Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1974/10/02 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Held Wednesday October 2, 1974 A special meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California was held on the above date beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Civic Center, 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, Director of Parks and Recreation Hall, Police Chief Winters, Fire Chief Smithey, Assistant City Manager Bourcier, Assistant Director of Public Works Robens, Assistant Director of Planning Pass, Traffic Engineer Sawyerr, Assistant City Attorney Beam, Senior Planner Williams The pledge of allegiance to the Flag was led by Mayor Hamilton followed by a moment of silent prayer. PUBLIC HEARING - Mayor Hamilton opened the meeting noting the CONSIDERATION OF A~ENDMENT rules that will be observed during the pro- TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT ceedings. He stated that the people wishing PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR THE to give testimony would not have to do so 450 ACRE PLAZA DEL REY under oath; however, any testimonies found to COMPONENT OF EL RANCHO be erroneous or misleading by parties on either DEL REY side of the issue will be subject to challenge at the appropriate time. The Plan before the Council tonight is the one considered by the Planning Commission. The staff, some weeks ago, prepared an alternate Plan, and the developer has since made signif- icant changes in the residential portions of this Plan -- these alternates will not be con- sidered this evening. However, in the conduct of the hearing, if it is determined that the elements of either the staff Plan or the mod- ifications offered by the applicant might be appropriately incorporated in an amendment to the proposal as noted tonight, this could be done and the Council may consider a modifica- tion of the amended General Plan being offered this evening. City Attorney's comments City Attorney Lindberg discussed the legal aspects of the public hearing. He stated that the Director of Planning will show a slide listing the findings that must be made by the Council in approving whatever amendment it chooses to approve for the existing P-C zone General Development Plan and Schedule. Mr. Lindberg commented that he was disappointed that the Planning Commission concentrated so heavily on a single element of this Plan (Exhibit "C" [Plan]) -- the shopping center. In modifying a General Development Plan, it is important that all elements be thoroughly explored. He asked all of the people testify- ing tonight to offer testimony which would enable the City Council to reach a conclusion on each of the mandatory findings. City Council Meeting 2 October 2, 1974 Director of Planning Mr. Peterson discussed the status of the Rancho Jim Peterson del Rey Plan and what steps need to be taken in the future. He detailed the Plan as filed by the applicant, DLB Corporation, highlighting the findings of the environmental impact report, commenting on the significance of the proposal to the City of Chula Vista, a summary of the Planning Department's analysis of the proposal for the residential and commercial. Planning Exhibit "A" Planning Exhibit "A" covers 3,200 acres and is the entire Rancho del Rey area. The uses al- lowed in that Plan were adopted by the Council in 1970. Under consideration tonight is an amendment to a portion of the Plan -- 450 acres. After approval of a modification of the Plan by the Council, the next step is the preparation of a precise plan by the applicant which must be approved by both the Planning Commission and Council. Planning Exhibit "C" This exhibit shows the Plaza del Rey Plan. Phase 1 Phase 1 involves a portion of the regional shopping center which contains approximately 750,000 square feet of floor area on 65 acres. Phase 2 Phase 2 involves a mixture of single-family homes and townhouses totaling 529 units on 82 acres. Phase 3 Phase 3 is a recreational-commercial complex of about 24 acres (House of Ice, tennis club, motor hotel with 150 rooms, savings and loan facility). Phase 4 Phase 4 is detached single-family homes of about 30 acres. Phase 5 Phase 5 includes a K-6 school and park area. Phase 6 Phase 6 is the 12-acre professional office and recreational area (50,000-square-foot office building, three theatres and a restaurant). Phase 7 Phase 7 is the remainder of the shopping center which would include 450,000 square feet on about 21 acres. Phase 8 Phase 8 is a church and private school area on about 7 acres, Phase 9 Phase 9 is another townhouse area of 121 units on 21 acres. Phase 10 Phase 10 is the higher density area to the north across "H" Street from the shopping center with 600 townhouses and apartments on about 49 acres. There will also be about 132 acres of open space occupied by slopes of which 44 acres would be manufactured slopes and 88 natural slopes. City Council Meeting 3 October 2, 1974 Rice Canyon will be filled to a depth of 30 to 40 feet and the proposal would involve mov- ing of approximately five million cubic yards of earth. It also has "H" Street improved to almost freeway standards in some locations. EIR Mr. Peterson briefly discussed the environ- mental impact report submitted to the Council in July. Staff presentation to Director Peterson summarized the staff presen- Planning Commission ration to the Planning Commission: The high density area to the north of the shopping center area and within that Street "B" ring road area should be developed with a variety of housing types perhaps involving some townhouses, some garden apartments and some medium-rise apartment towers. This development should occur on land that is not uniformly flat, but rolling in character. The Hillside Ordinance should not apply to the high-density area; but as you move north, east and westward from the village area, the intent if not the letter of the Hillside Ordi- nance should begin to apply. Director's recon~nendation Mr. Peterson added that '~it is my recommendation regarding residential that the residential uses should be limited to development 1,000 units rather than the 1~454 which are proposed with the provision for an increase in the number of units to 1,200 at the precise plan stage." Commercial area The Planning staff found it difficult to form a recommendation partly because it is a policy question -- the role of Chula Vista in the San Diego urban region and the kind of city the citizens want it to be 1S to 20 years from now. The main issue is the size of the shopping cen- ter. General Plan discusses 75 acres; the E1 Rancho del Rey set aside 80 acres with the notation that only 50 acres should be developed until growth factor in the area is established -- this plan was limited to 476,000 square feet; Sports World was approved for a 70-acre center containing 800,000 square feet. Staff report to Planning The staff felt the center was too large based Commission regarding on: 1. The applicant's market analysis assumed that national spending habits applied to Chula Vista; however it did not take into account that 28 million dollars are spent each year in two PX's (32nd Street, San Diego and Imperial Beach exchanges). 2. The market analysis assumed that the trade area would extend to Jamul, Spring Valley and Lemon Grove and that the same percentage of dollars spent on shoppers goods from Jamul as from Chula Vista, and the same percentage from Spring Valley and Lemon Grove as from National City. City Council Meeting 4 October 2, 1974 3. Impact of 1.2 million square foot shopping center on the Broadway Shopping Center would have a detrimental effect. 4. Urban design element -- a community and center of this size is out of scale. Planning Director's (The following is a transcript) recommendations "I want to emphasize that my recommendation is what I think is right from a land use plan- ning standpoint, and I recognize that there are other viewpoints that perhaps Council needs to consider of broader view than perhaps simply a land use planning view. But my recom- mendation is that you approve the Plan subject to the following conditions and that you refer it back to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation: 1. The center should be reduced in size to 60 acres and in retail area to 600,000 square feet. 2. The number of dwelling units would be re- duced from 1,454 to 1,000 with a provision for increasing that number up to 1,200 based on the excellence of the Plan as submitted at the precise plan stage. 3. The high-density area to the north of the shopping center should be developed under a village concept which would make use of a varied topography and a variety of dwelling types. 4. (I think this is also contained in the Engineering Division's recommendations) relates to the elimination of this street which stubs out toward the Rice Canyon Area further to the east. The fourth point in the recommendations is that this street should be eliminated from the Plan - that street is stubbed out toward the main leg of Rice Canyon further to the east. The reason for that is that if that street is located there, I think it commits Rice Canyon to urban development, and I'm not sure that we're ready yet to make that commit- ment since the overall E1 Rancho del Ray Plan has been referred by you to the Planning Com- mission. The Planning Commission has held one hearing on this, but they have another hearing coming up this month. In conclusion, Mr. Mayor, I think -- I feel, myself that this recommendation is somewhat idealistic. It is based on the judgments of myself and the staff, after reviewing this proposal for some time, but as I indicated earlier I think there is a basis for perhaps reviewing this proposal from a broader per- spective in terms of overall City policy or economic considerations not just focusing in on the land use picture. And you may well find that approval of a larger center than I have recommended would be in order. If a larger center is constructed in phases, depending City Council Meeting 5 October 2, 1974 perhaps on the size of the first phase, but with no con~nitments to the City toward approval of a second or third phase, I think we would have at least the opportunity to determine what the effect of the first phase is, say on the Broadway Shopping Center, on traffic, on air pollution -- those kinds of considerations. I'm offering you estimates of what I think it would be like. There may be a way that if con- struction proceeds in phases, we can actually determine in the future what the impact would be. I have met with the applicant several times this week and I believe he is considering modification to his proposal that I think can perhaps be considered as a practical accom- modation between what I have offered as perhaps an ideal recommendation and between what the applicant has originally requested." Planning Exhibit "E" Exhibit "E" was displayed showing the mandatory findings. Exhibits admitted City Attorney Lindberg noted that the exhibits into record are marked and all visual material presented should he marked and admitted into the record by the Council at the appropriate time. Council discussion Councilman Hyde questioned the need for an eight-lane street if the Planning Director's recommendation of a 600,000-square-foot shopping center is approved; Councilman Hobel questioned the application of the Hillside Ordinance to the various elements of the Plan; and discus- sion ensued on the market research analysis. Director of Public Works Mr. Cole gave a brief overview of the Public Lane Cole Works' findings relating to the road system, traffic consideration, utilities, water, sewer, gas and electric, storm drainage systems, grading, suggested revisions and what this economic inl0act would be on the Public Works Department. Engineering conditions of approval relate to the three stages of development and have been prepared on the information furnished by the developer and presented in the EIR. The specific Plaza del Roy site under considera- tion was not evaluated as an isolated entity -- it was viewed as a total development concept. Mr. Cole noted the importance of the future developments to the east on the Plaza del Roy site. The impact is especially critical in relationship to network of sewer and street systems. (A copy of the Engineering recommendations is on file in the office of the City Clerk -- Memo dated 9-2?-?4.) Improvements to the area The area will be served by sewer down the Rice Canyon area to the Spring Valley trunk sewer -- gravity sewer. The project is within the Otay Municipal Water District. Gas, electric and City Council Meeting 6 October 2, 1974 cable TV will be underground and standard City street lights will be required. There will be a major storm drainage system. The grad- ing will be done in accordance with the Grading Ordinance and under the control of licensed engineers. Landscaping and soil erosion planting is required. Suggested revision Director Cole stated that his department's suggested major revision includes moving the intersection of the north loop street on Plan B of the Planning Exhibit "C", so that it intersects with Street "B" and "A" intersects at the same point on "H" Street. This inter- section would then be developed as a full interchange. The Engineering Department recommends that the north half of "H" Street be extended to the existing E1 Rancho del Rey development of "H" Street in the first phase instead of later on in the development. They also feel the stub street heading out to Rice Canyon should not be made. In addition, where Lynwood Drive is extended over to Bonita Road, Glen Abbey Boulevard should be cul-de-saced in an appropriate way and an additional road connected from Glen Abbey Boulevard over to Bonita Road. Economic impact on Mr. Cole added that the economic impact on Public Works Department his department for a six-year period (1976 - 1981) was determined by prorating the cost of maintenance throughout the City and came to $184,000. The City's participation in "H" Street for the total project would be $380,000 --this in- cludes the two center lanes and half the landscaped median improvements. Mr. Cole further added that if the improve- ments and revisions recommended by his depart- ment (memo dated September 27, 1974) are carried out in the development of Plaza del Rey, the public facilities will function satisfactorily and can be maintained at normal cost. Council discussion Questions followed by the Council pertaining to the amount of earth moved in creating the "H" Street-Interstate 805 interchange; whether the road system proposed is adequate to handle the traffic generated within the area itself; adequacy of the City road system in the vicin- ity of the proposed center and the amount of traffic that will be generated by the shopping center itself. RECESS A recess was called at 8:13 p.m. and the meet- ing reconvened at 8:26 p.m. City Council Meeting 7 October 2, 1974 William Robens, Assistant Mr. Robens submitted the following Engineering Director of Public Works exhibits into evidence: Engineering Exhibit "A" This exhibit details the location of the water, sewer and drainage facilities within the Plaza del Rey area. The sewer will be constructed off-site. The main drainage channel will be concrete-lined located southerly of the loop road south of "H" Street. Engineering Exhibit "B" Exhibit "B" shows the circulation network re- quired for Phase I development (7SO,000-square- foot shopping center construction). The de- veloper will construct eight lanes on "H" Street from the interchange of 1-805 easterly to the intersection of the first loop roads. This is actually six lanes with the other two lanes being weaving lanes on and off "H" Street. From the intersection with the loop roads, the applicant has proposed four lanes on "H" Street to a point which is the intersection with the north-south collector road from Telegraph Canyon Road. A new road will be constructed from Telegraph Canyon Road (Street No. 5). Engineering requirements call for six lanes instead of four lanes along "H" Street east of the intersection with the loop roads to the intersection with Street No. 5. City participation Mr. Roberts stated that it would be Engineering's recommendation that the City participate in the construction by constructing the fifth and sixth lanes and paying for one-half of the median island costs -- this is throughout the Plaza del Rey development. The developer also proposed to construct what is shown as Street No. 2 of this exhibit, south of the regional shopping center. Engineering has required that this road be four through lanes plus a left-turn median lane throughout its entire length. The developer will construct an interchange at "H" Street and the west end of Street No. 2. A traffic signal will also be constructed at the eastbound off-ramp from "H" Street with Street No. 2. Engineering also recommends that a traffic sig- nal be constructed at the easterly terminus of Street No. 2 with "H" Street. Council's comments Councilman Hyde noted that the cross street between Telegraph Canyon Road and "H" Street above "J" Street would have a grade separation -- this was a requirement of the Council so that no traffic would be allowed to flow on or off "J" Street. Engineering Exhibit "C" Exhibit "C" details the proposed improvement construction for Phase 2 which is the residen- tial construction north of "H" Street. Mr. Roberts explained the developer's proposal of the road from Lynwood Drive to Bonita Road. Engineering requires that Lynwood Drive be four lanes with a divider, and that Street No. S be four lanes without a center divider. City Council Meeting 8 October 2, 1974 Another Engineering requirement is that Glen Abbey Boulevard terminate in a cul-de-sac at the westerly end and construction of a road from Glen Abbey Boulevard to Bonita Road which would provide the same loop service to the residents of Glen Abbey Boulevard. Engineering Exhibit "D" This exhibit covers Phase 3 which is the ulti- mate construction of the proposed shopping center -- 1.2 million square feet. This phase completes "H" Street between Street No. 5 and the westerly boundary of E1 Rancho del Rey. An Engineering recommendation for this phase would be the construction of an interchange at the intersection of the southerly loop road street with "H" Street. At this time, "H" Street will be carrying in excess of 60,000 vehicles a day. Additionally, there should be a traffic signal at the intersection of Street No. 4 and the north-south road that connects to this street. Engineering Exhibit "E" This exhibit shows the recommended revision to the street network by Engineering which pro- vides for a full loop for Street No. 2 and No. 3 -- Engineering still recommends an inter- change at that point. Council questions Questions centered around the four lane road from Lynwood Drive to Glen Abbey Boulevard rationale for the extension of the street from "H" Street to Telegraph Canyon Road, and align- ment and elevation of Telegraph Canyon Road in that area. Emerson Hall Mr. Hall remarked that the Plan proposed does Director of Parks & Recreation follow certain guidelines set forth by the Council particularly on the school-park con- cept. As covered in the environmental impact report, this will be derived in the precise plan. The park will be developed in 1976 and as the population increases more acreage will be needed in this area. In answer to Council's inquiry, Mr. Hall noted the location of the equestrian and bike paths. Fire Chief William Smithey Chief Smithey explained that fire protection for the area has been viewed as it would have an impact on the total fire protection delivery system for the City. The prime consideration here was the geographic considerations with the existing fire stations and the access from those stations to the project. Chief Smithey noted the number of miles from the existing stations, and concurred with Engineering rec- ommendations for egress and access into this development. He asked that a one-acre site be made available for a fire station in this facility (as proposed in the Plan). The sta- tion must be completed shortly after the com- pletion of the first phase of development. The cost of the station would be $140,000 (3500 square feet). Chief Smithey added that the first year cost would be approximately City Council Meeting 9 October 2, 1974 $500,000 including capital outlay manpower. The second year it would run $270,000. This is assuming the land will be donated by the developer. Chief of Police Winters Chief Winters stated there will be no special or unusual police problems relating to this development. In estimating costs, a rule of thumb estimate of 1.3 policemen to every 1,000 inhabitants is used. When the project is com- pleted, there will be need for patrol coverage. In answer to Councilman Hyde's query, Chief Winters remarked that the main police problem with the anticipated 60,000 car per day projec- tion would be traffic accidents. City Manager's recommendations Mr. Thomson made the following recommendations: (The following is a transcript of his testimony.) "In the area of the regional shopping center, I would recommend Phase ] as proposed -- 7S0,000 square feet. In regard to Phase 2 -- the additional 450,000 -- I would recommend a go-ahead on this be permitted only subject to an updated traffic analysis and a market analysis, because many things could occur in that interval, and I'd hate to see us tied to the growth in any automatic fashion. As far as the professional and recreational area, the commercial --I'd recommend approval pending the precise plan review that'll occur. I think there will be adequate control at that time. In the residential, basically in response to the concerns of the Planner, I recommend that we pursue a range as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance, and I would recommend a range with a minimum of 1,000 to a maximum of 1,200 units. Again, this is similar to one of the comments provided by the Planning Director, and again needs to be subject to precise plan that has been discussed. I support and recommend the conditions stipu- lated by our Public Works Engineer and Depart- ment; however, if Council would choose to reduce the residential density as I recommend, I would understand; I would suggest that the Engineer- ing conditions be modified in balance to that." City Attorney's comments Mr. Lindberg referred to the environmental impact report approved by the Planning Commis- sion and noted that the £ouncil must certify to this report. Ne referred to Planning Exhibit "E" -- mandatory findings and asked they be projected for audience viewing. Mr. Lindberg asked that all written and oral re- ports be incorporated into the record of the public hearing along with the exhibits from the Planning Department and Engineering Division. Motion to admit exhibits It was moved by Councilman Scott, seconded by Councilman Hyde and unanimously carried that City Council Meeting 10 October 2, 1974 the recommendations by the City Attorney be accepted -- that all of the papers sent to the Council, all of the exhibits projected, all of the staff comments, be entered into the record of the public hearing. RECESS A recess was called at 9:18 p.m. and the meet- ing reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Detrimental highlights Mr. Peterson summarized the highlights as of EIR follows: 1. In regard to alteration of the landform, it will be irreversibly altered; the visual effect of this grading can be reduced but the basic impact cannot be mitigated. 2. A different alignment for "H" Street would reduce the amount of grading and according to the Hillside Grading standards would result in far less grading and retention of more open space. 3. In regard to flora and fauna, the site con- tains several biological resources -- the proj- ect would result in the elimination of a portion of these resources. 4. No adverse effects on history and archeology. S. Palaeontology -- there are various fossils on the site and it would result in a loss of these resources by the grading on the site. 6. Drainage and Flood Control -- no significant increase in the run-off; however, the long- range cumulative development in Rice Canyon and Sweetwater drainage basins will significantly increase run-off and limit the options for flood plain management and protection in the lower Sweetwater Valley. 7. Climate -- the creation of a heat island will irreversibly alter the micro-climate of the project setting. 8. Air Quality -- the quality of air in Chula Vista will be downgraded by two functions: a. A reassignment of regional traffic to the South Bay area shifting a significant amount of air pollution of this portion of the air basin. b. The auto trips unique to the regional center, other commercial development and residential uses will add to the current level of pollution. 9. Noise -- this will be from traffic primarily. Noise levels which are normally unacceptable will extend to certain distances of rights-of- way. (Mr. Peterson cited the distances involved.) 10. Water Quality -- the increased pollution level due to parking lot run-off and inadequate sewerage treatment will decrease water quality. City Council Meeting 11 October 2, 1974 11. Economics -- the cost revenue analysis identifies significant beneficial economic impact to both the City of Chula Vista and the school district. 12. The project will increase utility con- sumption and generation. Included in the record It was moved by Councilman Hyde, seconded by Councilman Egdahl and unanimously carried that the Planning Director's comments be inserted into the record. Request regarding Miss Esther Lassman, Rogan Road, Chula Vista, continuation of remarked that should it become necessary to public hearing continue the hearing tonight, she would re- quest that it be continued to the next regular Council meeting (Tuesday, October 8, 1974). She said that several of the people attending tonight that wish to present testimony could not be here tomorrow. Motion for continuance It was moved by Councilman Hyde and seconded by Councilman Egdahl that if the public hear- ing must be continued beyond tonight, that it be continued to the Council's next regular scheduled meeting. Discussion of motion Council's comments followed as to the issue being a major one and the need for a separate meeting; the continuity of continuing the meeting from one day to the next; and the fact that people who could not attend tomorrow give their testimony tonight. City Attorney Lindberg stated this would be legal. Donald Worley, Attorney Mr. Worley commented that he was representing the DLB Corporation and said they would be happy to yield the floor at this time to those people wishing to give testimony tonight. Motion withdrawn Councilman Hyde withdrew the motion; Councilman Egdahl withdrew the second. Public hearing opened This being the time and place as advertised, Mayor Hamilton opened the public hearing. Carroll Sweet, Vice-President Mr. Sweet referred to his written report to Real Estate Research Corporation the Council in which he reviewed the salient issues of the market study he made for Plaza del Rey Center. He discussed the methodology used in making the study in which they used eight county areas to comprise the market area, they projected the growth of each of these areas separately and projected income charac- teristics separately based on 1970 census data. From this they developed an estimate of gross income for each of these areas in 1976 and 1980. Mr. Sweet discussed the reasons people go into shopping centers and the trend of today's market -- to have three or four major depart- ment stores -- cumulative attraction. He City Council Meeting 12 October 2, 1974 stressed the need for a regional center noting the areas the center will draw from (Jamul, Spring Valley, Lemon Grove, National City). Mr. Sweet mentioned that he did the market analysis for the Gersten Company in 1969, which did not determine a market area or detailed analysis of growth. Ne reviewed the money spent by residents of the market area annually for shoppers goods stating that by the year 1976, there would be enough demand in this area to support the Plaza del Rey shopping center of a million square feet. Mr. Sweet added that their recommendations are that the first phase of development be for 750,000 square feet with three department stores. If there is a need for expansion, it will be evident by 1980. Speaking against proposal Speaking against the proposal were: Patricia Vallinsky, 93 East Shasta Street; Martha ¥ickers, 626 Mission Court; Edmund C. Benshop, 671 Floyd Avenue; Carole Smith, 87 "F" Street; Joy Sheresh, 688 Robert Avenue; Wayne Reed, 107 Murray Street; George Early, 661 Gilbert Place; Kathryn Moore, 1134 Tobias Drive. Their reasons were as follows: (1) project will promote smog~ air pollution and noise; (2) con- sider the residents and oppose the plan as it will detract from the environment; (3) should not be a shopping center there at all; (4) air quality should be given great consideration; (5) development would be a completely unaccept- able condition; (6) compared to building a "Chicago" area in Chula Vista; (7) the public will is not for a shopping center; (8) people turned down the Sports World complex last year and have indicated they are against massive growth of any kind in that area; (9) questioned the type and names of the stores going into the center; (10) rapid over-population and over- commercialization bring on higher crime rate, poor education, fewer and mediocre services and transient qualities not experienced by Chula Vistans; (11) cost of taxpayer in the community for new homes; (12) the 1,400 homes proposed by Dr. Bloom would cost the City $28 million over the life of these homes; (13) if Dr. Bloom built his original 5,000 homes, it would cost the City over $100 million; (14) the 1.2 million-square-foot center will draw its customers from a six-mile radius; (15) it is apparent that there is a race for a shopping center and a race against the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency ruling -- races and good planning do not go hand and hand; (16) Mr. Maynard of National City stated that their proposed Bonita Plaza would never be able to qualify under the EPA ruling effective January 1, 1975 -- Dr. Bloom's meets the same test; (17) consider the overcrowded school factor; (18) strive for quality instead of quantity; (19) traffic has increased on the City streets to such a degree now that it is dangerous to permit children to ride their City Council Meeting 13 October 2, 1974 bikes; (20) noted the wild life that would be destroyed; (21) preserve the area for our children to explore and enjoy; (22) apply the Hillside Ordinance to both the shopping center and residential; (23) the location of the shop- ping center is appropriate, however the area is too large; (24) as proposed, it would be a detriment to Third Avenue and the Broadway Center; (25) take care in approving the precise plan and have an architectural review board; (26) give consideration to the pedestrian and place the parking underground; (27) housing and shops should be placed together so an attempt is made for enjoyment and relaxation; (28) the City should run some type of trans- portation to the center from the Chula Vista Shopping Center. Council's comments Councilman Scott answered Mrs. Carole Smith's allegation concerning pressure put on the Planning Commission to make a decision. He stated for the record that the City Council did not assert any pressure on the Commission whatsoever. Also, there is no race between this City and National City for a shopping center or a race to get this project through prior to January 1, 1975 because of EPA rulings (which rulings have now been continued to June 1975). Rex Young Mr. Young stated he is vice-president of his 3422 East Pasadena Avenue firm's operations in western United States -- Phoenix, Arizona development of new shopping centers and man- agement of their existing centers. Mr. Young reviewed the background of a shopping center up to today's multidepartment store tendencies -- super regionals. Mr. Young showed a rendering of a shopping center they are constructing in Tempe, Arizona consisting of 1,000,000 square feet. The City of Tempe designed the bike path and the land- scaping for the center. This is an example of how their firm works with cities in devel- oping commercial areas. Mr. Young stated it was quite important in a shopping center to provide what is called a cumulative attraction -- where you have four major tenancies within a complex. In answer to Council's questions, Mr. Young explained that a broad spectrum of different type stores is needed in a shopping center -- that would appeal to everyone. The demographics of the area fit the criteria of the demographics of the department store. Mr. Young added that the location of the pro- posed shopping center in National City has many problems and Chula Vista by far has a much better location. Accessibility is important and egress and ingress for the National City site is suspect -- it is a maze. In Chula Vista, the accessibility of this center is excellent with a plus factor of having a growth factor. City Council Meeting 14 October 2, 1974 Recommendations to be Councilman Hyde asked that a copy of the City made available Manager's and Planning Director's recommenda- tions be delivered to the Council at least one hour prior to tomorrow night's meeting. Exchange figures Director Peterson stated that the 28 million dollar figure used by the Planning staff in regard to Navy Exchanges applied to two ex- changes: 32nd Street, San Diego and Imperial Beach. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hamilton adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. Thursday, October 3, 1974 in the Council Chamber.