS Mayor Hamilton called a recess at 8:15 p.m. in order that the City Attorney would have time to come up with legal parameters as to this question. The meeting reconvened at 8:33 p.m. Donald Worley Mr. Worley stated they would stand by the original plan, and will not be presenting any further testimony on suggested modifications. They are ready to answer an7 questions from the Council pertaining to their modifications. Mr. Worley added that the next speaker would have been Mr. A1Grier, Traffic Expert. They feel, however, that the traffic details were adequately covered in the staff presentation; therefore Mr. Grief will not speak, but stands ready to answer any Council questions. Council discussion Council discussion followed with Mr. Hutchinson regarding the offstreet parking spaces (3,423 in the first phase and 2,009 in the second phase), the manner of construction in phases, elevation of the shopping area, flood channel construction and energy dissipators. Councilman Hyde asked Mr. Hutchinson for any profile exhibits his firm might have on the proposed project which would show the topog- raphy (before and after grading). Completion of Phase I In answer to Councilman Egdahl's question, Mr. Hutchinson indicated that construction at the end of Phase I would look permanent and could be permanent if the second phase were not approved. City Council Meeting 4 October 3, 1974 Speaking against the Speaking against the proposal were: proposal Donald Lynn, 1744 Ithaca Street; Ernesto Robbins, 488 Elm Avenue; LCDR Cary Wright, USN Ret., 242 East "J" Street; Esther Lassman, Rogan Road; Dale Robbins, 488 Elm Avenue; Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue; James Bennett, 981 Telegraph Canyon Road. Their comments were as follows: [Lynn] (1) Hillside Ordinance should apply to project; (2) shopping center should be viable one ; (3) concerned over deterioration of Third Avenue and other strip commercial areas; (4) effect on the City as a whole; (5) if it takes this size (1.2 million square feet) to be viable and to really support the City in a tax way, the impact will not be that great in terms of a large versus a small; [Robbins] (6) home owners nearest the project will be the losers; (7) they used to have a beautiful environment and now they will get smog, noise and pollution; (8) keep the project to a mini- mum and make sure the developer meets the letter of the law; (9) what safety protections are proposed regarding drainage ditches to assure the safety of the children; (10) what happens to the land left undeveloped; [Wright] (11) should protect our natural resources; (12) as stated by Mayor Wilson of San Diego, any city that lets its center city deteriorate, is a city that sooner or later will be con- demned to crime, slums, contamination and all the other evils which plague large cities; RECESS A recess was called at 9:21 p.m. and the meet- ing reconvened at 9:42 p.m. [Lassman] (13) this is a massive project to be built in a limited area; (14) automobiles contribute 85% of pollutants; (1S) Chula Vista's traffic study of November 1972 -- applicable to both the E1 Rancho and Plaza del Rey projects -- shows City streets as well as 1-805 and 1-5 to be far in excess of their capacities to handle such demands; (16) letter from Howard Taylor, County Engi- neer, dated 9-4-74 stated: "The traffic generated by the regional shopping center and other high density uses could be as high as 80,000 trips a day. Most of the traffic could use "H" Street -- this could cause an overload on "H" Street, and the "H" Street interchange would need to be signalized." a study should be made to see if circulation routes need be added, reduce land density or both; (17) the Council cannot make the find- ings mandatory by ordinance for this project; After Miss Lassman's testimony, a discussion followed in which the City Manager, staff and Council questioned her on certain points in the testimony. City Council Meeting 5 October 3, 1974 Mr. Cole stated that all of the comments made by Mr. Taylor were taken into consideration in the Engineering recommendations. Traffic Engineer Sawyerr remarked that studies made by the County, the Division of Highways and all the City studies were taken into con- sideration in the staff's recommendations. Mr. Sawyerr added that the study referred to by Miss Lassman was the volumes associated with the ultimate development of that area -- including the 1,400 acres and development of the area to the east (1990 projection). Hillside Ordinance Councilman Scott referred to the remarks by some of the people speaking tonight that the Hillside Ordinance had something to do with density control. He commented that this might be the result of the Hillside Ordinance but it is no reason to apply it -- the Ordinance was adopted to protect the open space and natural contours of the canyon areas. Concerned Citizens Miss Lassman submitted the map dated November Exhibit CC-"A" 24, 1972 made by the City, using County facil- ities, showing greater Chula Vista in the year 1990. Discussion ensued concerning various aspects of the map. Mr. Sawyerr declared the map is the one made showing the volume of traffic if the Sports World complex had been constructed. Computer check Miss Lassman claimed the map was still valid and is being checked today -- put through the new computers at the County, and will not be ready until January 1975 because the City gtaff is learning to program it. City Manager Thomson questioned this state- ment. Director of Public Works Cole explained that the County has agreed to make an addi- tional assignment on the data the City has now. In order to get this done, the City will be punching its own cards (tabulating all the information). Mr. Cole added that this is not "progranuning", merely a matter of mech- anical progress. Concerned Citizens [Dale Robbins] (18) showed slide presentation Exhibit CC-"B" of the Rice Canyon and proposed project area (Exhibit CC-"B"); (19) Hillside Ordinance should apply to the entire E1 Rancho del Rey area; (20) fossil site should be retained; (21) question of inadequate sewerage dis- posal; (22) question of storm water runoff increase to the yet-to-be-constructed flood channel of the proposed Bonita Valley Center; Comments concerning Public Works Director Cole stated that the testimony City has an agreement with the Metropolitan Sewerage System and has adequate capacity -- City Council Meeting 6 October 3, 1974 it is the responsibility of the City of San Diego to provide that. As to the storm drainage from Plaza del Rey, the effect would not increase the flow substantially in the canyon. [Peter Watry] (25) no alternative to the pro- posal -- it is the policy of the City not to plan, but to react to plans; (24) oppose approval of the 1.2 million square foot qual- ity shopping center because this area does not have the population to support it; (25) the market area that Plaza del Rey will draw from is overwhelmingly a middle-class market; Concerned Citizens (26) Exhibit CC-"C" showed the market area; Exhibit CC-"C" (27) adverse effect of Plaza del Rey on other shopping areas -- calculate the amount of regional shopping center square footage per person and apply it to Plaza's trade area. (In San Diego County it comes to 4.4 square feet per capita of regional shopping center; multiplied by the proposed population, this would come to 1.32 million square feet sup- portable by the trade area. This area, which includes Sears and South Bay Plaza, now has 1 million square feet; therefore, it is short 320,000 square feet of shopping area.); (28) to put in the 1.2 million square feet proposed would be an increase in business failure, turnover and degradation; (29) Coun- cil should consider the likely cost revenue picture of the entire proposed development; (30) there are four suits pending against Dr. Bloom now totaling $4 million for not meeting his promissory notes; (31) Council should be concerned with the developer's financial status; (32) the staff lists six findings; however, the Ordinance lists eight; Mandatory Findings Director Peterson explained that two of the findings do not apply to this project -- one finding pertains to industrial and research development and the other states: "A planned community development can be initiated by establishment of specific uses or specific sectional development plan within two years of the establishment of the P-C zone." Mr. Warty said he interpreted this last find- ing to be a "carry-through" type thing. The financial condition of the developer should play a part in that finding, and that finding should not be left out. City Attorney Lindberg commented that this last finding is still under discussion. Concerned Citizens Mr. Warty then showed a few slides of the Exhibit CC-"D" area in question, the Mission Valley shopping center and a development in E1Cajon where extensive grading is taking place. Council discussion Council discussion followed Mr. Watry's comments that the City reacts to planning but not to plans. The Council cited the Bayfront development as an example of a planned study. City Council Meeting 7 October 3, 1974 [Bennett] (33) Hillside grading ordinance should be applied to the entire area; (34) the proposed shopping center will be a detriment to the environment and the people in the area. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 11:28 p.m. to Monday, October 7, 1974 at 7:1S p.m. Cler~ City ' " ,.~