HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1989/05/25 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
Thursday, May 25, 1989 Council Conference Room
4:10 p.m. City Hall
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Cox; Members McCandliss, Nader, Malcolm and
Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss; Aqency Attorney Harron;
Principal Community Development Specialist Putnam;
Principal Planner Lee
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 subcommittee meetings were held on the cqncept plan, one with staff
and a separate meeting including Chula Vista Investors. Following the
second subcommittee meeting, which was held on March 23, 1989, Bill
Barkett, representing Chula Vista Investors, ~equested that the planned
Agency workshop be delayed until a revised plan could be prepared by his
consultants. That revised plan was received by staff on May 9. 1989, and
has been reviewed and discussed with the Agency subcommittee.
Executive Director Goss gave a chronological summary of Agency 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
plan was presented to the Agency by CVI. On December lB, 1988, an Agency
workshop was held on the Bayfront planning. There was a concept diagram
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 raised and to move forward with the Local Coastal Program
amendment. On February 28, 1989, the Agency directed that a workshop be
set up to discuss the progress of the project. Subcommittee meetings were
to be held before the workshop. On March 15, the subcommittee met with
staff to discuss key issues. On March 23, staff, the subcommittee, and
applicant met and discussed a number of issues. The applicant requested
additional time to make project revisions which were submitted on May g.
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.
Mi nutes-Adj ourned Meeting
of the Redevelopment Aq~enc~v -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 reflects 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,
reviewed the traffic study. There were some differing techniques and
assumptions that were used to evaluate the traffic. Reqarding economics,
Mr. Goss noted Agency members had received a report from Gruen Gruen +
Associates.
Mr. Goss further commented that in the meeting on ~ay 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
consultants will meet with CalTrans regarding the freeway interchange
configuration.
Member McCandliss, as the chairperson of the Agency subcommittee on this
issue, addressed the Agency. She pointed out issues that have come to
light regarding the proposed project. Thes~ 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
directed staff to meet with Chula Vista Investors (CVI) to resolve the
issues raised and move forward with the Local Coastal Program amendment.
The subcommittee joined with staff in meeting with CVI and Mr. Barkett.
Ms. McCandliss stated that through these meetings, Mr. Barkett has been
very strong in his belief and support for the plans that ar currently
submitted and has asked on a number of occasions for suqgestions for
changes that might address some of the concerns raised. 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 location
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 plannin~ consultant,
presented the alternative plans to the Agency. He noted the alternatives
are all similar because they did not try to redesign the project. They
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 t~e 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-Adjourned Meeting
of the Redevelopment Agency -3- May 25, ?8?
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. During the
subcommittee meetings there was discussion on maintaining the vistas 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. Assumptions are being made on the amount of
traffic that is generated not only by the project but for the entire
area. Staff is looking at this to see if they are valid assumptions. It
is anticipated the traffic report will be presented to the Agency in
approximately two weeks.
Responding to questions, Mr. Rosenberg explained that on the developer's
proposal the off-ramp is connected to a circulation system into the
project. CalTrans has a concern about possible wrong-way moves onto the
freeway with this configuration.
Dr. Claude Gruen and Nina Gruen, Gruen Gruen + Associates, 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. Spiegel 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 did not receive the last developer economic 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 2~, 1989 -- ~]~
residential multi-family units. She is concerned about the averaQe 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 lagoon. This
department views the park area as a "passive park"; providing picnic areas
for families, play areas for children, walking trails, open field s~ace.
Member McCandliss stated the Subcommittee recommends that the Agency take
a position that the "E" and "F" Street view corridor be protected; that
the Agency support the 700 foot curviline~r road; that the Aqency
eliminate the development west of Marina Parkway; that the Agency 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 be 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 Marina 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 Disoosition and
Development Agreement has not started.
Member Moore pointed out Alternatives 1 and lA contains Agency-owned
property (which would be part of the park area) which would help the
development succeed. The Agency/City worked out with CalTrans that they
would fund the new off-ramp (the City providing the land and CalTrans
funding the construction). These are major contributions to the project
already without considering any other subsidy.
Minutes-Adjourned ~eeting
of the Redevelopment A~encS -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 t~¥ing to present to the City a
mixed-used development that will be unique in terms of what is available
in San Diego County and in Southern California. To make a development of
this nature successful, there needs to be a certain ambiance or vitality
to it; there needs to be a certain critical mass to it. When considering
reducing the project to the different alternatives, it is important to
consider what the developer initially had in mind for the project. They
would like the Agency to go forward with the developer's proposal. The
developer feels that they cannot accept Alternative l, lA or 2.
Mr. Peterson further commented on the figures prepared by Mr. Spiegel in
his report prepared for CVI. He stated the figures are "guesstimates".
He noted that the report projects that the City can expect in the first
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
City's return after five years would be $36 m~llion; with Alternative 2,
the City's return after five years would be $25 million. They recognize
the assumptions used in developing these figures are subject to further
refinement and further analysis.
Regarding Alternative l, 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 will take CVI to put this project together, the number of $11
million is not an exciting figure. From CVI's perspective and given the
risks involved in the project, that return is not commensurate with 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 integration of uses and
not the separation of uses that creates the greatest total benefit to a
plan. One of the top objectives in their overall planning philosophy 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 adjustment was made to what they understand is an
acceptable radius for Marina 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 Redeve.lQ~ment Age.nc,v -6- . MaX 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 amenities of the developer's proposal. Ne noted
there are two important issues to be considered aside from creating 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 exciting. Up to this point, 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 opportLmity for the luxury hotel
to take advantage of the bay and some limited residents should be on the
bay side.
Member McCandliss commented it is her hope that providing guidance from
the Agency on priorities and what they prefer, that the developer's
architect could then take that information on ~¥eferred land use and give
some of the same design concepts and creativity to the less 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 schematic landscape plan for the project. They believe the project
creates an opportunity for a unique development that integrates the marsh
area. Before preparing the plan, they met with a number of groups to
understand the issues and concerns that the groups had. This included the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Nature Interpretive 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 raised with them after meeting 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 high maintenance area was placed. The intrusion of non-native
plant material was taken into consideration. Predators that could cause
damage to the animal habitat that exists in this environment was also
Minutes-Adjourned Meeting
of the Redevelopment Agencs, ,, -7- May 25, 198g
taken into consideration. Concern about human access was noted; they want
the marsh to be viewed upon and to be an amenity but they do not want
intrusion by the general public into the marsh areas.
Mr. Caughey further noted the landscape plan describes the interaction
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 bring
an extension of the marshland into the environment of the park areas. The
trail system is within the property of the development itself; it is not
in the marshland. There is a physical barrier of a fence that will run
along the perimeter that will keep the public out of the sensitive 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
quality of the project. Radisson does not become involved in projects
such as this without doing research. Radisson has signed a contract to
manage and pre-develop this hotel for the developers. Radisson would not
sign such a contract unless they were certain"over a period of 8 to l0
years that they would make a profit. Mr. Craddock noted his company is
not taking a large management fee; the management fee is slightly over 3%
which is at the bottom end of the normal range. Radisson seeks to have
this project be a world class destination. Radisson is investing (and
have in fact contracted) to purchase the cover of H.otel and Travel Index.,
which is the largest travel company directory in the world, for two years
using the diagram 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 hemisphere. He stated he would be ve~
happy to provide his company's marketing information on this project to
the consultants or staff.
Mr. Peterson concluded the developer's comments stating they see this
project as a partnership with the City because it is a redevelopment
project. They believe the project has been carefully thought 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 lagoon. Regarding the area on the northeast
quadrant of the project, the subcommittee was not t~ving to dictate what
form the reduction in residential use would take, but suggested it could
be accomplished by having 3 high rise buildings instead of 4.
Mi nutes-Adj ourned lqeeti ng
of the Redevelopment Agency -8- May 25, 1989
Responding to r~ember Malcolm's questions regarding the strip of park land,
blember Nader stated the recreational opportunities that both staff and the
applicant have been talking about are in tune with what the subcommittee
would like to see (hiking and bicycle trails; educational/ interpretive
garden; and open space area).
Member Moore asked about the height of the highrise buildings 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
difficult to see water and, therefore, questioned the concern regarding
views. Member Moore further questioned the width of the average greenbelt
(north to northwest) on the developer's proposal. Mr. Worthington stated
the greenbelt runs 200 to 400 feet wide. It was noted that this size
would be more than what exists for the size of Bayside Park. Member Moore
believes J Street/Marina Park is underutilized. He questions if ti~ere is
a need to have more than 200 - 400 feet of the park area as proposed by
the developer. Member Moore further questioned the lowrise buildings 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 would like the subcommittee to quantify what they want in the plan that
is not there; allow the architect to say why that will or will not work.
There is not enough information before the Agency at this time to make a
decision.
Mr. Goss stated staff is looking for (1) support for the ?O0-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 view corridors. The key issue that staff would like
direction on is intensity. However, without having some final analysis on
the economics and traffic, he noted it is difficult for the Agency to give
direction.
MOTION
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.
b~inutes-Adjourned Meeting
of the Redevelopment Agency -9- May ?5, 1989
Member Nader stated he views Alternative 1 as a very attractive
alternative. 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 Alternative
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 necessa[¥ 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 economically
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 high-end hotel
development on the west side of Marina Parkway. He is not convinced that
there is a need for so much emphasis on the residential aspect of the
proposed project. There needs to be some residential component on the
overall development. He suggested looking at not includin~ the
residential area west of Marina Parkway (at the foot of F Street). There
needs to be a good balance between the intensity, the critical mass,
public access and public usage. He pointed out that throughout the
Bayfront there is a good linear 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 problem with the highrises, 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 hi§hrises
versus the lowrises on the residential component; 12) 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, Mr. Goss stated it is the desire to bring
this 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 this point that the Agency use due diliqence to try to
get to a point where they can make a decision.
Minutes-Adjourned Meeting
of the Redevelopmgnt A~enc$ -10- May 25, lg89
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 this project may or may not be. Part of the
reason is that he senses the project has not been precisel~ 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 Agency 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
considering. He believes the Agency should be focusing on what they want
to create and what the vision 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 entire city; emphasis on public recreation activities; diversity
of uses will exceed many similar projects and contribute to the vitality
and use by all citizens. Consistently the LCP talks about "all" citizens
using the bayfront; it focuses on open space and public use. Perhaps it
is time to change these goals; however, it appears the Agency is working
towards different unspoken, unclear goals 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 Cit~ Councils in terms
of what the plan 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. Every
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
basically overwhelms the public open space. The term "world class" 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, -ll- May 25, 19B9
Mr. Robens stated he likes Alternative 2. He likes nothinQ west of Marina
Parkway except open space.
The Agency recessed at 6:55 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 7:05 p.m.
Member Nader pointed out that the developer's oroposal provides more
recreational alternatives than the existing LCP. Alternative 1 provides
substantially more. The thinking of both the applicant and the AQency 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 this is the first 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 McCandliss pointed out that the action-~onight is indicating that
the Agency is willing to accept a less intense ~roject if the economic
studies show this to be viable.
Mr. Goss referred to a point that Claude and Nina Gruen made earlier 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 McCandliss also pointed out that Agency members had indicated a
desire to eliminate the residential component west of Marina Parkway.
VOTE ON MOTION
The motion passed unanimously.
Member Nader clarified that he interpreted the motion to include that if
the applicant has other modifications in the realm of what was presented
tonight, that they would also be included in any evaluations prepared by
staff.
MOTION
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 ~.leeting
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).
VOTE ON MOTION
The motion .passed unanimouslx. (The vote was 4-0; Member Malcolm was not
present for the vote.)
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None.
3~ DIRECTOR'S REPORT: None.
4. CHAIP~IAN'S REPORT: None
5. MEMBERS' COMMENTS: None.
ADJOURNMENT at 7:30 p.m. to a regular meeting of June l, 1989 at 7:00 p.m.
Acting Commun~nt irector
av~~ d/~Gustaf s°n D
WPC 4088H