Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1988/05/25 ~- MmUlES Of Jl.ti Jl.DJOIJRtiED ",H.Il"\; a¡: II-\E RŒE~El(\P"'BlI II..GŒCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, May 25, 1989 4:10 p.m. ROLL CJl.LL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Conference Room City Hall Chairman Cox; Members McCandliss, Nader, Malcolm and Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: STAfF PRESENT: None. Executive Pri nci pal Pri nci pal Di rector Goss; Aqency Attorney Community Development Specialist Planner Lee Harron; Putnam; 1. WORKSHOP REPORT: STATUS OF MIDBAYFRONT PLANNING ~ At its meeting on February 28, 1989, the Agency directed staff to provide a workshop to inform the Agency of the status of Midbayfront planning. Two subcommi ttee meeti ngs were hel d on the concept pl an, one wi th staff and a separate meeting including Chula Vista Investors. Following the second subcommittee meeting, which was held on March 23, 1989, Bill Barkett, representi ng Chul a Vi sta Investors, requested that the pl anned Agency workshop be del ayed until a revi sed pl an coul d be prepared by hi s consultants. That revised plan was received by staff on May 9. 1989, and has been reviewed and discussed with the Aqency subcommittee. Executive Director Goss gave a chronological summary of Agencv action to date on Midbayfront planning. On August 23, 1988, the Agency unanimously approved an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement and a Loan and Option Agreement with Chula Vista Investors. On November 16, 1988, a schematic pl an was presented to the Agency by CVI. On December 15, 1988, an Aqency workshop was hel d on the Bayfront pl anning. There was a concept di agram that was presented at that time. The Agency referred the project to staff to work with the developer to address planning, design and economic issues that had been rai sed and to move forward with the Local Coastal Program amendment. On February 28, 1989, the Agency di rected that a workshop be set up to discuss the progress of the project. Subcommittee meetings were to be hel d before the workshop. On March 15, the subcommittee met with staff to di scuss key issues. On t4arch 23, staff, the subcommi ttee, and applicant met and discussed a number of issues. The applicant requested additional time to make project revisions which were submitted on May 9. On May 18, the subcommittee met with staff to receive a progress report on alternatives. Staff met with the applicant on May 23 leading up to this meeting. Minutes-Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -2- May 25, 1989 Mr. Goss further noted there are a number of issues before the Aqency. One of particular interest is the ability of the infrastructure to accommodate the proposed plan. Alternatives have been looked at; one of which refl ects the LCP as it stands now, another being the developer's plan, and another being a mid-point plan. An additional major issue is traffic. The traffic consultants for the developer, USA, prepared a traffic study. The Agency's traffic consultant, JHK & Associates, revi ewed the traffi c study. There were some differi ng techni ques and assumpti ons that were used to eval uate the traffi c. Reqardi ng economics, Mr. Goss noted Agency members had recei ved a report from Gruen Gruen + Associates. Mr. Goss further commented that in the meeting on May 23 with the developer, it was agreed that Agency staff and the developer's consultants would attempt to set up a joint meeting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the amount of acreage for parkland and the configuration of the parkland. It was also agreed that Agency staff and the developer's consul tants will meet wi th Ca lTrans regardi ng the freeway interchange configuration. Member McCandl i ss, as the chai rperson of the Agency subcommi ttee on thi s issue, addressed the Agency. She poi nted out issues that have come to light regarding the proposed project. These issues are: residential versus office uses; the concentration of residential uses in the plan; overall general intensity of the plan; areas for public access and recreation; and view corridors. Last December at a workshop, the Agency di rected staff to meet with Chul a Vi sta Investors (CVI) to resol ve the issues rai sed and move forward wi th the Local Coastal Program amendment. The subcommittee joined with staff in meeting with CVI and Mr. Barkett. Ms. McCandliss stated that through these meetings, t~r. Barkett has been very strong in his bel ief and support for the plans that ar currently submi tted and has asked on a number of occasi ons for suggesti ons for changes that mi ght address some of the concerns rai sed. As a result of this, the subcommittee asked staff to prepare alternatives that would address primarily the E and F Street view corridor; look at the locat.ion and general configuration of land use; look at highrise versus lowrise; look at public access areas; and look at the overall intensity. Mr. Gary Cinti of Cinti & Associates, the Agency's planning consultant, presented the alternative plans to the Agency. He noted the alternatives are all similar because they did not try to redesiqn the project. Thev took the applicant's proposal and looked at different ways the issues of concern might be resolved. One of the issues they addressed in the alternative plans was the realignment of Marina Parkway. Issues also addressed were the uses proposed westerly of Marina Parkway, separation of residential and hotel uses with the public spaces, and the intensity of the Plan. The first alternative keeps some hotel use westerly of Marina Parkway and extends the radius of the road (800 foot radius). There is also a roadway separating the residential component from the public space. The intensity of Alternative 1 is between the square footage '- Minutes-lI..djourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -3- May 25, 1989 allowed by the existing LCP and the applicant's proposal. Alternative lA is the same as Alternative 1 except in this alternative all of the area west of Marina Parkway is designated for park use. Alternative 2 reduces the intensity to close to what is designated in the existing LCP, and the alignment of Marina Parkway is changed to a 1200 foot radius which is similar to the existing LCP in terms of a standard radius for this type of a road. All three of the alternatives show a separation of the residential area from the public area by using a roadway. The alternatives do not specify the exact number of units. Ourinq the subcommittee meeti ngs there was di scussi on on mai ntai ni ng the vi stas out to the Bay. All of the alternatives have addressed this issue. Mr. Hal Rosenberg, City Traffic Engineer, stated that the applicant's traffic consultant has completed the traffic study. The City hired ,JHK & Associates to evaluate the impacts of the project. There are some issues that are left to be answered. Regarding the interchange of E Street and I-5, there are questions about its ability to carry the traffic load that is projected by the project.l\ssumptions are being made on the amount of traffic that is generated not only by the project but for the enti re area. Staff is looking at this to see if they are valid assumptions. It is anticipated the traffic report will be presented to the Aqency in approximately two weeks. Responding to questi ons, t~r. Rosenberg expl ai ned that on the developer's proposal the off-ramp is connected to a circulation system into the project. CalTrans has a concern about possibl e wrong-way moves onto the freeway with this configuration. Dr. Cl aude Gruen and Ni na Gruen, Gruen Gruen + Associ ates, addressed economic issues of the project. Dr. Gruen stated his firm was asked to look at three issues. The first issue is the feasibility of the additional alternative proposals. Next, given what has been learned from the first analysis, comment on the marketing assumptions behind this plan. The third issue deals with the fiscal analysis. Dr. Gruen stated it is important to recognize how they reached their conclusions. He noted they took a report submitted by Mr. Spieqel on behalf of the developer and accepted all of the assumptions except for two. The Gruens agree that the developer's proposal is feasible in the sense that assuming a land cost of $17 million, the land residual value gives the developer an additional $37 million profit. Alternative 1 also is feasible because in addition to getting back the $17 million worth of land there would be an additional $11 million profit. With Alternative 2, the total residual land value is only $2 million and this alternative would not be feasible. Nina Gruen addressed the issue of the realism of the market assumptions. She noted she di d not recei ve the 1 ast de vel oper economi c report until this date. Regarding the assumptions used for hotel demand, Ms. Gruen felt the figures used were overly optimistic. She predicts an overbuilding of hotels in San Diego. Reqarding the residential aspect, she is not as concerned about the number of units projected for Minutes-Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -4- May 25, 1989 residential multi-family units. She is concerned about the average rental assumed ($1.20 per square foot across the board). This is well above what the market generally is in San Diego. Ms. Gruen reiterated that they had not done any microanalysis for this development, nor has Gruen Gruen + Associates received any such analysis. Dr. Gruen questioned if the Agency is being asked to pay for the infrastructure costs up front. The Subcommittee members indicated that it is their understanding that the applicant is not asking the Agency to put up the costs for the infrastructure. Shauna Stokes, Senior Administrative Analyst with the Parks and Recreation Department, stated that her department has reviewed the developer's proposal and the three alternatives. They are most supportive of Alternative lA because it provides the most park acreage. It provides the most frontage to the Bay and it clearly separates the public uses from the private uses. They would like to have some access to the laooon. This department views the park area as a "passive park"; providinq picnic areas for families, play areas for children, walking trails, open field space. Member McCandl iss stated the Subcommittee recommends that the IIqency take a positi on that the "E" and "F" Street vi ew corri dor be protected; that the Agency support the 700 foot curvilinear road; that the Aqency el iminate the development west of Marina Parkway; that the ,I\gency refer Alternatives 1 and lA for further environmental review and for further economic and traffic analysis. The Subcommittee preferred the residential unit count on Alternative 2, however, they recognize there might he a need to compensate with either office uses or another kind of hotel use. Member Nader commented that although he agrees with eliminating the majority of development west of ~1arina Parkway, he still feels open to what is shown in Alternative 1 in that regard. He is interested in further looking at increasing the amount of park acreage. Member Malcolm questioned if the developer requested monetary assistance in his proposal. Mr. Goss responded that the developer indicated to him that they would not request such assistance. Mr. Goss noted other staff have indicated that this is true except there may be some desire for the Agency to participate financially with the infrastructure. This is a point that needs to be clarified; negotiation of the Disposit.ion and Development Agreement has not started. Member Moore pointed out Alternatives 1 and 111 contains IIgency-owned property (which would be part of the park area) which would help the development succeed. The Agency /Ci ty worked out wi th CalTrans that they woul d fund the new off-ramp (the City provi di ng the 1 and and Ca lTrans funding the construction). These are major contributions to the project already without considering any other suhsidy. c Minutes-Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -5- May 25, 1989 Mr. Paul Peterson, Peterson & Price, attorneys for Chula Vista Investors, referred to a list of public benefits that would result from this project which was distributed to Agency members. The list was read to the Agency. Mr. Peterson stated CVI is tryi ng to present to the Ci ty a mixed-used development that will be unigue in terms of what is available in San Diego County and in Southern California. To make a development of thi s nature successful, there needs to be a certai n ambi ance or vi tal i ty to it; there needs to be a certain critical mass to it. When considerinq reducing the project to the different alternatives, it is important to consider what the developer initially had in mind for the project. They woul d 1 i ke the Agency to go forward wi th the developer's proposal. The developer feels that they cannot accept Alternative 1, lA or 2. Mr. Peterson further commented on the fi gures prepared by Mr. Spi egel in hi s report prepared for CVI. He stated the figures are "guesstimates". He noted that the report proj ects that the Ci ty can expect in the fi rst five years to have $48,434,000 worth of new tax revenues. This includes hotel taxes, sales taxes and real property taxes. He pointed out that in the fifth year, there is $14.5 million. Therefore, the future years will be much higher than the first five year average. With Alternative 1 the Ci ty' s return after fi ve years woul d be $36 mi 11 i on; with A lternati ve 2, the Ci ty' s return after fi ve years woul d be $25 mi 11 i on. They recogni ze the assumptions used in developing these figures are subject to further refinement and further analysis. Regarding Alternative 1, Mr. Peterson commented that taking the figures presented by Gruen Gruen + Associates regarding the residual value (approximately $11 million), and taking the amount of time and investment that it wi 11 take CVI to put thi s proj ect together, the number of $11 million is not an exciting figure. From CVI's perspective and given the ri sks i nvol ved in the project, that return is not commensurate wi th the investment. This is why CVI does not accept Alternative 1. Mr. Peterson clarified CVI' s position on the infrastructure costs. CVI will advance all the infrastructure costs, however, they would like to recoup as much of that as possible from tax increment. Mr. Carl Worthington of Jerde Partnership, architects for CVI's proposal, addressed the Agency. He commented that it is the inteqration of uses and not the separation of uses that creates the greatest total benefit to a pl an. One of the top objecti ves in thei r overall pl anni ng phil osophy is to try to have the highest level project for many different audiences. He pointed out the key items that CVI has made adjustments to in response to the City. (1) An adj ustment was made to what they understand is an acceptabl e radi us for Mari na Parkway at 700 feet. (2) The density of the luxury hotel was decreased from 400 units in the original plan to 250 units. (3) They decreased density of apartments in one area from 400 units to 190 units. (4) They continued to expand the concept of a major focal point at the point of arrival into the project in the form of a major events plaza with a market. (5) The inn was moved to the north side Minutes-Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -6- Hay 25, 1989 of E Street. (6) They moved the office building to help frame the sports kingdom. (7) They included Rohr into the plan. (8) They modified the road system to follow what they understood to be the City's preference. Mr. Worthington gave a slide presentation depicting existing facilities that offer some of the ameni ti es of the developer's proposal. He noted there are two important issues to be consi dered asi de from creati ng an exciting, economically viable project. One is how the project begins to relate to the entire bayfront; another issue is how it complements the park system that is already established; and another issue is to begin to respond to the wetland area. It is important to create a project that is unique. It needs to be integrated. It needs to have critical mass in order to make it exci ti ng. Up to thi s poi nt, they have not seen any quantitative measure as to why the proposal is "too dense". The residential community is a very important component of the project as a complement to the hotel comMunity, etc. Each component supports the other. It is important to preserve the opportunity for the 1 uxury hotel to take advantage of the bay and some 1 imited resi dents shoul d be on t.he bay side. Member McCandl i ss commented it is her hope that provi di ng gui dance from the Agency on priorities and what they prefer, that the developer's architect could then take that information on preferred land use and give some of the same desi gn concepts and creativi ty to the 1 ess intense project. Mr. Worthington pointed out there is 100% public access to the entire perimeter of the site. They feel strongly the park needs can be achieved and still allow residential use near the Bay. Keith Simon of WYA, landscape architects for CVI, stated his firm created a schemati c 1 andscape pl an for the project. They bel i eve the proj ect creates an opportunity for a unique development that integrates the marsh area. Before prepari ng the pl an, they met wi th a number of qroups to understand the issues and concerns that the groups had. This included the U. S. Fi sh & Wi 1 dl ife Servi ce, the Nature I nterpreti ve Center, SDG&E, and City planning staff and consultants. Pat Caughey, also of WYA, discussed details of the landscape plan. The issues and concerns that were rai sed wi th them after meeti ng with the various groups mentioned included: concerns about excessive run-off; excessive water from too much irrigation; too much water in the sensitive areas of the Bayfront will damage the existing species; any tiMe there are large lawn areas it induces watering, fertilizing, insecticides and all of these elements could cause damage as run-off in the wetland environment. Therefore, the landscape architects considered these factors as to how and where the hi gh mai ntenance area was pl aced. The i ntrusi on of non-nati ve pl ant materi al was taken into consi derati on. Predators that coul d cause damage to the animal habitat that exists in this environment was also - Minutes-lI..djourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -7- Mav 25, 1989 taken into consideration. Concern about human access was noted; they want the marsh to be vi ewed upon and to be an ameni ty but they no not want intrusion by the general public into the marsh areas. Mr. Caughey further noted the 1 andscape pl an descri bes the i nteracti On between the inner core area (a more highly visible landscape area with trees, open space lawn area, and higher intensity activities) with the outside area with a more natural appearance. The outside area will brinq an extension of the marshland into the environment of the park areas. The trail system is withi n the property of the development itself; it is not in the marshl and. There is a physi cal barri er of a fence that will run along the perimeter that will keep the publ i c out of the sensi ti ve marsh area. They are also concerned about the drought conditions. They recognize the need to address water conservation. Mr. John Craddock, Senior Vice President of the Radisson Company, addressed issues regarding marketing and economics of hotel operation. He commented that for most projects today it is virtually impossible to finance hotels. One of the criteria that the major lender's use is the qual i ty of the project. Radi sson does not become i nvol ved in projects such as thi s wi thout doi ng research. Radi sson has si gned a contract to manage and pre-develop thi s hotel for the developers. Radi sson woul d not sign such a contract unless they were certain over a period of B to 10 years that they woul d make a profi t. Mr. Craddock noted hi s company is not taking a large management fee; the management fee is slightly over 3% whi ch is at the bottom end of the normal range. Radi sson seeks to have this project be a world class destination. Radisson is investino (ann have in fact contracted) to purchase the cover of Hotel and Travel 'Index, which is the largest travel company directory in the world, for two years usi ng the di agram of what the project will become as the cover of that magazine. Mr. Craddock further noted that his company is the largest travel company in the western hemi sphere. He stated he woul d he very happy to provide his company's marketing information on this project to the consultants or staff. Mr. Peterson concl uded the developer's comments stati ng they see thi s project as a partnership with the City because it is a redevelopment project. They believe the project has been carefully thouqht out. The critical mass aspect of the project is very important in order to make it interesting and exciting. Member Nader commented that the subcommittee discussed reduction of residential density. Most of the reduction would be west of Marina Parkway and south of the 1 agoon. Regardi ng the area on the northeast quadrant of the project, the subcommittee was not trying to dictate what form the reducti on in resi denti al use woul d take, but suggested it coul d be accomplished by having 3 high rise buildings instead of 4. Minutes-Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -8- May 25, 1989 Responding to Member Malcolm's questions regarding the strip of park land, Member Nader stated the recreational opportunities that both staff and the applicant have been talking about are in tune with what the suhcommittee would like to see (hiking and bicycle trails; educational/ interpretive garden; and open space area). Member Moore asked about the hei ght of the hi ghri se bui 1 di ngs in the developer's proposal. Ms. Putnam stated the 26 story building would be approximately 230 feet tall (each floor would be 8'9"). It was pointed out this would be close in height to the 18-story Inter-Continental Hotel size (each floor in that hotel is 13'). Member Moore also pointed out in driving along Bay Boulevard and I-5 it is diffi cult to see water and, therefore, questi oned the concern reqardi no views. Member Moore further questioned the width of the average greenbelt (north to northwest) on the developer's proposal. Mr. Worthinqton stated the greenbelt runs 200 to 400 feet wi de. I t was noted that thi s si ze would be more than what exists for the size of Bayside Park. Member Moore bel i eves J Street/Mari na Park is underutil i zed. He questi ons if there is a need to have more than 200 - 400 feet of the park area as proposed hy the developer. Member Moore further guesti oned the 1 owri se buil di ngs in between the highrise buildings. Member Malcolm commented that he wants to know the economics of the plan. He wants to know what does the Agency need to put into the project; what will the Agency get back. Those figures are not available at this time. He woul d 1 i ke the subcommi ttee to quantify what they want in the pl an that is not there; allow the architect to say why that will or will not work. There is not enough i nformati on before the Agency at thi s time to make a decision. Mr. Goss stated staff is looking for (1) support for the 700-foot curvilinear road, and (2) amount of park space. The configuration of the park space is an issue that staff would like to meet with all parties along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to receive their input to see if there are additional constraints. Mr. Goss further commented he believes the subcommittee as a matter of principal would like to preserve the E and F Street vi ew corri dors. The key issue that staff woul d 1 i ke direction on is intensity. However, without having some final analysis on the economics and traffic, he noted it is difficult for the IIgency to give direction. MOT! ON MS (Malcolm/Nader) support the 700 foot radius curve for Marina Parkway; include Alternative 1 and Alternative lA along with the developer's proposal for further study. Minutes-Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -9- May 25, 1989 Member Nader stated he views Alternative 1 as a very attractive alternativ~. He believes the presentation made by the architect for the developer made a valid point for hotel development west of Marina Parkway; however, it leaves questions as to apartment development on that site. The economic information provided at this point indicates that IIlternative 1 would be feasible. He has not heard anything to convince him that highrise apartments as opposed to hotel development west of Marina Parkway is desirable from a public standpoint or necessary to the feasibility of the project. Member McCandliss clarified that from comments received it is her understanding that the Agency is willing to consider less intense alternatives if they are shown to be environmentally and economicallv feasible. Member Malcolm noted it was necessary for him to leave the meeting (at 6:35 p.m.) and requested that the tape of this meeting be available for him to listen to. Chairman Cox stated he does not have a problem with a hiqh-end hotel development on the west side of Marina Parkway. He is not convinced that there is a need for so much emphasi s on the resi denti al aspect of the proposed project. There needs to be some resi denti al component on the overall development. He suggested lookinq at not includino the residential area west of Marina Parkway (at the foot of F Street). There needs to be a good bal ance between the i ntensi ty, the criti cal mass, public access and public usage. He pointed out that throughout the Bayfront there is a good 1 i near park component. There is a need for something other than just linear. There is a need for a 'critical mass' in regard to potential park opportunities. Chairman Cox further stated he could see that critical mass occurring at the foot of F Street. There needs to be a large enough area that goes beyond the 200-400 foot band of parkland. Regarding the residential component and highrises, he commented that he does not have a probl em with the hi ghri ses, however, there is a need to ensure that there is an opening up and preservation of the view corridor. He does have problems with the lower scale residential development between the highrises. Member McCandliss clarified that if the motion passes, the action will be to (1) open up view corridors because of concerns about the highrises versus the lowrises on the residential component; (2) reduction in residential density; (3) increase in usable park open space. Responding to Chairman Cox's question concerning when this item will again be brought before the Agency, t~r. Goss stated it is the desi re to bri nq thi s item back on June 15, 1989. Because the developer has spent a considerable amount of time and effort with this plan, Chairman Cox stated it is important at thi s poi nt that the Agency use due di 1 i gence to try to get to a point where they can make a decision. Minutes-Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -10- May 25, 1989 Mr. Goss pointed out there is exchange of financial information that is being discussed but he has difficulty in having a lot of confidence as to what the Agency's stake in thi s project mayor may not be. Part of the reason is that he senses the project has not been precisely defined at this point. Until that is done, he is not sure to what extent the developer and the Agency would want to make any specific or bottom line commitments. Member Moore stated he would like to have more refined information on the infrastructure reimbursement comment made earlier in this meeting. Chairman Cox asked for comments from members of the public in attendance. Mr. Bill Robens, 254 Camino Alvado, Bonita, 92002, addressed the Aqency as a representative of Crossroads. He noted that Crossroads does not like the project as presented. He does not have any doubt that a really attractive high intensity project can be built on the Midbayfront; however, he does not feel that this is what the Aqency should be consi deri ng. He bel i eves the Aqency shoul d be focusing on what they want to create and what the vi sion statement for the Bayfront area is. He pointed out the General Plan Update contains a vision statement concerning the Bayfront. That statement is consistent with the objectives of the LCP (which the Agency/Council supported). In that statement, the vision refers to redevelopment of the Bayfront to create a water area focal point for the enti re city; emphasi s on publ i c recreati on acti viti es; di versi ty of uses wi 11 exceed many simil ar proj ects and contri bute to the vi tal i ty and use by all citizens. Consistently the LCP talks about "all" citizens usi ng the bayfront; it focuses on open space and publ i c use. Perhaps it is time to change these goal s; however, it appears the Agency is worki nq towards different unspoken, unclear qoals with the plan. In his opinion, the goals and objectives need to be clarified first. Mr. Robens further stated the project presented by the Agency ignores all of the work done by the City Council and previous City Council s in terms of what the pl an is for the Bayfront. It is a fundamentally different concept from what has been indicated that the Bayfront was going to look like. The issue should be: Do we want a fundamentally different project? Do the citizens of Chula Vista want that? Initially, they didn't. Clearly the Planning Commissioners in their discussions were talking about a much more low key, a much more scaled down project. ~verY comment they made was supportive of the LCP. Mr. Robens further commented that the benefits to the City as listed by the developer did not relate to the objectives as listed in the LCP. They did not relate to open space or public access. Mr. Robens pointed out it is an encased project. The size of the project basi cally overwhelms the publ i c open space. The term "worl d cl ass" used by the developers is a radically, totally different concept than what was initially proposed for the bayfront. Minutes-Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -11- May 25, 1989 Mr. Robens stated he likes Alternative 2. He likes nothing west of Marina Parkway except open space. The Agency recessed at 6:55 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 7:0~ p.m. Member Nader poi nted out that the developer's proposal provi des more recreational alternatives than the existing LCP. Alternative 1 provides substantially more. The thinking of both the applicant and the Aoency is that they are taking the previous goal and trying to accommodate it on the smaller Midbayfront. Mr. Robens noted his concern that the previous proposed plan had 400 hotel rooms whereas the current proposed project has 2000 hotel rooms. Member Nader commented that thi s is the fi rst time that the Agency has been dealing with a Bayfront project that has a hotel developer willing to invest in the project. Chairman Cox clarified that the motion is to refer comments received at this meeting to staff; come back with further traffic and economic studies; and include Alternatives 1 and lA. Member McCandl iss pointed out that the action toniqht is indicating that the Agency is wi 11 i ng to accept a 1 ess intense project if the economi c studies show this to be viable. Mr. Goss referred to a poi nt that Cl au de and Nina Gruen made earl i er in the meeting regarding use of the developer's numbers in the economic analysis. He suggested the Agency may want to keep the option of Alternative 2 open. Final economic studies may change the analysis. Member McCandl i ss al so poi nted out that Agency members had i ndi cated a desire to eliminate the residential component west of Marina Parkway. VOTE ON MOTION The motion passed unanimously. Member Nader cl ari fi ed that he interpreted the moti on to i ncl ude that if the appl i cant has other modifi cati ons in the real m of what was presented tonight, that they would also be included in any evaluations prepared by staff. MOTI ON MS (McCandliss/Moore) that staff be authorized to continue analyzing Alternative 2 to see if it is possible that a plan with this density could be economically feasible. Minutes-Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency -12- May 25, 1989 Member Nader stated the only aspects of Alternative 2 that he likes are that it has less residential density and that it is the same density as is called for in the existing LCP. He stated that he would vote in favor of the motion with the caveat that the consultants take into account what the marketing strategy is behind the proposal (do not just use generalized assumptions). (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. 3. DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None. 4. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT: None r 5. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT at 7:30 p.m. to a regular meeting of June 1, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. WPC 4088H