Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutrda min 1991/02/28 1 copy of minutes for notebook/file MI~S OF A WORKSHOP OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment and Potential Alternatives Thursday, February 28, 1991 Council Chambers 4:10 p.m. Public Services Buildinq 1. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Pro Tempore Moore; Members Malcolm, Rindone and Nader MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Executive Director Goss; Community Development Director Salomone; Assistant City Attorney Fritsch 2. STATUS OF CHULA VISTA INVESTORS, PROPOSAL A. Final Environmental Impact Report Community Development Director Salomone reported that the Chula Vista Investors' project in the mid-bayfront is comprised of 3.9 million square feet of development. This includes 1400 units of residential development comprised in buildings that range from 3 to 17 stories high. There are four hotels in the visitor-serving commercial element and these are in buildings comprised of heights from 5 to 22 stories. There is also approximately 150,000 square feet of commercial retail development, 560,000 square feet of office professional development, 23+ acres of public park area, and 9,932 parking spaces. Mr. Salomone further reported that the original Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project received extensive comments as a result of its first public issue and review period. Those comments have been responded to and the Draft EIR will be recirculated on March 14. There will be a 45 day public review of that document and the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on May 8. A response to comments received during the review period will be prepared and it is intended to bring this before the Planning Commission in mid- to late June. The EIR would then come before the City Council the end of June or first part of July. Mr. Salomone added that it was legally required to reissue the EIR because of the extensive nature of this project. B. Economic Feasibility Study Mr. Salomone introduced Mr. Larry Williams representing the firm of Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. This firm was hired by Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -2- February 28, 199] the city to do an economic feasibility analysis of the Chula Vista Investors' proposed project. Mr. Williams summarized a report that was submitted to City staff in January. The tasks that his firm was charged with included: (1) looking at the financial feasibility of the proposed project; (2) estimating the development's fiscal impact on both the City and the Redevelopment Agency; and (3) determining the equity of Agency financial participation. Mr. Williams further stated that part of his firm's responsibility was to look at the developer's proposal and then do an analysis of two reduced-density versions. Mr. Williams stated his firm determined that this project has problems in so far as its financial feasibility. The costs for some of the amenities such as the lagoon, the lake, the park, etc. are quite high. Some of these costs are non-revenue producing; therefore, the heavy expenditures for the amenity package has a tendency to draw down the rate-of-return and negatively affect the financial feasibility. Secondly, one of the key components of the project's development in terms of buildings are hotels. The hotel market for the "destination resort" type of hotels is not here at this time. It is their opinion that the cost of developing the hotels is in excess of the rates that could be commanded. His firm determined that there is a modest drag on the hotels from a financial feasibility or yield point of view. This means the developer should re-look at his hotels, the phasing of his hotels, the costs, and also re- look at the revenue that he anticipates from the hotels. The two major factors of the heavy non-revenue producing costs and the hotels have a tendency to drag the project down. It is the recommendation of Williams-Kuebelbeck that these issues be looked at in further planning of the project. Responding to questions, Mr. Williams stated in their preparation of the report they tried to chart the developer's course of action. They looked at the project in a reasonable approach and in the same manner they would handle it for a private investor. There are certain aspects of this project with regard to the sensitivity of financial feasibility that in all probability could be rectified by some changes. Mr. Gary Londont The London Group, financial consultants representing Chula Vista Investors, commented that he believes the study is a proper analysis. Williams-Kuebelbeck demonstrated that there are, at this moment, some issues that have been identified that need to be worked out. The London Group shared there concerns with Williams-Kuebelbeck with respect to overstatement of costs and understatement of revenues. The study assumed no leverage, assumed market interest rates (not public bond rates), and assumed no City participation. These are all Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -3- February 28~ 1991 matters that need to be addressed which would dramatically change the economic feasibility. Member Malcolm asked Mr. Bill Barkett of Chula Vista Investors if it is his intent to ask the City for financial assistance with this project. Mr. Barkett responded that Chula Vista Investors is hopeful that the City will issue bonds. Mr. Paul Peterson, Attorney representing Chula Vista Investors, commented they have met with the City Manager's staff on several occasions and have been developing a list of the kinds of on- and off-site improvements that will be required. Several discussions on methods of financing the infrastructure that is required for this project have been held. There are some items of infrastructure that could be shared by others who would benefit from them. Now that the Williams-Kuebelbeck report is completed, it is anticipated that further meetings will be held with City staff to determine who will pay for what. Chula Vista Investors is hopeful that a Mello-Roos Bond issue will be considered to provide for a lot of the general infrastructure that is required. They are also looking at the possibility of a parking authority to be created to help provide parking. Chairman Pro Tempore Moore commented that he cannot see the City finances being involved in any way. He can see the Redevelopment Agency involved with assistance in bonding. 3o DISCUSSION BY AGENCY MEMBERS ON THE PROPOSED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FUTURE OF THE BAYFRONT A. Subcommittee Presentation - Members Nader and Rindone Member Nader stated that he and Member Rindone were designated as a subcommittee to monitor the Bayfront project and to work with the developer and staff on an ongoing basis. He commented he believes that it has been evident since the public hearing held on this project one and one-half years ago, and based on input Agency Members have received from the public since then, that the public is not supportive of the project as proposed. This has raised concerns for the subcommittee. He further commented that Bayfront development has been stalled for over 20 years. The City needs a desirable development to enhance City revenues and to provide the kind of public amenities and benefits that Chula Vista residents have been wanting to see come out of the Bayfront development process. At the same time, he stated it is his opinion that if a project cannot be devised that meets environmental concerns and is acceptable to the public in terms of being compatible with the community character, that for the foreseeable future, as in the last 20 years, there will continue to be no project at all. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -4- February 28, 1991 Member Nader reported the Subcommittee met recently with the developer and staff to discuss current issues, public reaction, and to discuss the recent proposal that a cultural arts facility be included in the plan. The developer stated at the meeting that it is his desire to move ahead with the project as proposed in terms of processing the Environmental Impact Report, rather than risking some modifications to the project at this point, which they were concerned might result in further need for new environmental review and further delays. Member Nader stated it was indicated to the developer at that meeting that there was the risk that after receiving the Final EIR, after the Planning Commission hearing, and after further public input, the Council may determine that the project is not acceptable as proposed and would require further modification 'which could trigger the need for further environmental review. It was also pointed out that the Council would have the option of certifying the EIR and denying the requested Local Coastal Plan Amendment on other grounds if they do not believe it is in the City's interests or is compatible with the Council's vision of the Bayfront. Member Nader further reported that a request made by the subcommittee was that between now and the time that the EIR is brought forward staff is to do further work to advise the Agency of what kind of parameters there are within the existing EIR for potential modification to the plan. This is to include what range of potential development the EIR already adequately covers and how far it would be possible to go without triggering further delays. Member Nader added that the purpose for calling this workshop was to take public input in advance of the EIR hearings to give the developer and the Agency an opportunity to hear public reaction to the development of the plan thus far. Member Rindone commented that through the history of developing a plan for the Bayfront, a lacking component has been an opportunity to have input on behalf of the policymakers at the front end of the proposal. Member Rindone further commented he would like to see a great deal of community support for the project. He would like to openly discuss ideas and concepts so that the situation could be turned into a win-win situation, where there would become a great deal of interest on the part of the community for the proposal. The Subcommittee suggested to Mr. Barkett and his team the concept of a major theme for the proposal of a cultural arts center. This could include a cultural arts theater, banquet, convention facilities, etc. It would enhance the concept of the lagoon, would contribute significantly to the concept of a destination resort, and also would include an activity that would be encouraging to Chula Vista residents. An idea of a cultural arts center is an idea that more Chula Vista residents have been supportive of than the Redevelopment Aqency Minutes -5- February 28, 1991 previous concepts and suggestions. He stated that the City fully recognizes that the developer is the owner of the land and that the project is his project. However, the plan requires Council approval, and the plan requires an amendment to the Local Coastal Plan which must receive Council approval. While there is a desire to see a plan advance, he believes there is even a greater desire that it be the right plan, the plan that Chula Vista residents can embrace and support. Member Rindone further reported that the reason the cultural arts theme seems to have appeal is the possibility of the tie-in with the San Diego Convention Center. He added that although the suggestion of a cultural arts theme and center could be an enhancement, it is not suggested that it is the only suggestion or alternative. The Council is looking for a theme that (1) appeals to Chula Vista residents in which they can participate, and (2) that is financially beneficial to the City. Mr. Peterson commented that there is a conference center included in the proposed plan. They were interested in the comments of the subcommittee concerning a cultural arts center at their meeting, and they are already in the process of studying how that might work. He stated the Agency should not take the fact that they do not want to currently change the processing of the paper work and change the time schedule as meaning that they are not receptive to the comments being made. They think there is merit to the suggestion made. They are currently studying the idea and are hopeful that it can be expanded upon and developed. If it is a good idea that is desired by the public and is economically feasible, it is possible that it could be put into the process without having to go back and start a new 6 month re-circulation process. Chairman Pro Tempore Moore commented regarding the history of the Bayfront noting that in recent years there was a change in ownership in the property; other changes occurred in that the D Street Fill and Gunpowder Point were made part of the Fish and Wildlife Refuge, leaving the mid-bayfront. The present ownership is now planning their own project, where the City planned it for a number of years. This is a major development and expensive as to infrastructure. It is important to remember to work within the established thresholds as they pertain to traffic, police, fire, schools, water, open space, parks, environmental, police, etc. Mr. Moore personally likes the major components of the proposed project, in particular the idea of the lagoon. In order to support the underground parking, the lagoon and other amenities, there needs to be some off-set and some degree of density. At this point, he is not satisfied that Agency staff or the consultants have sufficient data for the policymakers to make final decisions. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -6- February 28, 1991 Carl Worthington of Jerde Partnership, the architectural firm representing Chula Vista Investors, gave a presentation of the proposed project. He pointed out that over the last six months, in response to workshops and comments received, significant changes have been made to the project. The issue of public access to the bay and the amount of parkland along the Bay was addressed by the deletion of one of the residential areas that was initially planned at the edge of the bay. This increased the amount of land for park area by approximately 5 acres. The issue of the height of buildings has been addressed by reducing heights of buildings; the northern most tower has been reduced from 15 to 9 floors, the middle tower was reduced from 15 to 13 floors, the luxury hotel was reduced from 8 to 5 floors, the resort hotel was reduced from 26 to 17 floors, and the atrium hotel was reduced from 26 to 22 floors. As a byproduct of this reduction in height, it reduced the density of the project. The hotel rooms were reduced from approximately 2,000 to 1,800 units and the residential count was reduced from 1,550 to 1,400 units. Mr. Worthington further pointed out that the issue of traffic generation was addressed in that trip generation is also reduced by the above-referenced reductions by 2700 average daily trips. Responding to questions of Member Malcolm, Mr. Worthington stated that because this project is located on the west side of the freeway it is basically a separated site, not adjacent to other neighborhoods. Therefore, it is important to develop the proper balance of services in that district. The residential aspect of the project is a very important element of the project. Member Nader stated he had another commitment and that it was necessary for him to leave the meeting at this time. He asked staff to set up a video of the portion of the meeting he will miss in the Council office. (He left the meeting at 6:00 p.m.) 4. PUBLIC INPUT A. Opportunity for members of the public to present their "vision" of the future of the Bay front to Agency Members Mr. Peter Watry, 81 Second Avenue, Chula Vista 91910, representing Crossroads, commented that the bayfront is a unique and priceless asset that should be preserved, protected and developed for the benefit of the entire community, not just the developer. Mr. Watry read a list of beliefs and recommendations of Crossroads and provided a copy to the Clerk for the record. In addition, Mr. Watry stated that one item that Crossroads disagrees most with is the proposed extensive residential use. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -7- February 28, 1991 Ms. Dency Souvall, 698 Gilbert Place, Chula Vista, member of the Cultural Arts Commission, spoke in favor of the idea of a cultural arts center. Ms. Jackie McQuade, 339 East J Street, Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to the proposed Chula Vista Investors' project. The buildings are far too tall and the density is far too great. She believes the City should follow the 40-foot height limit on the Bayfront and that a view ordinance is needed. Further, with the existing water shortage it is most likely that a desalinization plant will be needed on the Bayfront. She further recommended that the Local Coastal Plan not be amended. 5. CLOSING DISCUSSION BY AGENCY MEMBERS Member Malcolm commented that opening up the view corridors and amending the Local Coastal Plan is an excellent first approach. Every Coastal Plan that is approved by the Coastal Commission requires pathways on the waterfront so the public can enjoy the waterfront. He would like the waterfront to be part of the City, where people can go down and enjoy it. It is important to have a balance of what is offered on the Bayfront. Member Malcolm further commented that he has never said that he supporte~ this plan in total as it is presented today. It needs some work; however, he is impressed with the creative ideas of the Jerde Partnership. Somewhere in between what is proposed by Mr. Barkett and the "no project at all" alternative, is where he would like to see the Redevelopment Agency go. He believes it is important that the Agency make a decision; he would hope that it is possible to make a decision in 1991. Right now, the waterfront is not used; people do not have access to it; there is a need to create a place for youth to go to play and enjoy and also to be able to have the revenues to provide the services needed. Member Malcolm added that since the last time he saw the proposed project, the changes have moved in the right direction. He hopes they will consider building into the project, in the front end, a cultural arts center and theater. Member Moore commented that he visualizes a development similar to what is proposed. He pointed out that the tax base is important to provide services. He anticipates that the State will lower the income of the City by $3 to $5 Million in the next year. He believes the project has some superior features and that it is getting closer to what is needed. He believes it is time to move forward. He is hopeful the developer, subcommittee, staff and consultant can come forward with a plan to broaden and change the proposal without sacrificing another 2 to 3 years planning status. Redevelopment Aqenc¥ Minutes -8- February 28, 1991 Member Rindone commented he believes there is very strong interest in development on the Bayfront. It needs to be a project that appeals to residents of Chula Vista. He believes there is a genuine interest for a cultural arts center. There is an interest, not only from a fiscal standpoint, but from a desire to be able to create a "crown jewel" for Chula Vista. He would want to ensure that the existing standards are not reduced with regard to traffic generation. The Council/AGency will be very sensitive to all of the environmental concerns. The idea of view corridors is one which he concurs with. Member Rindone further commented that he hopes that two things happen as a result of this meeting: (1) that the Agency would get a response from the developer that they are interested in meeting with the subcommittee to continue the dialogue; and (2) that the City/Agency continue to get input from the community to help the Agency focus on the vision for the Bayfront; to examine whether or not the cultural arts theme is an idea that would provide the catalyst to create an increased interest in the Bayfront to be able to have the type of project that Chula Vista can be proud of, and financially help with the services that are essential. Member Rindone further stated he supports the idea of a cultural arts center with a proper balance, with concern and sensitivity to the environment which will not be sacrificed. Mr. Peterson commented that they welcome the opportunity to work with the subcommittee and they are ready to continue the dialogue. ADJOURNMENT at 6:25 p.m. to Tuesday, March 5, 1991. Chris Salomone Community Development Director (Min7)