HomeMy WebLinkAboutCVRC Agenda Packet 2008/01/24
.i.
..
CORPORATION
CHULA VISTA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Christopher H. lewis, Chair
Paul Desrochers, Vice Chair
Rafael Munoz
Doug Paul
Hector Reyes
Christopher Rooney
Salvador Salas, Jr.
OFFICERS
David R. Garcia, CEO
Maria Kachadoorian, CFO
Ann Moore, General Counsel
Eric C. Crockett, Secretary
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CHULA VISTA REDEVElOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC)
Thursday, January 24, 2008, 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM C-101
276 FOURTH AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Directors Desrochers, Lewis, Munoz, Paul, Reyes, Rooney,
Salas
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Items 1 and 2)
The CVRC will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion,
without discussion, unless a CVRC Director, a member of the public, or City staff
requests that an item be removed for discu5s;on. If you wish to speak on one of
these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and
submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent
Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Memorandum from Hector Reyes requesting an excused
absence from the CVRe meeting of December 13,2007.
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRC excuse the absence.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRe approve the minutes of September 4, 2007,
November 8,2007, December 6, 2007, and December 13,
2007.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the CVRC on any subject matter within the CVRCs
jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the CVRC from taking action
on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the CVRC may schedule the topic for future discussion
or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes.
3. DISCUSSION ITEM
A. Redevelopment Financial Overview
B. Western Revitalization and H Street Corridor Study
4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS
A. Calendar of Events
B. CRA Conference
5. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS
6. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS
A. Committee Report On Roles & Processes
ADJOURNMENT
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation will adjourn to their regularly scheduled
meeting on February 28, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. The February 141h meeting is cancelled.
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation requests individuals who require special accommodations to access, attend, and/or
participate in a eVRe meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and five
days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact the Community Development Department for specific information at (619) 691.
5047, or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is also available for the hearing
impaired.
Page 2 of 2
CVRC - Agenda - January 24, 2008
R EYE
.
S Architects II
Thu~ay,December13,2007
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
276 Fourth Ave, MS C-400
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE:
Excuse or tardiness from today's CRVC meeting
Esteemed Board Members:
At present I have a commitment which places me to be potentially late or absent for today's CRVC meeting. I
will try my hardest to be there. I apologize for this late notice.
Respectfully,
Hector A. Reyes, AlA
President, CEO
Hreyes@REYESarchllecls.com I 742 Broodway #6 ChUIaVlSto CoRfomia 91910 I PH 16191 216-8965 I FX(619)216-8902
1011
1- ,
DRAFT
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
September 4, 2007
6:00 P.M.
Adjourned Regular Meetings of the City Council and the Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation were called to order at 6:16 p.m. in the Police Department Community Room, 315
Fourth A venue, Chula Vista, California.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers: Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone (arrived at 6:10
p.m.), and Mayor Cox
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation Directors: Munoz, Paul, Reyes,
Rooney, Salas, and Chair Lewis
ABSENT: Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation Director Desrochers
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager/Executive Director Garcia, City Attorney/General Counsel
Moore, City Clerk Bigelow, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Acting
Community Development Director Hix, Redevelopment Manager
Crockett, Principal Community Development Specialist Lee, and
Planning and Building Director Sandoval
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Steve Molski, Chula Vista resident representing the Coalition of Mobilehome Owners, asked the
Mayor and Council to review and bring back a report for mobilehome park tenants on Assembly
Bill 1542 (Evans) and "Senate Bill 981 (Padilla).
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Item I)
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the City Council and Chula Vista Redevelopment
Corporation for March 22, 2007, April 12, 2007, April 26, 2007, May 24, 2007 and June
14,2007.
Staff recommendation: The City Council and CVRC approve the minutes.
ACTION:
Deputy Mayor Rindone moved to approve the minutes. Councilmember
Castaneda seconded the motion, and it carried 8-0-3 on the minutes of March 22,
April 12, May 24 and June 14, with Directors Munoz, Reyes and Salas abstaining
because they were not on the CVRC at the time of the meetings; and 7-0-4 on the
minutes of April 26, with Councilmember Castaneda abstaining because he was
not present at the meeting and Directors Munoz, Reyes and Salas abstaining
because they were not on the CVRC at the time of the meetings.
)- \
DRAFT
WORKSHOP
2. Discussion on the Reorganization of Community Development/Redevelopment and the
Roles and Responsibilities of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation.
City Manager/Executive Director Garcia discussed the proposed reorganization of the
Community Development Department into the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority,
which would also provide staffing for the CVRC and Redevelopment Advisory Committee
(RAC). The Community Development Department would be replaced by Redevelopment, which
would have the primary responsibility for implementing the redevelopment plan in Chula Vista.
planning functions would be placed back under the Planning Department, economic development
would be centralized in the City Manager's office. The City Manager would continue to hold the
responsibilities of both the City Manager and Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency.
Additionally, there would be a Deputy Director position in charge of administration. The
proposal also included the removal of staff from under the City umbrella to become at-will
employees of the Redevelopment Agency. The redevelopment and housing project staff
assignments were then presented, along with the roles and responsibilities of the CVRe. Also
proposed were adding tentative maps to the planning side; and the ability to enter into contracts
with consultants, contractors and vendors, solicit participation by developers through requests for
quotes and requests for proposals, and acquire property, not through eminent domain on the
redevelopment side.
Next, City Manager Garcia outlined the current process to approve a tentative map and the
proposed delegation of tentative map approvals to the CVRC in order to streamline the process.
The current process is a very intensive public participation process in that a project has to go
before the Redevelopment Advisory Committee, through the public hearing process, then the
CVRC reviews it and goes through the decision-making process, and then another hearing and
review is held at the Council level. The overall process for the developer is 90-120 days, and the
proposed change is being recommended to reduce this time by one-third.
City ManagerlExecutive Director Garcia then reviewed the proposed additions to the CVRC
roles and responsibilities.
Councilmember Ramirez asked that color copies be provided in the future when staff reports
state that there are distinguishing colors.
City ManagerlExecutive Director Garcia clarified that the items presented were only
recommendations. If the Council decided to move forward with the recommendations, staff
would incorporate them into the bylaws and bring them back for adoption.
Councilmember Castaneda expressed concern about the bylaws, which were established when it
was envisioned that the Council would be part of the process; they provided more latitude
because five publicly-elected officials were on the board.
City ManagerlExecutive Director Garcia restated that the Redevelopment Agency was a failed
process that was not working and needed to be fixed. The proposed structure would ensure that
DRAFT
Councilmember Ramirez commented that the failure of the Redevelopment Agency was due to
the lack of public trust. City Manager Garcia confirmed the lack of trust due to the failures over
many years. He explained that the Agency depended on private sector funding, so the dynamic
needed to be changed to convince the community, as well as the developers and banks, that
redevelopment in Chula Vista was a good thing. The proposed reorganization and
recommendations would assist in accomplishing this.
In concluding his presentation, City Manager Garcia stated that staff also wanted to include an
appeal process to address concerns with decisions made by the CVRC. Such a process would
mirror the Planning Commission appeal process, and decisions would be appealable to the City
Council.
Susan Luzzaro, Chula Vista resident, requested a reevaluation of the selection process for
Redevelopment Advisory Committee members, stating it was not appropriate to have real estate
lobbyists serving on the committee. She also encouraged the Council not to give up its decision-
making powers.
Steve Molski, Chula Vista resident, stated that he did not see any blighted areas in Chula Vista;
that he was opposed to the Council granting authority to anyone, especially outsiders; and that
the working class people needed more consideration.
Councilmember Ramirez stated that it was important for the public to understand that the elected
officials were accountable to the public, and that the City Manager was accountable to the
Council and did not do anything unless instructed to do so by them. He further stated that the
public needed to hold the Council accountable.
Norberto Salazar, Chula Vista resident representing the Southwest Chula Vista Civic
Association, stated that giving the CVRC additional authority was a bad idea. Political
appointees who were not accountable to the public should not be allowed to make decisions.
Jackie Lancaster, Chula Vista resident, stated that most of the tax increment went back to the
Redevelopment Agency for more redevelopment and not the citizen's benefit. Further, citizens
did not want the City to become a grid-locked metropolis; and the Council should represent the
citizens and not have the CVRC making decisions or it will become a Centre City Development
Corporation as in San Diego, with the City being turned over to developers.
Theresa Acerro, Chula Vista resident and President of the Southwest Chula Vista Civic
Association, stated that her membership voted to dissolve the CVRC and had concerns with any
decision-making process being turned over to a body not comprised of Chula Vista residents.
She further stated that the Council was distancing itself, thereby creating a greater lack of trust.
Patricia Aguilar, Chula Vista resident representing Crossroads II, stated that her organization
supported the proposed staff reorganization, but did not support the proposed increase in
responsibility to the CVRC, especially with regard to planning functions.
Peter Watry, Chula Vista resident, stated that the Council could not delegate fmal authority to
people who lived outside the City, as it was illegal, and if not, it was wrong and unacceptable to
have someone who lives elsewhere make final decisions over elected officials.
WORKSHOP (continued)
...2--3
Page 3 - CounciVCVRC Minutes
September 4, 2007
DRAFT
Frank Zimmery, Chula Vista resident, stated that the Council assured residents that its members
would sit on the CYRC to protect the interests of Chula Vista citizens, and that the Council
would be the authoritative body of the Redevelopment Agency, but the proposal placed the
authority in the hands of the CVRe. He proposed that, rather than looking at ways to expand the
CVRC, the Council should look at ways to eliminate it, as it was not responsible to the citizens
and the proposal was regressive. Further, he stated that elected officials held the responsibility
and should not delegate it to others.
Pamela Bensoussan, Chula Vista resident representing the Northwest Civic Association, stated
that her organization supported the recommendations to eliminate the Community Development
Department and reorganize staff. Further, there was a big need in the west for park acquisition
and development fees and transportation development impact fees like in the east, which, when
put into place, would have a positive effect. Lastly, she stated that trust could not be grown in
the community without keeping the pledge of accountability and by transferring the tentative
map decision making to the CVRC.
Earl Jentz, Chula Vista resident, provided his perspective on redevelopment, stating that more
and not less accountability was needed. Tax increment funds needed to go to the community,
and the shifting of responsibility as proposed created distrust. Mr. Jentz then proyjded a handout
from his attorney that stated that Chula Vista Charter Section 602( d) requires all members of
City boards and commissions with decision-making authority to be City residents. City
Attorney/General Counsel Moore responded to the comments and handout, stating that the
Charter provision quoted pertained to City boards and commissions, not non-profit corporations
such as the CVRC. Further, under the Map Act, the Council was allowed to delegate
responsibility if the decision was made to do so. It would be delegated by ordinance to the non-
profit, which was different than what was in the Charter. Further, when the CVRC was formed,
research was found in court cases that allowed governmental agencies to delegate to non-profit
corporations, and there were case law and Attorney General decisions that stated there was no
requirement for members to be residents of the City. Additionally, decisions made by the CVRC
were appealable to the Council, so they were not considered to be final decisions. Peter Watry,
Chula Vista resident, stated that the City Attorney was wrong. The City of San Diego delegated
a lot of authority to the CCDC, and to be on the CCDC, members were required to be residents
of the City of San Diego.
Kevin O'Neill, Chula Vista resident, stated that the Redevelopment Agency attempts had been
dysfunctional, and something had to be done to move forward. Redevelopment and development
would be the salvation of the City, and industry and commerce were needed in order to provide
jobs and sales tax to the City to allow for the things that everyone wanted. He encouraged the
Council to try something new.
Jose Preciado, Chula Vista resident and president of the South Bay Forum, stated that he cared
deeply about the recommendations and concerns of those who had spoken prior to him, but that
everyone needed to work together to move forward and meet the challenges facing the City. Mr.
Preciado stated that while he did not see the appointees as negative individuals in the process, he
was concerned about delegating authority, as the speakers before him had expressed concerns
about trust.
'<---1
Page 4 - Council/CVRC Minutes
September 4, 2007
DRAFT
WORKSHOP (Continued)
Jack Stanley agreed that the Redevelopment Agency had not worked, stating that Chula Vista
was, without question, the worst place to get a permit. He stated that a policy needed to be
established for a property owner whose plans met code to be able to have a permit within two
weeks.
Josie Calderon, Chula Vista resident representing the Mexican American Business Association,
stated that citizens needed to trust the judgment of the Mayor and Council in appointing
members to the CVRC who will do the right thing, and she cited CVRC Director Paul as one of
the strongest advocates for the South Bay. Ms. Calderon acknowledged that change was hard,
but that the Council was elected to make decisions for those who elected them to do so.
Although many citizens were present at the meeting, there were many more who do not speak
out or attend meetings, but who requested change and elected the City Council to bring that
change as they see fit. People needed to trust those who are appointed by their elected officials.
Susan Lazarro, Chula Vista resident, stated that the logic of "streamlining" was not solid, was
basically disenfranchising residents, and that there needed to be more real public participation.
She then stated that two members of the RAC were paid lobbyists and had already made
decisions on projects prior to hearing public input.
At 8:07 p.m., Mayor Cox recessed the meeting. At 8:22 p.m., she reconvened the meeting with
all members except Director Desrochers present. She asked staff to respond to comments by
speakers, as follows: I) what money from the Redevelopment Agency is used for, 2) who has
final authority on a project, 3) whether the UCSP plan was flawed, 4) the appeal process to the
City Council, and 5) how the recommendations provide more accountability.
Redevelopment Manager Crockett explained historically how redevelopment monies have been
used, the majority towards the bayfront. Councilmember McCann suggested that the historical
perspective be updated and reintroduced to the RAC, CVRC, and public groups. He then
reiterated that successful redevelopment would provide funding to fill potholes, build sidewalks
and streets where there are none, and attract restaurants.
City Manager Garcia said he believed there were ways to improve the Urban Core Specific Plan.
While he was not yet with the City during the process, he understood that there were some things
that were not addressed or delayed, but he felt there was nothing that could not be fixed. He also
explained that the Council would still have the final authority on all decisions for a project. The
key would be to have the technical work in terms of soliciting developers, initial plans, dealing
with architects and engineers, conceptual development, and the nuts and bolts of developing
redevelopment projects be vested with the CVRC. The final authority on the approval of
developers, development agreements, fmancing plans, and redevelopment projects would still be
vested with the Council, particularly with regard to money, financing and land use changes. He
also commented that the appeal process was designed to allow people who were not satisfied
with a decision made by the CVRC (developer or community group) to appeal that decision to
the Council, similar to the process utilized with the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Ramirez asked why autonomy, as mentioned in the staff report, was important.
Mr. Crockett explained that the idea was to work in the public eye, move projects forward, and
reach decisions using Council direction as identified in the strategic plan and budget in order to
eliminate redundancies in the process. City Manager Garcia further explained that the autonomy
meant to refer merely to organizational autonomy, meaning that staff would work for the
Executive Director of the CVRC.
rJ.--6
Page 5 - Council/CVRC Minutes
September 4, 2007
DRAFT
WORKSHOP (continued)
CVRC Chair Lewis requested comments by CVRC members.
Director Munoz, a licensed civil engineer, stated that normally a tentative map was 100%
prepared by staff following City ordinances, codes and municipal requirements. It then went to
the governing authority for final approval, and the conditions of approval were built into the [mal
map. A licensed civil engineer would then be required to sign and stamp the map. He stated that
two licensed civil engineers currently serve on the CVRC Board, and both were familiar with the
process. Lastly, he stated that he hoped, as a CVRC Director, to use his expertise and knowledge
to present projects to the Council for final approval.
Director Salas stated that he had applied to be on the CVRC Board due to concerns about what
was and was not happening on the west side of Chula Vista. He had observed an influx of
"poverty retail," such as check cashing businesses that did not sustain a living wage. Further, he
was committed to looking at a project to determine if it would benefit those living in the area
today; if not, he would not support the project. He mentioned that trust was paramount, and the
Council needed to trust those they appointed. The Council would continue to control the purse
strings, set policy and make the final decisions. Councilmember Ramirez stated for the record
that while he trusted all of the CVRC members, the community needed to trust the Council; and
he believed it was the responsibility of the Council to build the trust with the community so that
the City could move forward. He said he believed the trust needed to be built prior to passing on
tools to the CVRC.
Director Paul stated that the seven CVRC Directors had a combined professional experience of
over 200 years, offered gratis to the community as public servants. The Directors took their
positions on faith that the City as a whole wanted redevelopment to succeed. He believed that
because of Chula Vista's size and location, there was ample opportunity to put money into the
City and address community needs. He stated that more should be done to invite both public and
private partnerships to invest in infrastructure; and that developers would come when they felt
there was a degree of fairness and they could obtain a return on investments. He pointed out that
redevelopment was successful in many cities throughout the state and should be given a chance
in Chula Vista.
Director Reyes stated that he was a Chula Vista resident and business owner investing his
personal time in the community, and that he saw the need to streamline the process and make it
simple in order to make it successful. He encouraged anyone interested to contact him directly,
should they want to get to know him better or if they had any questions.
Director Rooney stated that he chose to become involved because of the possibility of making
exciting things happen in the City, and that his heart was here, even though he was not a resident.
He described his expertise in architecture/planmng and expressed his view that the CCDC was
not a bad example of redevelopment. He stated that he was committed to listening to the
community and would not ignore Council direction or citizen input. He said that tentative maps
would be evaluated based on the General Plan and Urban Core Specific Plan and would have to
conform to all requirements therein. Having served on the CVRC for the last two years, he said
he had experienced the lack of results due to a structure that bogged projects down, and he
commended the Council and City Manager for taking action to remedy the situation.
~-lp
Page 6 - Council/CVRC Minutes
September 4, 2007
DRAFT
WORKSHOP (continued)
Chair Lewis stated that the CVRC members had tried to work as a tool for the Council to get
something done that had not been successfully done before and also to help the Council earn the
community trust. If the proposed changes would facilitate and expedite the process, making sure
projects went forward with limited obstacles, and provided predictability on the part of the
Council, staff and community, they would be welcome changes. Further, he stated that
responsibility and accountability could not be delegated, only authority. Successful private-
sector companies appoint people to make decisions and then they get out of their way and allow
them to do what they do. The results are that everybody wins. He encouraged the Council to
vest the CVRC with responsibilities and then let them get the job done.
Councilmember Ramirez stated that Chairman Lewis' comments were compelling except he
believed that trust was not yet earned, a good framework had not yet been established, the Urban
Core Specific Plan was horribly flawed, and fundamental elements were missing in order to be
able to go forward. He believed the CVRC members were the experts, but that the Council had
to build trust with the community before handing off responsibility.
Councilmember Castaneda stated that he was struggling to come up with the right mix to create
the right environment for the CVRC so that when the projects came forward, they could be
reviewed and the right decisions made for the community. He expressed concerns regarding
finances and what property might be purchased during the course of the year, and the types of
contracts that could be let. He said he would like to limit contracts on consultants to be land-use
only. He then thanked the CVRC members and expressed his trust in them for committing their
time to try to help the City.
Councilmember McCann spoke regarding the need for everyone to work together to bring good
things to the west side, while facing certain facts like the budget shortfall, decaying streets, and
boarded-up restaurants and businesses. He stated that he believed that there were more things
agreed upon than disagreed upon, and that now was the critical time, since if something is not
done, the west side and older areas would become more costly and difficult to revitalize. The
only option was for everyone to come together as a community and tackle it now. Further, he
stated that a well-run redevelopment program was needed to provide quality projects and attract
restaurants, bookstores, and amenities that were wanted.
Deputy Mayor Rindone summarized that there was agreement that the Redevelopment Agency
had not achieved the expected goals over the years, that changes needed to be made to jumpstart
the process, and that the RAC had been an excellent outcome of the process. He further stated
that he saw the potential to structure a process that was significantly beneficial to the community.
With the redesign of the CVRC, he saw seven outstanding members committed to assisting the
City. He did not believe the concern about the tentative map was as critical as eliminating what
he viewed as the major distraction that had caused the Redevelopment Agency to be
unsuccessful, which was lack of direction on the part of the staff and the Council. He then noted
that the new City Manager came from the largest redevelopment agency in California and
understood the value of the agency and how to accomplish what needed to be accomplished to be
successful. In closing, he stated he was encouraged about a new City Manager who wanted to
make a difference; a City staff being reorganized to provide the process; a strong community
voice via the RAC; an area of expertise second to none, and similar to a lot of other successful
city redevelopment agencies, assembled in this City, unique to this City, and very dedicated to
this City; and a commitment from the Council to do whatever was possible to move
redevelopment forward.
)..-7
Page 7 - Council/CYRC Minutes
September 4, 2007
DRAFT
WORKSHOP (continued)
Councilmember Ramirez stated he was optimistic but felt that the downside to not spending the
time and making the effort to get and build consensus with the community upfront would make
things counterproductive. Further, he stated that there was a gap in accountability, and to
remove the decision making a step further would not be good for the community at this time.
Mayor Cox noted a memo from the City Attorney stating that the legislative body could not
delegate its essential legislative functions, such as making or changing laws, but could delegate
the quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial and administrative functions as long as there were standards
in place. She then reviewed the proposed changes to the CVRC roles and responsibilities, stating
that she fully supported the City Manager's recommendations, as he was hired based on his
experience and expertise. She suggested that the CVRC hold a joint workshop with the RAC to
talk about their working relationship. She also encouraged the Council to direct the City
Manager to work with the City Attorney to revise the bylaws so that the substance of the
decisions could be forwarded to the CVRC, putting the tentative map in a holding pattern only if
necessary. City Manager Garcia stated that he would proceed with drafting the bylaws and
present them to the CVRC for approval and recommendation to the Council for amendments,
deletions and formal action.
OTHER BUSINESS
3. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
City Manager Garcia advised the Council that the City was in the midst of a budget challenge
and that he had spoken with the bond insurers and reassured them that the problem would be
under control, with a plan in place by the end of the calendar year and the shortfall corrected by
the end of the fiscal year. Additionally, he had met with over 600 City employees over the past
few weeks and implemented four major initiatives, which were to make the hiring freeze
permanent; look at department reorganizations that affect seven departments, including the City
Manager's Office; propose an early retirement program being developed by Human Resources;
and request all departments to prepare plans to reduce their expenditures by 10%. Work sessions
would be held with the Council in October, and approval would be requested the first of
November. Additionally, he stated that everyone in the organization was engaged in the
discussions, and that he had met with the unions, Department Heads, and managers, who were all
working to present solutions.
4. MA YOR'S/CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS
Mayor Cox stated that the Department of Mayor and Council would also be looking at a 10%
budget reduction, and she anticipated having an item on the agenda in October for the Council's
consideration.
Chair Lewis stated that he was pleased to have not only a new City Manager but also a Chief
Executive Officer, in the truest sense of the word, to assist with redevelopment and that he and
the CVRC Board welcomed City Manager Garcia and looked forward to having a close working
relationship with him.
,;<~-r-
Page 8 - Council/CVRC Minutes
September 4, 2007
DRAFT
OTHER BUSINESS (Continued)
5. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember McCann thanked the public and CVRC members, as well as City Manager
Garcia, for their participation in the workshop.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:57 p.m., Mayor Cox adjourned the City Council to the Regular Meeting of September 11,
2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and Chair Lewis adjourned the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation to its Regular Meeting of September 27, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, noting that the Regular Meeting of September 13,2007 had been cancelled.
Lori Anne Peoples, MMC, Senior Deputy City Clerk
;z- i
Page 9 - Council/CYRC Minutes
September 4, 2007
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRe)
November 8, 2007
6:00 P.M.
A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:02
p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California.
CVRC ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Directors:
Desrochers, Munoz, Paul, Reyes, Rooney, and Chair Lewis
Directors:
Salas
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director/City Manager Garcia, Deputy General Counsel Shirey,
Deputy City Attorney Cusato, Redevelopment Manager Crockett, Planning
Manager Ladiana, Associate Planner Pease, Real Property Manager Ryals,
Principal Community Development Specialist Lee, Senior Community
Development Specialist Kluth, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior
Administrative Secretary Fields
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT PRESENTATION
Chairman Lewis announced that Director Reyes had a potential conflict of interest and would be
recusing himself from this and all future matters pertaining to the Sweetwater Union High School
District. Director Reyes left the dais and Council Chambers.
Bruce Husson of Sweetwater Union High School, introduced representatives from his
organization who were present in the audience, and made a presentation on the SUHS District
"Assets Utilization Project". The presentation contained a brief history, the current status,
recommended solutions, alternatives available to the District, and District requests of the
City/CVRC.
Arlie Ricassa, President of the Sweetwater Union High School District Board, spoke in support of
the project.
Chief Executive Officer Garcia referred the CVRC Board to the Subcommittee report dated
August 20th, which provided a very detailed analysis of what had occurred to date.
CONSENT
I. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Memorandum from Doug Paul requesting an excused absence from the CVRC meeting
of September 27,2007.
Staff Recommendation: That the CVRC excuse the absence.
':<'~I 0
Pagel of 6
CVRC - Minutes - 11/08/07
DRAFT
CONSENT (continued)
ACTION:
Director Rooney moved to approve the request for excused absence. Director
Munoz seconded the motion and it carried 4-0-1-2 with Director Paul abstaining,
Director Salas absent, and Director Reyes away from the dais.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Recommendation:
That the CVRC approve the minutes of September 27,2007.
ACTION:
Director Rooney moved approval of the CVRC minutes of September 27, 2007.
Director Munoz seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0-0-2 with Director Salas
absent and Director Reyes away from the dais.
That the CVRC approve the minutes of October 11, 2007.
ACTION:
Director Rooney moved approval of the CVRC minutes of October 11, 2007.
Director Munoz seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0-0-2 with Director Salas
absent and Director Reyes away from the dais.
2.1 Acknowledgement of appointment for the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
Secretary
ACTION:
Motion by Director Rooney to adopt CVRC Resolution No. 2007-029, heading
read, text waived:
CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-029, RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
ACKNOWLEDGING APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY OF THE
CORPORATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Director Munoz seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0-0-2 with Director Salas
absent and Director Reyes away from the dais.
Director Reyes returned to the dais.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DRC-07-33, RETAIL AND MEDICAL OFFICE
COMPLEX AT 1310-1318 THIRD AVENUE
Tony Zamir has submitted a design review application for development of a 1.23-acre site
located on the west side of Third A venue, south of Palomar Street, in the Merged Chula
Vista Redevelopment Project Area. The proposal involves a three-building, 14,360 square
foot retail/medical complex for multi-tenant site. No Redevelopment Agency
involvement (financing, agreements) is associated with the project.
.:2.. --I (
Page 2 of 6
CVRC - Minutes - 11/08/07
DRAFT
PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued)
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Chairman Lewis opened the public hearing.
Planning Manager Ladiana provided the project introduction, and Project Planner Pease provided
the staff report.
Director Reyes expressed concerns with the 25-foot setback.
With no members of the public wishing to speak, Chairman Lewis closed the public hearing.
ACTION:
Motion by Director Desrochers, to adopt CVRC Resolution No. 2007-030 heading
read, text waived:
CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-030, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
PERMIT (DRC-07-33) TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 14,360
SQUARE FOOT RETAIL/MEDICAL OFFICE COMPLEX ON THE SITE
LOCATED AT 1310-1318 THIRD AVENUE
Director Munoz seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0-0-1 with Director Salas
absent.
4. BA YVIST A WALK MIXED-USE (COMMERCIALIRESIDENTIAL) PROJECT
Olson Urban Housing, LLC (Applicant) has submitted applications requesting a zone
change, precise plan, conditional use permit, design review, and a tentative map for
development of a mixed-use project on a 4.89-acre site located at 765-795 Palomar,
between Industrial Boulevard and Frontage Road in the Southwest Redevelopment Project
Area. The project includes 154 units and 5-1 O,OOOsf of retail space. The site has been
vacant for several years and was used as a temporary site for the sale of pumpkins and
Christmas trees. The Redevelopment Agency will be involved in the development of a
portion of the site for podium-type housing.
Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held
on the date and at the time specified in the notice.
Redevelopment Manager Crockett stated that staff had received a request from the applicant to
withdraw the item.
ACTION ITEMS
5. TRANSFER OF "RADOS" PROPERTY
:( ~/ ~
Page 3 of 6
CVRC - Minutes - 11/08/07
DRAFT
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
In 1999, in order to increase the economic development potential for the land south of H
Street adjacent to the Marina in the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area, the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Agency entered into a series of agreements with the Port of San
Diego and BF Goodrich to relocate and consolidate the campus of one of the City's
largest employers. The agreements identified a number of properties to be conveyed to
BFG to facilitate the redevelopment of the site. The agency acquired the Rados property
in 2003 and in accordance with the terms of the relocation agreement is prepared to
transfer ownership to BFG.
Senior Community Development Specialist Kluth presented the staff report, and responded to
questions of the Directors.
Mr. Sullivan, representing BFGoodrich, responded to questions of the Directors.
Redevelopment Manager Crockett responded to questions of the Directors.
ACTION:
Motion by Director Paul to adopt CVRC Resolution No. 2007-031, heading read,
text waived:
CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-031, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECOMMENDING THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVE AND EXECUTE THE
IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT AND ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AND ROHR, INC., OPERATING AS BFGOODRICH
AEROSTRUCTURES GROUP, AND THE TRANSFER OF THE RADOS
PARCEL AT 798 F STREET IN CHULA VISTA TO ROHR, INC.
Director Reyes seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0-0-1 with Director Salas
absent.
5.1. EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH GALAXY COMMERCIAL
HOLDING, LLC FOR PROPERTIES IN THE E STREET VISITOR TRANSIT FOCUS
AREA
On August 29, 2007, Galaxy Commercial Holding, LLC ("Galaxy") submitted to the
Community Development Department a Statement of Qualifications ("SOQ") and
conceptual development proposal for the development of several properties located in the
City's E Street Visitor Transit Focus Area ("TF A"). This particular location is one of
three TFAs in the City designated by the 2005 General Plan Update and 2007 Urban Core
Specific Plan, allowing the greatest densities and heights in the City. The proposed ENA
properties consist of two existing hotel/motel sites that comprise 2.44 acres (106,189
square feet) of land located immediately adjacent to the E Street Trolley Station. Galaxy
is currently under contract to purchase the subject properties.
Principal Community Development Specialist Lee provided the staff report, and responded to
questions of the Directors.
j ---L:?
CVRC - Minutes - 11/08/07
Page 4 of6
DRAFT
ACTION ITEMS (continued)
Redevelopment Manager Crockett responded to questions of the Directors.
Chairman Lewis requested staff work on shortening the timeframes relating to projects.
ACTION:
Motion by Director Desrochers to adopt CVRC Resolution No. 2007-032, heading
read, text waived:
CVRC RESOLUTION NO. 2007-032, RESOLUTION OF THE CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION APPROVING AN EXCLUSIVE
NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITH GALAXY COMMERCIAL HOLDING,
LLC FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF E
STREET AND WOODLA WN AVENUE
Director Paul seconded the motion, and it carried 6-0-0-1 with Director Salas
absent.
6. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS
Chief Executive Officer Garcia commented that in talking with the Community Development
staff, there had been a number of Exclusive Negotiating Agreement cancellations due to the
economy, but staff would be working on preparing a presentation for the Board to bring them up
to speed on the area at a future meeting.
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS
Chairman Lewis stated that he had extended an invitation to the Redevelopment Advisory
Committee (RAe) members to join the CVRC in a public workshop to be scheduled for
December 6,2007 at 5:00 p.m. in the John Lippitt Public Works Center. The goal would be to
work together to collaboratively promote and enhance public involvement in the redevelopment
process.
Chairman Lewis then requested the Board give some serious thought over the holidays and think
of potential ways to attract projects, put together some requests for proposals, and take a more
active role in the market to become more proactive, not reactive.
8. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS
CVRC SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE ON FOLLOW -UP ITEMS FROM OCTOBER II,
2007 CVRC WORKING SESSION
Director Rooney provided the Subcommittee update on follow-up items from the October II,
2007 working session.
~-11
Page 5 of6
CVRC - Minutes -11/08/07
DRAFT
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:24 p.m., Chairman Lewis adjourned the meeting to a joint Working Session with the
Redevelopment Advisory Committee scheduled on December 6, 2007 at 5:00 pm.
Eric Crockett, Secretary
~-J:S
Page 6 of6
CVRC - Minutes - 11/08/07
DRAFT
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF
THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC) AND
REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RAC)
December 6, 2007
5:00 p.m.
A Special Joint Meeting of the Chula Vista Redeve]opment Corporation and Redeve]opment
Advisory Committee was called to order at 5:]0 p.m. in the John Lippitt Public Works Center,
1800 Maxwell Road, Chu]a Vista, California.
CVRC ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Director: Desrochers, Munoz, Paul, Reyes, Rooney, Salas, and Chair
Lewis
ABSENT: Director: None
RAC ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Primary Member: Bensoussan, Agui]ar, Rovira-Osterwalder, Acerro,
Johnson, D'Asco]i, Hogan, Fe]ber, Moso]go, and
Chair Moctezuma
Alternate Member: Scott, Zimmerly, Cohen, Smyth, Gi]gun, Tripp
ABSENT:
Primary Member: None
Alternate Member: Marchand
ALSO PRESENT
CONSULTANTS: Cynthia Henson and Mark Weaver of Henson Consulting Group
STAFF: Assistant Redeve]opment & Housing Director Crockett, Planning &
Building Director Sandoval, Assistant Planning & Building Director Lytle,
Planning Manager Ladiana, Redevelopment & Housing Manager Mills,
Principal Project Coordinator Hines, Principal Project Coordinator Lee,
Senior Project Coordinator Do, Senior Project Coordinator Kluth, Project
Coordinator Davis, Project Coordinator Dorado, Project Coordinator
Johnson, Senior Secretary Welch, Senior Secretary Montiel, Senior
Deputy City Clerk Peoples, Senior Administrative Secretary Fields
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE
d--J 0
Page ] on
CVRC-RAC Minutes - 12/06/07 Special Joint Meeting
DRAFT
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Frank Luzzaro, Chula Vista resident, expressed concern about conflict of interest issues related
to representation of certain organizations by specific RAC members.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued)
Jack Stanley, Chula Vista business owner, stated his desire to expedite the redevelopment
process in Chula Vista by eliminating review bodies, such as the CVRC and RAC.
DISCUSSION ITEM
I. JOINT WORKING SESSION OF THE CVRC AND RAC
The CVRC Board of Directors and Redevelopment Advisory Committee held a four-
hour, joint working session about the redevelopment process and opportunities for
CVRC-RAC collaboration to promote and enhance public involvement in the process.
The discussion included an overview of the CVRC and RAC by staff and a subgroup
breakout session involving six subgroup tables. Each subgroup table consisted of a
CVRC Director, RAC members, staff, and the public, and was tasked to respond to three
assigned questions: (I) What methods have you seen work well in getting input from the
public in Chula Vista and other places? Why? (2) How can we be proactive in gaining
the most appropriate level of public input? (3) What are your ideas about how the RAC
could interface with the CYRC? Subgroups recorded their responses on flipcharts and
made presentations to the full group. The recorded responses have been transcribed and
are attached these minutes as Attachment I. Additional follow-up discussion will take
place on the CVRC and RAC.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS
None.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS
None.
DIRECTORS' COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:05 p.m., CVRC Chair Lewis adjourned the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation to its
regularly scheduled meeting of December 13,2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. RAC
Chair Moctezuma adjourned the Redevelopment Advisory Committee to its next meeting in
2008.
.:(-17
Page 2 of3
CVRC-RAC Minutes - 12/06/07 Special Joint Meeting
DRAFT
Eric Crockett, Secretary
.:2-J r-
Page 3 on
CVRC-RAC Minutes - 12/06/07 Special Joint Meeting
DRAFT
12/06/2007 CYRC-RAC Working Session
E!!Pchart Data from Subgroup Breakout Session
Question #1: What methods ha\ e ~ ou seen" ork well in gettinl!, input from
the public in Chula Vista and other places'? "'hy'?
Table 1:
Paul Desrochers, CVRC
Brian Felber, RAC
Lisa Cohen, RAC
Gerry Scott, RAC
Mandy Mills, Staff
Dan Horn, Public
Table 2:
Chris Lewis, CVRC
Lisa Moctezuma, RAC
Eric Mosolgo, RAC
Frank Zimmerly, RAC
Jim Sandoval, Staff
Sarah Johnson, Staff
Workshops throughout city
Door-to-Door
Expand notice area
Direct Contact
Mail
Phone
E-mail interest list
Web
Established networks: RAC, CAC, Crossroads, NWCA
Gatherings - announcements
Advertisement, not just public notice
- Maybe list on front - what items
- Organize public notices
Proposal of a controversial project
Hold meetings in neighborhoods in a informal, comfortable
setting (e.g., elementary school)
Bring developer to answer questions
Document concerns discussed during the meeting
Talk to developer to see what can be done to address
community issues
Explain how project would change the community - circle
back
Take visuals to affected community
Personal One-on-One discussions
Early advertisement of projects -let people know what the
project consists of
Something personal - specific to project, rather than standard
postcard
Work through local Schools
Post notice on project site - give community a contact phone
number to call
Send out postcards - then follow up with calls, and door-to-
door visits to see if they received a postcard and what
comments they have
Take pictures of and talk one-on-one
Encourage, not discourage input. Specifically ask for input
Staff is very aware and can answer questions about projects
Way for community to receive input without having to come
to meeting I send in written comments
Not much has worked well
.:z-I 9
DRAFT
Table 3 . Haven't seen one - difficult to get a sense from constituents
Doug Paul, CVRC . Time limitations participation -limited
J.J. Hogan, RAC . People need to feel heard
Theresa Acerro, RAC . Speak their language
Gregory Smyth, RAC . Positive reinforce
Leilani Hines, Staff . Teach public to advocate
Mitch Thompson, Public . Positive reinforcement
. Door to Door
. Ensure Representation
Advocate on RAC/CVRC
Appropriate
Should live in area (except technical groups)
Table 4 . Notices of meetings in variety of sources
Hector Reyes, CVRC . Broaden "area of interest" for notices
Lisa Johnson, RAC . Project dependent
Lynda Gilgun, RAC . Staff decision/flexibility
Eric Crockett, Staff . Notify Community groups (Rotary, Optimist, PTAs)
Diem Do, Staff . Self addressed/paid postcard asking for "vote" of support or
Edgardo Moctezuma, non-support
Public . Disseminate info earlier - "coming soon" on the website
. Door-to-Door Invite
Table 5 . Worked Well
Chris Rooney, CVRC . Meetings in the community
Rafael Munoz, CVRC . Neighborhoods most impacted by projects
Tanya Roviro- Inherent interest in projects from affected
Osterwalder, RAC residents/businesses is necessary
Patricia Aguilar, RAC Independent input from affected residents/businesses
Ken Lee, Staff Face-to-Face Dialogue
Glen Googins, Public . Open house and expo-type formats / informal, face-
to-face between applicants and public
. Less intimidating environment
. Use existing, established community organizations to tap
into the community
CVRC Directors attend meetings of existing, established
community groups
City of San Diego's neighborhood groups/community
planning groups
. Not Worked Well
. Public input only at formal CVRC meetings
. Time restrictions for public testimony (3 or 5 min.)
. Established community groups are not formally
recognized by City Hall
. Existing community organizations were formed from
adversarial situations and relationships
Table 6 . Developer goes out to different groups - business &
SaI Salas, CVRC community, multiple forums
Pamela Bensoussan, RAC . Neighborhood & Planning Groups councils work well in other
Richard D' Ascoli, RAC cities (San Diego and National City)
c2..-13J
DRAFT
Mary Ladiana, Staff
Nancy Lytle, Staff
Jim Pieri, Public
Michael Spethman, Public
Prop MM projects act as catalyst - met with neighborhood
councils; had translators; evening meetings with Spanish and
Vietnamese
Don't hold meetings in vacuum; publish agenda; have
consistent meeting locations; permanent location make
consistent (suggestion of Woman's club)
Adopt calendar with venue
Have pre-review before projects get too developed
Optional meeting
Qucstion #2: Ho\\ can \\ c be proacth e in gaining the most appropriatc Ic"el
of public input (c.g., sending postcards, knocking on doors, and going out
into thc communit~)'?
Table 1:
Paul Desrochers, CVRC
Brian Felber, RAC
Lisa Cohen, RAC
Gerry Scott, RAC
Mandy Mills, Staff
Dan Horn, Public
Table 2:
Chris Lewis, CVRC
Lisa Moctezuma, RAC
Eric Mosolgo, RAC
Frank Zimmerly, RAC
Jim Sandoval, Staff
Sarah Johnson, Staff
Seek comment from those not in mainstream community loop
Utilize youth commission - new voice
Council Chambers for RAC
- Streaming video
- Open doors
See #1
Proposal of a controversial project
Demonstrate how project changed because of public input;
example: 24-hour Fitness (Community felt like they were
involved because they gave input)
Expand public noticing radius, especially for large projects
Change Council policy - any property that could be affected
should be noticed
Follow-up is key
Keep legal roles in mind during one-on-one meetings
Let people know what RAC is
Use friendly tone in approaching people, avoid provocative
questions provide way to give written or verbal feedback
without going to meeting
Offer to give public comment without filling out card-
genuine offer
Don't influence public opinion, only gather information
Challenge members to come in open-minded
RAC members there not just for specific group, but broader
Chula Vista
RAC & CVRC should be educated on factual project
proposals
RAC member(s) should attend CVRC meetings.
- Would take a lot of trust for that spokesperson
Minutes may not be enough
Have forum for RAC - CVRC discussions at CVRC meetings
Send RAC minutes (or summary) to CVRC Directors
c10- ~v\
DRAFT
. Staff outlines RAC comments during oral comments
. Summary outline ofRAC minutes - concerns- go to RAC &
CVRC directors-who and why (clarify if it' s concerns of 1
person or a group)
. CVRC communicate back to RAC on findings and why they
made those decisions
Table 3 . E-mail lists
Doug Paul, CVRC . Block Captains
J.J. Hogan, RAC Coordinate with area
Theresa Acerro, RAC . Electronic News lists
Gregory Smyth, RAC . Door-to-Door
Leilani Hines, Staff . Appropriate - Balance
Mitch Thompson, Public . Don't confuse process
. Public needs
. Predictability & Understanding to access process
. Need to know proiect ASAP
Table 4 . Hold meetings in East CV
Hector Reyes, CVRC . Contact HOA, School District/School near project
Lisa Johnson, RAC . CVRC Website
Lynda Gilgun, RAC . 3-D Model Videoed/Photographed then made available to
Eric Crockett, Staff public via internet/email-site plans, design info, etc.
Diem Do, Staff . Web based survey
Edgardo Moctezuma, . RAC contact info available - Willingness to accept public
Public input
. Rewards program
. Convey that public is really being heard, that they're
respected (clear process: time limit)
. City staff to provide info directly to represented organizations
wlRAC Rep as liaison and receiver of comments and
information interests/dissemination database provided by reps
and affiliates
Table 5 . Increase Geographic Scope of Public Noticing
Chris Rooney, CVRC . Incrementally increase public noticing radius based on
Rafael Munoz, CVRC pre-determined project thresholds, such as square footage
Tanya Roviro- of projects
Osterwalder, RAC . Be more flexible and creative about noticing beyond 500
Patricia Aguilar, RAC feet / Instead of using a radius, identify city blocks or
Ken Lee, Staff corridors that contain residents/businesses that are most
Glen Googins, Public impacted by projects
. Recognized Neighborhood Groups
. Establish neighborhood groups that are "officially"
recognized by City Hall and establish representative
bodies for those neighborhoods through voter election
. Unrepresented Populations
Access and engage unrepresented populations through
alternative mediums and venues, such as churches, CBOs
(community-based organizations), etc.
. Provide translation services in other languages
d-. -~ J--
DRAFT
- Begin with education about civic government and civic
participation
. Meetings in the Community
- RAC should hold its meetings in the neighborhoods most
affected by projects
- Use schools as venues to provide facilities that
community members are alreadv comfortable with
Table 6 . Noticing larger area with larger projects
Sal Salas, CVRC . Workshops
Pamela Bensoussan, RAC . Meet monthly for 6-months
Richard D'Ascoli, RAC . Developer Expo
Mary Ladiana, Staff - Open house prior to Review #1
Nancy Lytle, Staff - Redevelopment Expo
Jim Pieri, Public - Invites to individual associations
Michael Spethman, Public Balance with forming premature discussions
- Be aware of Brown Act restrictions
Qucstion #3: What arc your ideas about ho\\ the RAC could interface \\ ith
the CYRC (e.g., sharing of information, ,'cporting project status)?
Table 1: . Semi-annual workshops
Paul Desrochers, CVRC . Attend each others meetings
Brian Felber, RAC . Report out project status
Lisa Cohen, RAC
Gerry Scott, RAC
Mandy Mills, Staff
Dan Horn, Public
Table 2: . 2 or 4 times a year have a RAC-CVRC field trip to completed
Chris Lewis, CVRC projects they've reviewed in the past.
Lisa Moctezuma, RAC . Periodic workshops to evaluate process and continue
Eric Mosolgo, RAC enhancing communication.
Frank Zimmerly, RAC . Pursue both predictability for developer and effective public
Jim Sandoval, Staff input.
Sarah Johnson, Staff . Effective public input will streamline process.
Table 3 . Annual Workshop
Doug Paul, CVRC . Merge the two
J.J. Hogan, RAC . CVRC participation
Theresa Acerro, RAC - OnRAC
Gregory Smyth, RAC - Vice Versa
Leilani Hines, Staff Attn Mtgs
Mitch Thompson, Public . RAC - Presentation
- To CVRC
- Liaison to CVRC (RAC Chair)
Table 4 . Designated liaison between RAC and CVRC
Hector Reyes, CVRC . One representative from each body to attend the other meeting
Lisa Johnson, RAC (concern re: bias)
Lvnda Gillmll, RAC . ReDort back to IITOUD
J(~~
DRAFT
Eric Crockett, Staff . Fair assessment and view of organizations' views
Diem Do, Staff . Minutes summarized instead of so detailed
Edgardo Moctezuma, . Board representative to report opinion of individual project
Public instead of city staff
. Agenda to place hold time for board rep to
speak/present/summarize/ dialogue
Table 5 . RAC Agenda & Minutes
Chris Rooney, CVRC - Post RAC minutes on the CVRC/RAC web site
Rafael Munoz, CVRC Include CVRC Directors in distribution of RAC agendas
Tanya Roviro- - Send RAC minutes to CVRC Directors
Osterwalder, RAC . Project Updates for CVRC
Patricia Aguilar, RAC Provide the CVRC an ongoing matrix of projects that the
Ken Lee, Staff RAC is involved in
Glen Googins, Public - Provide periodic staff update reports to the CVRC of
projects that have gone or are going to the RAC
. Direct Participation
- Assign the RAC Chair as an ex officio member of the
CVRC Board
- Periodic reports from the RAC Chair to the CVRC
. Joint Working Sessions
- Ongoing joint working sessions/meetings of the CVRC
and RAC
- Include RAC in CVRC discussions about programmatic
redevelopment decisions
Table 6 . RAC attend CVRC meeting to summarize state vote in favor
Sal Salas, CVRC (staff report - also verbalize)
Pamela Bensoussan, RAC . CVRC attend RAC meeting member(s)
Richard D' Ascoli, RAC . CVRC meets "deal points" fmancial components RAC and
Mary Ladiana, Staff project design after
Nancy Lytle, Staff
Jim Pieri, Public
Michael Spethman, Public
d-~-<4
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (CVRC)
December 13, 2007
6:00 P.M.
A Regular Meeting of the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation was called to order at 6:01
p.m. in the Council Conference Room C-101, located in City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula
Vista, California.
CVRC ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
Directors:
Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Desrochers, Munoz, Paul, Rooney
(arrived at 6:15 p.m.), and Salas
ABSENT:
Directors:
Reyes
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director Garcia, City Attorney Moore, Redevelopment &
Housing Assistant Director Crockett, Senior Project Coordinator Kluth,
Assistant Planning Director Hare, Senior Deputy City Clerk Peoples,
Senior Administrative Secretary Fields
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, MOMENT OF SILENCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
1. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. CVRC ROLE IN BA YFRONT DEVELOPMENT
Assistant Planning Director Hare provided an overview of the Bayfront Master Plan and
responded to questions ofthe Board.
Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett explained that the role of the CVRC
would be advisory to the Planning Commission, and that the Planning Commission would advise
the Council on the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Local Coastal Plan.
Chairman Lewis requested staff provide a copy of the Bayfront Master Plan to the Directors.
Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett then spoke regarding the proposed
Gaylord project, explaining that it was a Port of San Diego land use and lease decision
contemplated largely on investment of tax increment. Once an agreement is determined, the
CVRC role would be to advise the Redevelopment Agency on the merits of the tax increment.
With regards to the proposed Pacifica project, if the land swap happens and the State approves it,
the CVRC would become the design review body to process the project.
1 ,-- ;~s5
Page 1 of 4
CVRC - Minutes - 12/13/07
BA YFRONT DISCUSSION ITEM (continued)
Director Desrochers inquired, and staff responded, that there were other properties within the
General Plan boundaries that the CVRC would be reviewing in the future, should they come
forward with projects.
The following people were present wishing to speak:
Peter Watry, Chula Vista resident and Vice President of Crossroads II, expressed two concerns.
One being that the CVRC would try to redo everything that had already been agreed to, although
in compromise, regarding the Bayfront Master Plan; and second, a rumor was circulating that
prominent Chula Vistan's were trying to push out Pacifica which should not be allowed as they
were participants in the process from the beginning.
Laura Hunter, representing the Environmental Health Coalition, stated that her organization
reluctantly agreed with the compromises previously reached, and requested the CVRC help keep
an eye on the project to ensure that the agreements are kept.
Parks Pemberton, Chula Vista resident, spoke regarding concerns with increased traffic along the
1-5 that would effect Chula Vista residents, and expressed his opinion that it was wrong to close
down and remove the power plant. Further, that consideration should be given to creating a plant
that does not pollute, such as a desalination plant, which would work well on the bayfront with
the water and salt being in the same location. In closing, he spoke in opposition to the placement
of a Charger stadium on the bayfront.
Jennifer Bagley, representing the Electrical Union, prior member of the Citizen Advisory
Commission, and member of the San Diego and Imperial County Electricians Union, stated that
her organization had recently commissioned a pole of local Chula Vista residents and asked them
what they wanted to see on their bayfront. The results indicated that they wanted respect for the
environment and something that would bring good local jobs. She stated that she would e-mail a
copy of the survey to Chairman Lewis for distribution to the Board.
B. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT WORKSHOP
Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett provided a brief overview of the
Sweetwater Union High School District proposal and project history. He provided a locator map
and indicated the current properties owned by the District and their intended uses. He stated that
the Third Avenue site was exchanged with the District in the early 1980's with the hopes of
movin!iJ, the district offices to that site. The District also wanted to relocate their corporate yards
from 5 A venue. In 2005 the District purchased the L Street site for $28 million during the
height of the real-estate boom, with the new intent to relocate all other property uses there, and
then sell the original properties for residential use. The Redevelopment Agency had rejected a
proposal from the District in 2004 due to the risk to the Agency and City, as well as the District.
They also rejected a proposal in 2006 wherein the District proposed a land use change of the L
Street property to mixed use for the relocation of the Adult School, Administration Office, and
new residential. The estimated cost of the project was $163 million, and their request was for
$160 million from the Agency. Then finally, the District came back in October 2007 with a new
proposal, which was presented to the CVRC. Mr. Crockett stated that there have been two goals
since the land swap in 1995 between the District and the Agency: 1) to relocate the
Administration Office to Third Avenue, and 2) to get the Corporate Yard off of 5th. None of the
proposals thus far have addressed these goals, and what is needed is a common understanding
regarding land use and the process to be followed.
J..~~~
DRAFT
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT WORKSHOP (continued)
Chairman Lewis, as a member of the appointed subcommittee who met with the SUHSD
representatives, stated that the proposed project, if done correctly, could be a nice starter project
for the CVRC and would kick-start revenues. The applicant needs assistance in understanding
the right way to approach the project. He then stated that he had invited Director Paul to join the
subcommittee.
Director Desrochers, subcommittee member, stated that he concurred that the Third Avenue
property was bought specifically to stimulate the area, as was the moving of the 5th Avenue
Corp. Yard. He expressed concerns with the amount of tax increment funding the District wants
from the Agency as the State Law is specific with regards to use of tax increment, and it appears
that the District wants the Agency to contribute to the entire development, which is not legally
feasible. He then expressed hope that an acceptable project could be developed.
Executive Director Garcia stated that the frustration being expressed by the District was due to
their plans being rejected, but he also stated that the percentage of monetary participation the
District expects from the Agency is growing, with Chula Vista being the major investor, and
with no accountability of the players. A constructive discussion needs to be made to determine
the best way to proceed. Mr. Garcia further stated that the District wants a private deal with a
developer using Redevelopment Agency funds.
Director Munoz stated that he had done some research into the process for this type of project,
and the apparent discrepancy is that the District does not appear to want to follow the City
review process like everyone else, which is a different process than the process for building a
school.
Director Salas stated that he would like to see the emphasis on the Corporate Yard and the Moss
and 4 th Avenue properties, as it appeared that the focus was all on L Street, and that that was
what was dragging the project down.
Redevelopment & Housing Assistant Director Crockett stated that the concerns with L Street are
that although the property has potential, they have bonds with capitalized interest that will
become due in 2011 at approximately $32 million. He also stated that the Third Avenue
property only has nine years left for investment. Once it expires in 2013, no more money can be
put into it.
Director Munoz inquired as to why the move of the District Administrative Offices to Third
A venue had not occurred. Director Desrochers responded that he recalled parking had been an
Issue.
Chair Lewis stated that he understood that the District wanted to retain ownership of the
Corporate Yard on 5th A venue and was concerned with what the motive behind the reasoning
was. The current bottom line on the proposal was that it was a very costly endeavor with very
little return. He then proposed that the next step be for the Subcommittee to get back together
with the District representatives and create a proposal to start working on.
.?-~d.l
Page 3 of 4
CVRC - Minutes - 12/13/07
SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT WORKSHOP (continued)
Executive Director Garcia stated there needed to be a reasonable pro-forma, and a reasonable
partner.
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S REPORTS
There were none.
3. CHAIRMAN'S REPORTS
Chairman Lewis stated that the Subcommittee was going to move forward on the items that came
out of the workshop held with the RAC. They will address those issues and bring a report back
to the full Board. He stated further that he had requested Directors Munoz and Salas, along with
Lisa Moctezuma to iron out the roles and responsibilities.
Chair Lewis then stated he had been invited to attend a citizen brainstorming session on the
potential uses for the old Social Security Building. He spoke regarding the Citizen Advisory
Commission that had worked on the Bayfront Master Plan and how it had been a 3-4 year project
with diverse personalities and levels of education and opinion, and that in the end, 22 people
came together to create the Master Plan, proving miracles do happen. He then wished everyone
a wonderful holiday.
4. DIRECTORS' COMMENTS
Director Desrochers proposed consideration by the Urban Land Institute Advisory Council for
one development in the City, perhaps the Superior Court at Third and H Street. He stated that it
would be an advisory service at a minimal cost, but might provide a good opportunity for a
property that needs involvement. He then requested a report back by staff on the potential use.
Director Salas commented on the workshop setting for meetings, and requested that the format
be continued into the new-year, where every other meeting be held in a similar setting.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:31 p.m., Chairman Lewis adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of January 10,
2008 at 6:00 p.m.
Eric Crockett, Secretary
;)...-;l<f
Christopher H. Lewis, Chair
Paul Desrochers, Vice Chair
Rafael Munoz
Doug Paul
Hector Reyes
Christopher Rooney
Salvador Salas, Ir.
OFFICERS
David Garcia, CEO
Maria Kachadoorian, CFO
01 Ann Moore, General Counsel
Eric Crockett, Secretary
.
..
CORPORi\TION
(HULA VIST.-\
January 18, 2008
TO:
CVRC Board of Directors
VIA:
Eric C. Cr?f~ett, Assistant Director of Redevelopment &
Housing I.fJI
FROM:
Ken Leel;incipal Project Coordinator
Item 6.A - Committee Report on Roles & Processes
SUBJECT:
In addition to your regular Agenda Packet for the January 24, 2008
CVRC Meeting, we have included the attached Committee Report for the
Board's review. This report was developed by an hoc committee of three
Directors (Munoz, Rooney, Salas) created by the Board of Directors on
October 11, 2007 to examine and make recommendations on several key
follow-up action items that resulted from the Board's October 11
Working Session, held at the City's John Lippitt Public Works Center.
The Committee will present its report and recommendations to the
Board under Item 6 (Directors' Comments) of the Agenda.
^;^,..
i.
CORPORATION
(HULA VISTA
COMMITTEE REPORT
DATE:
January 24, 2008
TO:
CYRC Board of Directors
FROM:
CYRC Committee on Structures & Processes
Directors Munoz, Rooney, and Salas
SUBJECT:
Committee Report on Follow-up Action Items from the October 11, 2007
CYRC Working Session
EXECUTIYE SUMMARY:
On October 11, 2007, the CYRC Board of Directors held a half-day working session at the
John Lippitt Public Works Center to discuss organizational matters and foundation building
activities for the Corporation. Eleven follow-up action items resulted from the working
session (Attachment 1). An ad hoc committee of three Directors was created to work with
staff to research and bring back recommendations to the full Board on key policy items.
This report contains the recommendations of that Committee, including recommended
Board action on two interrelated topics: (1) The use of standing and/or ad hoc committee
structures in conducting CYRC business; and (2) The use of alternative meeting formats
and/or venues to promote more open and informal dialogue. Based on the CYRe's current
workload, the Committee is recommending that:
The CYRC postpone the creation of standing committees to a future date when the
need is clear and present.
The CYRC continue to use ad hoc committees for special projects or policy matters,
as necessary and appropriate.
The CYRC hold one meeting per month as a working session away from the dais for
the next six or more months. Hold the other meeting per month as a typical
action/business meeting on the dais.
At the October 11 working session, the Board also directed staff to address and bring back
seven administrative follow-up items for future Board discussion. Some of those items
have been completed or are in progress. Others will be brought before the Board for
discussion during the coming months.
Committee Report
Page 2
RECOMMEN DA TlONS:
The Committee recommends that the CVRC Board of Directors:
1. Receive and file the Committee Report.
2. Approve the Committee's recommendations on Items #8, #9, #10, and #11 from
the October 11,2007 Follow-up Action Items (Attachment 1).
3. Dissolve the Committee.
DISCUSSION:
Brief History
On May 24, 2007, the CVRe's Bylaws were amended to remove the five City
Councilmembers from the CVRC Board of Directors. The five City-Directors were
replaced by three Chula Vista residents appointed by the City Council, with professional
expertise and/or educational backgrounds in various fields. The newly reconstituted,
seven-member Board of Directors held their first meeting as a fully independent body on
August 9, 2007. Since then, staff has been working closely with the Board to lay a solid
organizational foundation for the reconfigured CVRC that will provide long-term precedent
and structural integrity for the CVRe's purpose, roles, and responsibilities.
October 11, 2007 Working Session
The Board's October 11, 2007 Working Session was designed to facilitate an open and
informal dialogue among the Directors and staff about the purpose of the CVRC and the
Board's role in the redevelopment process. Key discussion points involved:
Clarity about the prescribed steps in the redevelopment process and the Board's
formal role.
The communication interface between staff and the Board for project updates, staff
reports, Redevelopment Advisory Committee (RAC) activities, and work programs.
The Board's awareness of current and anticipated development projects that the
CVRC will playa role in.
The role of the Board and individual Directors in engaging the public.
The use of committee structures in the conduct of the Board's business.
The level and quality of Board dialogue on the dais.
Eleven important follow-up action items resulted from the working session and are
summarized in the outline attached to this report as Attachment 1. The Board directed
Committee Report
Page 3
staff to address and provide follow-up on seven administrative items (#1 - #7). For the
more policy-oriented items (#8 - #11), the Board created a three-member ad hoc
committee to work with staff to bring back recommendations to the full Board. Directors
Munoz, Rooney, and Salas volunteered to sit on the Committee.
Committee Recommendations
Pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 1 contain the Committee's recommendations on Items #8
through #11. The majority of the Committee's time was spent in discussion about the use
of committees (e.g., standing, ad hoc) and alternative meeting formats (e.g., working
sessions, roundtable). It was the Committee's consensus that the CYRe's current and
anticipated development workload does not warrant the creation of standing committees,
but that ad hoc committees continue to serve a beneficial purpose for the CYRe. The
Committee would suggest, however, that the CYRC Directors have a limited amount of
volunteer time that they can contribute to committees, and that the Board should actively
manage the number and size of ad hoc committees that are in existence at anyone time.
The Committee also reaffirmed the importance of creating a more informal environment at
CYRC meetings for open dialogue among the Directors and with the public. The
Committee agreed that the Board should consider more regularly holding CYRC meetings
in alternative meeting formats and/or venues, such as working sessions and roundtable
workshops.
Based on the Committee's review of committee structures and meeting formats, the
Committee is recommending that the CYRC:
Continue to use ad hoc committees as necessary and appropriate. (Item #9)
Postpone the creation of standing committees until a future date when they become
necessary and appropriate. (Item # 1 0)
Hold one meeting per month as a working session away from the dais for the next
six or more months. Hold the other meeting per month as a typical business
meeting on the dais. (Item #11)
Item #8 addresses how the CYRC can promote and facilitate greater public involvement in
the. redevelopment process, and be proactive in community outreach and education about
the benefits of redevelopment. The Committee deferred discussion of Item #8 until after
the December 6, 2007 Joint CYRC-RAC Working Session. Following that session, the
CYRC, at its December 13, 2007 regular meeting, assigned a new two-member ad hoc
CYRC committee to work with the RAC to address follow-up items from the December 6
session. Directors Munoz and Salas volunteered to sit on the new committee. This
Committee is recommending that Item #8 be deferred to the new two-member committee.
Committee Report
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Committee Recommendations and Status Updates on Follow-up Action Items
from October 11,2007 CVRC Working Session
ATTACHMENT 1
10/11/2007 CVRC Working Session FoUow-Up Action Items
1. Staff to prepare a summary matrix of all projects, including the steps in the Staff Presentation for Board
redevelopment/entitlement process. Update the matrix monthly and discussion in Feb '08.
provide status reports with "stop light" notations (green, yellow, red).
:2. Reintroduce Bayfront (pacifica and Gaylord Projects) into the CVRC Staff Initial "reintroduction"
framework through a presentation by David Garcia and Denny Stone. presentation completed on
December 13, 2007. Further
discussion in Spring '08.
3. Staff to provide and explain to CVRC Directors the four criteria used by Staff Future discussion item.
staff to qualify projects for Agency assistance.
4. Staff to present to the CVRC Directors an executive summary of the Staff Scheduled for the CVRe's
Agency's adopted Five Year Implementation Plan, such that the CVRC can January 24, 2008 Regular
direct staff resources, monitor progress to the strategic plan, and be Meeting.
proactivc in attracting developcrs to Chula Vista.
5. Planning & Building staff to present the City's planning process to the Staff Scheduled for Peb-Mar '08.
CVRC, particularly as it relates to the redevelopment process.
6. Staff to send the minutes from RAC #1 and RAC #2 to all CVRC Staff In progress.
Directors to keep them informed of projects before CVRC action is
neeqed. (NOTE: The Board concurred that it is acceptable to send draft
minutes to Directors if the final minutes are not yet available. It is more
critical for Directors to receive the RAC information than wait for the
minutes to complete the final approval process.)
7. CVRC needs good, competent staff reports so that CVRC Directors can Staff Presentation for Board
make good decisions. Brevity is important. discussion in F eb '08.
Page 1 of 3
10/11/2007 CVRC Working Session Follow-up ""ction Items
Committee Recommendations and Status Updates
8. A very important role of the CVRC is one of education (not advocacy). As
a quasi-judicial body, the CVRC cannot be an advocate for a project.
However, a two-way dialogue with the community that is impacted by a
project is critical to ensuring all stakeholder voices are heard. "CVRC must
get out into the community and take the first steps to build trust."
Examples of ways to accomplish this included:
a. Sending postcards (easy to return); knocking on doors; going out
into the community.
b. CVRC Directors attending service group meetings and community
meetings.
c. Holding public meetings at an elementary school, developer listens
to the issues of the community, lists on a flip chart and then
answers back to the community at a later date.
d. Community Strengthening processes.
e. Attending RAC meetings.
9. CVRC could assign a CVRC Director or committee to a project to use their
skills/talents to enhance communication between the CVRC, staff,
applicants/ developers, and community.
10. May need a CVRC committee structure to review projects outside of the
CVRC's scheduled two meetings per month. Possible committees are
Finance, Real Estate, and Design.
Page 2 of 3
Committee
Committee
Committee
Committee Recommendation:
Defer to the new two-member
ad hoc committee. The new
committee will collaborate with
RAC representatives.
Committee Recommendation:
Continue to use ad hoc
committees as necessary and
appropriate.
Committee Recommendation:
Postpone the creation of
standing committees until a
future date when they become
necessary and appropriate.
10/11/2007 CVRC Working Session Follow-up Action Items
Committee Recommendations and Stahls Upd:ltcs
11. The CVRC Directors found the workshop to be a beneficial format that
encouraged productive dialog and created consensus amongst the CVRC
Directors. It was also noted that conducting meetings in the community
may be beneficial to create the opportunity for easier public input. "Not
always meeting at City Hall from the dais." One possible way to ensure
greater opportunity for productive dialogue and public input is to adjust the
current meeting structure - two formal CVRC meetings each month at City
Hall. Examples included were:
a. Hold one meeting per month out in the community.
b. Conduct one meeting per month as a formal project approval
meeting and one meeting as a workshop.
c. Create an agenda item within the existing two meeting a month
structure that allows for the workshop-type of work.
d. Any combination of the above.
Page 3 of3
Committee
Committee Recommendation:
Hold one meeting per month as
a working session away from the
dais for the next six or more
months. Hold the other meeting
per month as a typical business
meeting on the dais. Revisit this
item in six or more months.
10/11/2007 CYRC Working Session Follow-up ,"-crion Items
Committee Recommendations and Status Updates
CITY OF CHULA VISTA6
RedevelopmentJ'
& Housing
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 18, 2008
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Council
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
VIA:
David R. Garcia, City Manager
FROM:
Eric C. Crockett, Assistant Director @;
Department Heads
Cc.
RE:
Staff Liaisons for Community Meetings
The newly created Department of Redevelopment and Housing is taking a new approach to strengthen relations
with the community. Starting in 2008, staff will begin attending various board/community meetings
throughout the City (Attachment I). Our intent is for the community to get to know who we are and what we
do, to be responsive to requests for information and to be able to provide factual information on City activities.
If our staff is unable to address a particular question or concern, we will coordinate with the appropriate
department(s) to get the group their answer.
If you have any questions concerning this matter please call me at 619.476.5341.
Attachment 1
Redevelopment and Housing
Staff Liaisons to Board and Community Meetings
6:00pm Council Eric/ Ken
Chambers
1st Thurs. 6:00pm Police Leilani/Janice
De t.
4th Wed. 3:30pm C-101 Stacey/Jose
3rd Thurs. 6:00pm Council Stacey/Jose
Chambers
City Council Tuesdays 4:00pm Council Eric/Mandy
Chambers
City Council Tuesdays 6:00pm Council Eric/Mandy
Chambers
Chula Vista Chamber 2nd Wed. 7:30am Eric/Lynette
of Commerce
Chula Vista Chamber Last Wed. 8:00am LynettelDiem
of Commerce EDC
San Diego Regional 2nd Wed. 7:30am TBD Eric
Chamber
South County EDC 2nd Tues. 7:30am Education Eric/Jose
Center
Third Avenue Village 1st Wed. 7:30am Church Eric/Diem
Association Hall
Third Avenue Village 2nd Wed. 8:00am TAVA Lynette/Diem
Association ERC Office
SANDAG Regional 4th Thurs. 10:00am SANDAG Leilani/Mandy
Housin
Carrows
2nd Mon. 6:00pm 4th Sl. Mandy/Eric
Libra
4th Mon. 6:45pm MAAC Sarah/Jose
As Needed TBD TBD Sarah/Ken
Homeless Coalition 2nd Mon. 8:00am Police Jose/Angelica
De l.
Environmental Health As Needed TBD TBD Sarah/Mandy
Coalition
Walk San Die 0 As Needed TBD TBD L nette/Diem
Community 2nd Tues. 9:00am 690 Oxford Sarah/Angelica
Collaborative
Mexican American 3rd Thurs. 12:00pm 7 seas Lynette/Jose
Business Assoc. San Diego
~\l1-A\rJS)o-
__-"~u __
THIRD AVENUE.
---~_.-
l<JLLA6"-
THI.F(D AVENUE: VILI-.~GE:
ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT
GREG MATTSON
VICE PRESIDENT
GLEN GOOGINS
SECRETARY
BETSY KELLER
TREASURER
DR. RICHARD FREEMAN
ERIC CROCKETT
MICHAEL GREEN
CARL HARRY
SHERRY MESTLER
LISA MOCTEZUMA
TOM MONEY
GREG SMYTH
ADAM SPARKS
STELLA SUTTON
353 THIRD AVENUE
CHULA VISTA, CA 91910
P: (619) 42.2-1982
F: (619) 422-1452
WvVW.THI RDAVENUEVILLAGE.CO
January 4, 2008
Dear T AVA members,
After twelve years of distinguished service and tireless
efforts working with numerous presidents, board
members and volunteer committees Mr. Jack Blakely has
decided to step down as the full time Executive Director
as of April 1, 2008, Over the years Jack has been the lead
person in shaping and implementing T A VA's vision for a
more dynamic downtown.
The T A VA Board would like to extend a big "Thank
You" to Jack for his years of service and to Pam Blakely
for allovving Jack to spend countless hours away from
home on evenings and at our special events. If you run
across Mr. Blakely over the next few months please, say
"Hi" and thank you for a job well done.
So as not to lose Jack's experience and knowledge
entirely, Jack will continue to assist TA VA as a part time
consultant, supporting the new Executive Director and
Special Events Manager assisting us with our events and
programs,
We look forward to working with Jack and our new
Executive Director in the years to come.
Sincerely,
Third Avenue Village Association
Board of Directors
.
..
CORPORATION
CHULAVISIA
GLOSSARY OF REDEVELOPMENT TERMS
AB 1290 - Assembly Bill AB 1290, adopted in
1993, setting forth Redevelopment Plan
limitations on the time to collect Tax Increment
Revenues and the time that the Agency has to
complete redevelopment activities in a Project
Area. Statutory Tax Sharing was established by
AB 1290.
Base Year Value . Assessed Value of all
property in a Project Area calculated as of the
Project Area formation date.
California Community Redevelopment Law.
Redevelopment law of the State contained in
California Health and Safety Code. Division 24,
Part 1 (Section 33000 et seq.)
DDA or OPA . Disposition and Development
Agreement/Owner Participation Agreement
entered into with a Property Owner describing
specifics of a development and any Agency
contribution of Tax Increment Revenues to the
project.
ERAF . Educational Revenue Augmentation
Fund, established by the State as a mechanism
to shift property taxes from cities and
redevelopment agencies to schools.
Incremental Value . Assessed Value of all
property in a Project Area above the Base Year
Value.
Low and Moderate Income Housina or
"Low/Mod" . Housing units created or retained
that are rented or sold to individuals meeting
certain income guidelines.
Passthrouah Aqreements - Agreements
entered into with Taxing Agencies (Le., County,
School) to distribute a portion of Tax Increment
Revenue (applies to Project Areas formed prior
to 1994).
Redevelopment Plan . Plan for revitalization
and redevelopment of land within the Project
Area in order to eliminate blight and remedy the
conditions which caused it.
SB 1045 . Provided for a 1 year extension of
redevelopment plans if a deposit was made to
ERAF in 2003/04.
58 1096 . Provided for a 1 year extension of
redevelopment plans for each year a deposit
was made to ERAF in 2004/05 and 2005/06. Did
not apply to redevelopment projects established
after 1984.
Statutory Tax Sharina . A statutory formula for
distributing a portion of Tax Increment Revenue
to Taxing Agencies (applies to Project Areas
formed after 1993). Sometimes referred to as
"AB 1290 Passthroughs."
Tax Allocation Bond or "TAB" . A bond or
financial obligation issued by the Agency in order
to generate funds to implement the
redevelopment plan. The Bond is repaid with
Tax Increment Revenue.
Tax Increment Revenue or "TI" . 1 % ($1.00 per
$100) of the Incremental Value of a Project Area.
r,-; .'1
,']. r .r. '. i ..~
:'. ( !- (i n ;~: I
September 2Z--27, 2002
An Advisory Services Panel Report
ULI-the Urban Land Institute
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20007-5201
:'i
I !' ~
I'
LI-the Urban Land Institute is a non-
profit research and education organiza-
tion that promotes responsible leadership
in the use of land in order to enhance
the total environment.
The Institute maintains a membership represent-
ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors a
wide variety of educational programs and fonnns
to encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar-
ing of experience. ULI initiates research that
anticipates emerging land use trends and issues
and proposes creative solutions based on that
research; provides advisory services; and pub-.
lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate
information on land use and development.
Established in 1936, the Institute today has more
than 17,000 members and associates from 60 coun-
tries, representing the entire spectnnn of the land
use and development disciplines. Professionals rep-
2
" c,
,
i J
resented include developers, builders, property
owners, investors, architects, public officials, plan-
ners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attorneys,
engineers, financiers, academics, students, and
librarians. ULI relies heavily on the experience of
its members. It is through member involvement
and information resources that ULI has been able
to set standards of excellence in development
practice. The Institute has long been recognized
as one of America's most respected and widely
quoted sources of objective information on urban
planning, growth, and development.
This Advisory Services panel report is intended
to further the objectives of the Institute and to
make authoritative information generally avail-
able to those seeking knowledge in the field of
urban land use.
Richard M. Rosan
President
@2OO3byULI-the Urban Land Institute
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20007-5201
All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any
part of the contents without written permission of the copy-
right holder is prohibited.
ULI Catalog Nwnber: ASS053
Cover photo by Leslie A. Smith.
An Advisory SelYlces Panel Report
': '
he goal of ULI's Advisory Services Program
is to bring the finest expertise in the real
estate field to bear on complex land use plan-
ning and development projects, programs,
and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-
bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to help
sponsors find creative, practical solutions for
issnes such as downtown redevelopment, land
management strategies, evaluation of develop-
ment potential, growth management, community
revitalization, browufields redevelopment, military
base reuse, provision oflow-cost and affordable
housing, and asset management strategies, among
other matters. A wide variety of public, private,
and nonprofit organizations have contracted for
ULI's Advisory Services.
Each pauel team is composed of highly qualified
professionals who volunteer their time to ULI.
They are chosen for their Jrnowledge of the panel
topic and screened to ensure their objectivity.
ULI panel teams are interdisciplinary and typi-
cally include several developers, a landscape
architect, a planner, a market analyst, a finance
expert, and others with the niche expertise
needed to address a given project. ULI teams
provide a holistic look at development problems.
Each panel is chaired by a respected ULI mem-
ber with previous panel experience.
The agenda for a five-day panel assigmnent is in-
tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-
posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-
sor representatives; a day and a half of hour-long
interviews of typically 80 to 100 key community
representatives; and a day and a half of formulat-
ing recommendations. Many long nights of discus-
sion precede the panel's conclusions. On the final
day on site, the panel makes an oral presentation
of its findings and conclnsions to the sponsor. At
the request of the sponsor, a written report is
prepared and published.
Because the sponsoring entities are responsible
for significant preparation before the panel's visit,
including sending extensive hriefing materials to
each member and arranging for the panel to meet
San Pedro, California, September 22-27,2002
with key local community members and stake-
holders in the project under consideration, partic-
ipants in ULI's five-day panel assigmnents are
able to make accurate assessments of a sponsor's
issues and to provide recommendations in a com-
pressed amount of time.
A major strength of the program is ULI's unique
ability to draw on the Jrnowledge and expertise of
its members, including land developers and own-
ers, public officials, academicians, representatives
of financial institutions, and others. In fulfillment
oithe mission of the Urban Land Institute, this
Advisory Services panel report is intended to pro-
vide objective advice that will promote the re-
sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.
j 1[, c :.~, :~: t ::, i "t ~,"i C, !'i
Rachelle L. Levitt
Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice
Mary Beth Corrigan
Vice President, Advisory Services
Nancy Zivitz Sussman
Senior Associate, Advisory Services
Meghan Welsch
Associate, Advisory Services
Jason Bell
Panel Coordinator, Advisory Services
Nancy H. Stewart
Director, Book Program
David James Rose
Manuscript Editor
Betsy VanBuskirk
Art Director
Martha Loomis
Desktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics
Kim Rusch
Graphics
Dianu Stanley-Austin
Director, Publishing Operations
3
! li
; i' I
Ii
','l
Iii
I':'
he ULI Advisory Services program staff
and panel members would like to take this
opportunity to extend special thanks to all
of the following persons and groups.
The following elected officials: the Honorable
James K. Hahn, Mayor, and staff members Troy
Edwards, Abigall Zimmerman, and Wendy Wang;
the Honorable Janice Hahn, Councilwoman, 15th
District, and staff members Mike Molina, Grieg
Asher, and Elise Swanson; the Honorable Jane
Harman, Congresswoman, 36th District, and
staffmember Evelyn Fierro; and the Honorable
Alan Lowenthal, State Assemblyman, 54th Dis-
trict, and staff members Helene Ansel, Norman
Fassler-Katz, and Broc Coward.
The three panel cosponsors: the City of Los Ange-
les Community Redevelopment Agency, the City
of Los Angeles Harbor Department, and the San
Pedro Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.
The city commissioners and staff members from
the Community Redevelopment Agency, the Har-
bor Department, and the Planning Department.
From the Community Redevelopment Agency:
commissioners David Farrar, chairman; John
Schafer, Shu Kwan Woo, Douglas R. Ring, John A.
Ornelas, Marva Smith Battle-Bey, and Madeline
J anis- Aparicio and staff members John McCoy,
Ed Donnelly, Rafique Khan, Susan Totaro, Betty
Pace, and Mary Alice Crowe.
From the Harbor Department: commissioners
Nicholas G. Tonsich, president; Elwood Lui,
Thomas A. Warren, James E. Acevedo, and
Camilla Townsend Kocol and staff members Larry
Keller, Bruce Seaton, Julia Nagano, Stacey G.
Jones, David Mathewson, Tony Gioiello, and Kanya
T. Dorland. From the Planning Department:
Mitchell B. Menzer, president of the commission,
and Shana Murphy and Jeff Pool, staff.
4
The San Pedro Peninsula Chamber of Commerce:
J ayme Wilson, Jim Cross, and Leslie Smith as well
as the chamber's individual supporters: Jerico De-
velopment, Crall-Johnson Foundation, the Victory
Group, Cross America Inc., San Pedro Fish Mar-
ket and Restaurant, Spirit Cruises, Tri-Marine
International, the Whale & Ale, Little Company
of Mary-San Pedro Hospital, Harbor IIlBurance
Agency, C&S Insurance, Sheraton Los Angeles
Harbor Hotel, Butterfield Communications, Mary-
lyn Ginsburg, Greerillaily/Minter, the Katherman
Company, Tom McCain, DDS, Harbor Brake Ser-
vice, HarborFront Properties, HarborView Office
Building, Hussey IIlBurance Agency, Park West-
ern Estates, PriorityOne Printing, Via Cabrillo
Marina 2500, Williams' Bookstore, and Linda
Honey, CFP, EA.
The staff of the Sheraton Hotel San Pedro, espe-
cially Stephen Robbins and Kim Patalano.
The panel aiso would like to thank the Los Ange-
les Harbor Watts Economic Development Corpo-
ration, cochaired by Dennis C. Lord and John
Papadakis, for coordinating the project.
The panel would especially like to recognize the
efforts of the following people during the panel's
on-site visit: John Papadakis, Jayme Wilson, and
David Farrar.
The panel is particularly indebted to the more than
100 community residents, neighborhood council
representatives, government and business lead-
ers, and property owners who provided unique
and valuable insights during interviews and the
community forum. The individual perspectives
gained from these interviews were crucial to the
process. These stakeholders are a major asset in
advancing the interests of San Pedro.
An Advisory Senlces Panel RepDII
'1-;
ULI Panel and Project Staff 6
Foreword: The Panel's Assignment 7
Overview and Summary of Recommendations 10
Market Potential 13
Planning and Design 18
Development Strategies and Implementation 26
Conclusion 33
About the Panel 34
San Pedro, California, Septernber 22-27, 2002
5
i.,
; ~.'
i'
J. Kevin Lawler
Managing Partner
N-K Ventures, LC
West Palm Beach, Florida
: (' :'ri~ l [
Ed Freer, ASLA
Principal Designer
SmithGroup JJR
Madison, WlSconsin
Diana Gonzalez
Founder
DMG Consulting Services, Inc.
Miami, Florida
Edwin R. (Ray) Kimsey, Jr.
Vice President and Principal
Niles Bolton Associates
Atlanta, Georgia
Charles A. Long
Founder
Charles A. Long Associates
Reno, Nevada
Lisa Mitchelson
Portfolio Manager
SSR Realty Advisors
Boston, Massachusetts
6
I
Jennifer Meoli Stanton
Director of Market Planning and
Advisory Services
Faison
Charlotte, North Carolina
:~ i ;.,c I i~; t
Leslie Holst
Senior Associate
Policy and Practice
"
1':1
Jason Bell
Panel Coordinator
Advisory Services
An AdvlsDIY SlIIVIces Panel Report
"1 \
"I I
Make only bold plans" has been the battle
cry of many visionary planners. Over the
past decade, the San Pedro, California, wa-
terfront and downtown have been the sub-
ject of numerous plans-some bold, some less so.
Collectively, these plans do not "connect," and many
of them are in direct conflict with each other. The
challenge for San Pedro-the community, its wa-
terfront, and the city of Los Angeles-is to con-
solidate and connect these plans into a framework
for unified development of the waterfront and
downtown.
San Pedro has a rich and robust history as the
port community of Los Angeles. After years of
plauning for the individual segments of the com-
munity, the ULI panel's mission was straightfor-
ward: to forge an integrated, action-oriented plan
to reconnect the community with its waterfront,
while meeting the many quality-of-life objectives
of the community and the ongoing business and
economic operations of its longstanding partner
in the community's economic destiny-the Port
of Los Angeles.
CCill"tlfiu.nihT [,8G(<c.TC1[Hirj
Part of the city of Los Angeles, tbe waterfront
community of San Pedro is borne to one of the
world's busiest harbors, tbe Port of Los Angeles.
Increasing international trade has sustained ship-
ping volume at tbe port, wbile industrial activities
such as oil refining benefit from long-established
infrastructure, a skilled workforce, and access to
national and regional markets.
Even though the port has expanded significantly
over the past three decades, San Pedro's down-
town commercial district and nearby residential
areas have not. They have been affected by the
same economic and social changes shaping central
urban areas throughout the country. Currently,
the central business district is in continuing tran-
San Pedro, California, September 22-27, 2002
Sacramento.
San Francisco ..Oaklana
.5anJose
Fresno.
. Los Angeles
SaM Pedro.. Long Beach
.San Diego
'~_'" lie,I' i' ,,:
(:I-"i1",:: - ~J ~; ,:;.- I..-f'j
e,t U'I'3 !='U1 'it!_ -,,),:,'C~
','itil,I-e; ,',1,-,:.,')
ii':C" - 'n,1
7
'-.
5.n F~,..
V.II,,:/
'"-
F_'~F~
.......
",""
H;1I5
L06 ~~1.9~~~",,~ .
Or:a"!!oCoun'!:y
Fulllll"tOn
Study;'....
.
"0
'-
'0
o
0,
".
sition with a surrounding neighhorhood of very
low. to moderate-income residents and nearby
moderate- to high-income residential areas.
Through its Community Redevelopment Agency
(CRA), the city of Los Aogeles established two re-
vitalization areas: the Beacon Street Project Area
in 1969 and the Pacific Corridor Redevelopment
Area in 2002. The tight urban fabric of the Beacon
Street area, a longstandiog city district along Har-
bor Boulevard, was cleared for redevelopment dur-
ing the 1970s. This clearance, together with the
expansion of the port facilities, replaced a long-
standing urban district along Harbor Boulevard
with a large vacant area that disconnected the
downtown from the waterfront.
Office and retail vacancies in the Beacon Street
area remain high, 30 years after clearance. A cen-
trally located, multistory office buildiog, known as
the old Logicon Buildiog or the Pacific 'Irade Cen-
8
ter, has been vacant for the past ten years. More-
over, a highly visible downtown parcel, H-2, has
been vacant since the 1970s.
In the central business district, local retail estab-
lishments gradually closed and were first replaced
by thrift shops and other budget stores. Pioneer-
ing coffee shops, restaurants, art galleries, and
professional offices are now replacing them. A Los
Aogeles County Courthouse, the Harbor Depart-
ment Headquarters, and other municipal and pri-
vate offices now anchor the downtown, creating
an important component of weekday bnsiness ac-
tivity. Private developers have restored a number
of attractive historic buildiogs and many of these
downtown sites, including the restored landmark
Warner Grand Theater, are frequently used for
movie and television location shoots.
Pacific Avenue, the commercial core of the Pacific
Corridor area, has local services such as mechan-
ics, barbershops, locksmiths, appliance stores, and
banks. These commercial entities extend for 20
blocks in a bnsiness corridor that is distinct from
the central downtown district.
': liD- \X(,fcr lit
Stretchiog four miles from the Vmcent Thomas
Bridge to the Cabrillo Beach breakwater, the San
Pedro waterfront is adjacent to the downtown and
residential areas. Under the jurisdiction of the
Los Aogeles Harbor Department, the waterfront
contains a variety of active maritime-related uses,
two museums, several marinas, and a heavily used
public beach and boat launch. The fishing fleet and
related support activities remain an important
feature, although much less so than during their
peak almost 50 years ago. In addition, there are
isolated areas of successful visitor-oriented com-
mercial enterprise, industrial sites, and aban-
doned, vacant, or underutilized sites.
Other important features include a very busy
Cruise Center, the Ports 0' Call Village commer-
cial development, and a modern marina. Plans for
expansion of the marina as part of Cabrillo Phase
II are now under consideration. The Ports 0' Call
properties are operated by a limited number of
leaseholders under a master lease withio a long-
An Advisory Senlcas Panel Report
tem agreement. The Harbor Department con-
trols the southern segment of Ports 0' Call.
As San Pedro was slow to expelience the urban
renaissance that took root in many central cities
and waterfronts during the 1990s, the port and tbe
CRA pursued more intense planning and develop-
ment initiatives independent of one another. These
efforts resulted in a series of unrealized plans and
failed public/private ventures. In 1999, a memo-
randum of understanding between the Harbor De-
partment and the CRA was signed to coordinate
downtown and waterfront development. However,
the relationship envisioned by this agreement has
not been achieved, as the two agencies were un-
able to establish an effective working relationship.
("-"-'
,i'\
In June 2001, Mayor James K. Hahn and Conncil-
woman Janice Hahn, both residents of San Pedro,
entered office, creating a renewed sense of opti-
mism, cooperation, and opportunity. Currently,
local elected officials and community stakeholders
share a strong interest in creating a broad con-
sensus for transforming the downtown and the
waterfront.
San Pedro has three active neighborhood councils,
all of which are interested in downtown and water-
front redevelopment efforts. These councils pro-
vide an opportunity for local community participa-
tion in the decisions of the city of Los Angeles. In
San Pedro, California. Septernber 22-27. 2002
addition, the Port Community Advisory Counnit-
tee, representing a range of business, labor, and
community groups, serves as an advisory body to
the Harbor Department Board of Counnissioners.
The CRA's decisions concerning downtown San
Pedro are guided by input provided by the Port
Community Advisory Counnittee.
A panel of community stakeholders developed plans
for a waterfront Grand Promenade. In June 2002,
the Harbor Counnission approved the concept of
the promenade. This promenade plan is set forth
in the Waterfront Access Task Force for the Com-
munityand Harbor (WATCH) plan addressed
later in this report.
~ -,.-,~
9
U !' i.:'
1 '~ . I
1,,1: i
lil
tel
L,I
[',-",j
,-IJ [[
,:
he panel's approach focuses on providing
prescriptive solutions that are intended to
endure long after this report is published.
To determine potential workable solutions,
the panel has addressed not only the questions
posed hy the sponsors, but also, and perhaps more
important, consciously has chosen to address what
it believes is a realistic and actionable basis on
which to proceed.
~ "
,
,",! 13
The panel is keenly aware that both passion and
politics have been in the forefront in recent months.
The panelists are deeply impressed with the level
of community involvement and consensus that the
WATCH plan has engendered. It is a credit to the
San Pedro community that there is an active, heart-
felt initiative to reconnect the community to its
waterfront.
However, the panel is equally cognizant of the fact
that the waterfront is not the sole issue affecting
the San Pedro community. Other issues of concern
include the following:
. maintaining the community's character;
. increasing public safety;
. achieving longstanding efforts to revitalize the
downtown;
. finding acceptable housing solutions, both for
the existing stock and for the introduction of
new housing; and
. fostering economic prosperity by attracting
employment opportunities and preserving the
community's standard of living.
All these issues and more are ones that have been
often repeated in the various planning documents
the panel has reviewed as well as during the more
10
than 75 interviews the panel conducted while
on site.
In the panel's opinion, singularly focusing on the
waterfront and the Grand Promenade is extraor-
dinarily risky. The concept of the Grand Prome-
nade itself is powerful, and undeniable in its basic
merit. A singular or myopic focus on the Grand
Promenade as "the solution" for San Pedro, how-
ever, is far too narrow in the panel's view. The
panel strongly endorses the concept ofthe Grand
Promenad~xtending from bridge to breakwa-
ter. On the other hand, the panel has serious res-
ervations concerning the specific plan presented
in the WATCH plan as it incorporates much of the
existing land uses and the arrangement of uses
along San Pedro's community waterfront.
Similarly, the expressed beliefthat the Port of Los
Angeles is the singular problem of the commu-
nity strikes the panel as too facile. To the panel, it
seems undeniable that the port and the San Pedro
community in fact have been longstanding part-
ners in each other's destiny and economic welfare.
The notion that the port "owes" the San Pedro
community economic l'reparations" for its alleged
ills over the past 100 years seems strange and
misplaced to the panel.
Neither endorsing nor condemning the port, the
panel starts its work with the understanding that
the San Pedro community and the port have been
and will continue to be linked in a common destiny.
Despite the strong linkages between the port and
the San Pedro community, there has been a grow-
ing gap in their respective economic conditions
over the past 30 years. The loss of the shipbuild-
ing industry, and the demise of the southern Cali-
fornia fiBhing fleet and the canneries that both were
once an integral part of the San Pedro waterfront,
are often cited as reasons. At the same time, the
port has responded to evolving glohal market con-
ditions and opportunities with steadily increased
An Advisory SeAlees Panel Report
containerization and the continning growth and
popularity ofthe cruise ship industry. All of this is,
of courne, old news to the San Pedro community.
Equally old news is the deterioration of the cen-
tral core of the downtown and the once-thriving
local service retail establishments along Sixth and
Seventh streets and Pacific Avenue. Similar de-
clines in retail occupancies have occUlTed along
the waterfront on port-owned property, specifi-
cally at the Ports 0' Call Village.
The panel has examined the market issues-which
will be addressed in more detail later in this report
-and concluded that market and development op-
portunities indeed exist. They do not, however, in-
volve the restoration of the old, nor do they entail
the introduction of a major base of national chain
retailers. The size of the market base limits the
scope of the reUlll that is realistically supportable
in the community.
In contrast, opportunities abound in the housing
sector. It is clear that San Pedro is being discov-
ered for its stock of entry-level housing (by south-
ern California market standards) and its unique
community character and scale. The panel was
surprised to discover that, in a thriving, supply-
deficient metropolitan market, so little new hous-
ing has been developed in the community and that
the CRNs development plans (such as the Beacon
Street Redevelopment Project) do not capitalize
on this strong and readily available opportunity.
The community's underdeveloped tourism and
recreational base also mystifies the panel. Cruise
ship passenger traffic is steadily increasing at the
port and many weekend "day-trippers" are at-
tracted to the restaurants at the waterfront, yet
there appear to be no strong efforts to expand on
this opportunity. Signage pointing the way to the
waterfront and other local attractions is poor or
nonexistent. Few new facillties have been added
and no attempts at "branding" the San Pedro com-
munity were evident during the panel's visit.
An obstacle to increasing tourism is the limited ac-
cess to and the generally undermainUlined charac-
ter of the waterfront. That visitors find their way
there in the face of confusing access, poorly main-
tained physical structures such as the Ports 0' Call
San Pedro. Calitornia. Septernber 22-27, 2002
Village, and virtually no attention to grounds
maintenance is a testament to the powerful draw
of the waterfront.
,,, -is
I, ':c i 1 :iYI'-~
In the panel's view, it is not a question of market
potential or development opportunities. Though
certainly not unlimited, clearly discernible oppor-
tunities are readily at hand. The panel believes the
essential market-driven issues are the following:
. the need to Improve access to and circulation
v;,rithin the community, including "gateway" en-
tries at the northern and southern ends of the
downtown area;
. the need to "unlock" real estate sites for devel-
opment;
. the need for the adoption of high-quality devel-
opment standards; and
. the need to invest-and to invest significantly-
in public Improvements that raise the quality
and character of San Pedro's public areas in its
downtown core and waterfront.
(':,.'~.:!C~-i:l'l:~ :'IS,=:L::"" 2llU Ul"[; '~.:
Though the issue of "gateways" into the downtown
and waterfront areas is not within the panel's
charge or study area, the panel strongly urges
11
community leaders to address it. If access and
circulation are difficult, it will impede the develop-
ment of key sites. An area of immediate need, it
requires attention now, before new public and
private development initiatives advance and then
are constrained.
How to forge a cohesive, well-integrated frame-
work for the successful development of the water-
front and the core downtown area is the challenge.
At present, the City of Los Angeles Harhor De-
partment controls the waterfront. The city's Com-
munity Redevelopment Agency has the mandate
for two redevelopment areas: the original Bea-
con area and the more recently adopted Pacific
Corridor area. The boundaries of these areas ad-
join in some places, but they do not overlap. The
combination of the boundary jurisdictional issues
and the basic differences in organizational mission
and style makes it understandable why a panel
was requested. When the Harbor Watts Economic
Development Corporation, the Port Community
Advisory Committee, the San Pedro Downtown
and Waterfront Task Force, neighborhood coun-
cils, the chamber of commerce, and business and
labor unions are added to the mix, even more lay-
ers and interests emerge.
It would he easy to suggest yet another overarch-
ing organization or even an entity with specifically
focused "joint powers" to address these issues. Yet,
in the panel's opinion, what the community needs
is to streamline and simplify.
12
This report provides two very specific recommen-
dations regarding how to organizationally mobilize
to implement the panel's key findings. These are:
. the creation of a new limited-purpose entity-
the San Pedro Community Waterfront 'frust-
a nonprofit association whose sole purpose is
to hold, improve, and maintain dedicated public
lands on the waterfront, including a promenade
for the use of all citizens; and
. the transformation ofthe San Pedro Downtown
and Waterfront Task Force into a permanent
organization to coordinate the implementation
of waterfront and downtown development in
San Pedro.
These recommendations are described in more de-
tail in subsequent parts of this report. Additional
suggestions include sharpening the focus, the
methods of operation, and timetable of the two
largest existing organizations-the Port of Los
Angeles and the CRA-regarding directed devel-
opment initiatives in the waterfront area and the
core downtown.
There is an entrenched mosaic of organizations
with direct responsibility for or tangible interests
in the future direction of and development activi-
ties along the waterfront and in the adjoining core
community "uplands." The panel's approach is
simple: to build on the strengths of the existing
organizations and to supplement only where there
is a logical or unfilled need that is not likely to be
well satisfied by existing institutions.
An Advisory Services Panel Repurt
,
II
;,',-
':
an Pedro's history as a port hub, a fishing
village, and later as a live/work town domi-
nated by the port is still in evidence as it
has transfmmed into a multifaceted resi-
dential bedroom community. San Pedro's identity
is still closely tied to the port.
In the context of the greater Los Angeles area,
the port makes a tremendous economic impact
throughout the region. International trade rela-
tions through the port are a vehicle for jobs, a
source of direct revenue for the city of Los Ange-
les, and an important component of the California
and U.S. economies. It is a symbiotic relationship
in which both the port and the community of
San Pedro dramatically benefit or suffer at each
other's hands.
San Pedro is also connected to greater Los Ange-
les. Yet, San Pedro has not shared in the dynamic
growth of the overall metropolitan area. With a
population of 9.7 million, Los Angeles is now the
largest city in the United States. The city has an
unemployment rate ofless than 5 percent, which
fuels an ongoing demand for quality housing from
an ever-rising tide of new residents flocking to a
relatively healthy job base. San Pedro, however,
has not captured its share of new residents or
businesses. San Pedro commuters drive to mili-
tary bases; office workers drive to downtown Los
Angeles, Long Beach, Ton'ance, and other south-
ern California business centers; and service work-
ers drive to the airport. San Pedro is well located,
providing residents with convenient access to the
major employment centers in greater Los Ange-
les, but it is not positioned to capture the residen-
tial, retail, or office'market overflow.
San Pedro's strengths are clear and marketable,
and should be built upon. The town has interesting
architecture and beautifully restored buildings,
such as the Warner Grand Theater, a 1930s art
deco movie theater that is often used as a set in
the production of films. The museums, the Korean
San Pedro, California, September 22-27,2002
Bell-given to Los Angeles in 1976 by South Korea
to symbolize the friendship between the two
countrie&-the ships, the fascinating visual show
of a working port, the distinctive restaurants, and
the flourishing arts community are assets that
enhance tbe quality of life and define the character
of this place. Most important, San Pedro has per-
sonality.
To recognize San Pedro's market potential is to
embrace the fact that approxlmately 40 percent of
San Pedro's residents are Hispanic and that this
segment of the community is as integral to San
Pedro as the Port of Los Angeles. Greater Los
Angeles has nearly double the number of Hispanic
residents of any other city in the nation--4.5 mil-
lion. This demographic reality is reflected in the
San Pedro community. Within walking distance of
downtown, 68.5 percent of residents are Hispanic.
The presence of this ethnic group continues San
Pedro's rich history as the home of hardworking
inunigrant families. If the town's founding families
and community leaders regard the Hispanic com-
munity as an obstacle, or regard it as irrelevant,
then San Pedro will not realize its captive buy-
ing power.
h~~fo:r. h\mi,;ct Cum~[n[jns
San Pedro's downtown was once thriving, with
family-owned businesses and destination retail at
Ports 0' Call Village at the harbor. As the compo-
sition of residents living in San Pedro changed, a
radical transfonnation of the retail industry was
happening simultaneously. San Pedro's history as
a fishing village and a company town dominated
by harbor workers gave way as immigrants moved
in and low-income housing was built, and affluent
second- and third-generation residents, seeking a
suburban lifestyle, crossed Western Avenue.
Downtowns in every city across the country lost
customers to malls as the population shifted to
illIt
r.l,~_i.i;" ".all "
.-'
--,-.,:0 :'; ,-" 'e's 1::: ~i
F:'
13
suburbs. Nowadays, as American lifestyles con-
tinue to change, malls are feeling the squeeze from
big-box retail, with Wal-Mart leading the charge.
San Pedro's average household income is below
the national average. Nonetheless, approximately
half of all residents within walking distance of
downtown have household incomes more than
$50,000 and 41 percent are white-collar workers.
Also, upscale city singles between 25 to 35 years
of age have discovered San Pedro, finding it an
attractive and fun place to live.
San Pedro is growing at less than 1 percent a year.
n is not declining, nor is it surrounded by outward
growth away from town. High-income growth is
creeping ever slowly around the edges of Western
Avenue, along the coast, and inward.
~lGI?j! Sfrenuths
Existing retailers in downtown San Pedro can pro-
vide a base upon which to reestablish the business
district as a pedestrian destination. For this to hap-
pen, the area needs to be repositioned as a bou-
tique shopping area, with specialty tenants cater-
ing to tourists and local residents beyond Gaffey
Street. Currently, foot traffic from the waterfront
to downtown is not significant. San Pedro's down-
town can be tied to its waterfront, provided that
waterfront retail uses are complementary and en-
hance the overall San Pedro retail experience.
Downtown lies outside San Pedro's main traffic
corridors-Gaffey Street and Pacific Avenue. Its
restaurants and stores are visited as destinations
14
or because of the cross-flow of pedestrian traffic.
Major retailers that serve moderate-income pa-
trons can capture this the market more effectively
on Gaffey Street than on Seventh Street. Tourist-
oriented retail can capture cruise ship travelers
most effectively at the waterfront, especially if
it is located in a pleasant, open departure area.
Therefore, if downtown is going to be revitalized
into a vibrant, active destination, the chamber of
commerce must coordinate planning, marketing,
and management efforts with the port.
San Pedro's restaurants are core retail anchors.
The unique and friendly gathering places that fea-
ture ethnic foods constitute an advantage for San
Pedro in the competition with predictable chain
restaurants. With their diverse atmospheres and
clienteles, restaurants such as Papadakis Taverna,
the Fish Market, Whale & Ale, Ante's Croatian
Restaurant, and Sacred Grounds coffee shop could
not be re-created elsewhere.
Successful restaurants in San Pedro add to the
authenticity, character, depth, and allure of the re-
tail environment. They are also pivotal to attract-
ing customers from the cruise ships, from the other
side of Western Avenue, and from throughout the
greater Los Angeles area. Ports 0' Call Village is
obsolete, yet 72 percent of San Pedro's residents
say it has good restaurants. No trendy themed
chain restaurant is better for San Pedro's retail
market position than its long-term, family-owned
and -operated gathering places. San Pedro can
build upon this traditional legacy. Indeed, the
seemingly strong sales volumes of the existing
restaurants are the most credible marketing
tool available for attracting significant upscale
retailers.
Because the city is blessed with a vibrant arts com-
munity, San Pedro's galleries also are leading the
way to creating a unique retail destination. The
area across from the Los Angeles County Court-
house shows what first needs to happen for the
downtown to rebuild into a pedestrian-friendly
retail corridor. Downtown merchants that serve
niche lifestyle interests, such as the local wine shop,
can draw from both area residents and toillists,
An AdvIsDry Services Panel RePDrt
luring them from the concentration of entertain-
ment uses and restaurants at the port.
>l':!i'~ Hr~t .1 ',\,~
Upscale retailers seek locations where they can hit
the hull's-eye of maximum density of high-income
residents. These retailers view San Pedro from
the context of covering the Los Angeles market.
San Pedro's residential market is not yet strong
enough to justify a retailer to open a separate lo-
cation on this peninsula, and the tourist market
has not heen established to effectively compete
with the destination offerings in Long Beach. For
example, when a Border's Books & Music or a
Barnes & Noble evaluates the greater Los Ange-
les market, it zeroes in on how to locate closest to
the greatest volume of college-educated, high-in-
come households with high purchase rates.
In the absence of ideal locations within the strong-
est residential base, retailers locate where other
retailers are already achieving high sales volumes.
San Pedro does not yet have the residential or the
tourist base to support retail as the lead economic
revitalization tool. However, population and in-
come growth siguals to retailers that an opportu-
nity to locate in an up-and-coming residential and
tourist market exists. By revitalizing its housing
stock and welcoming new residents, San Pedro
will be taking powerful steps toward effecting re-
tail economic development.
Retail revitalization from the inside out is more
likely to be successful in San Pedro because it is
already slowly happening. Business incentive pro-
grams to encourage startups should be in place to
foster entrepreneurship and to stimulate demand
among potential tenants for vacant space down-
town and at the waterfront. Vacant buildings
around downtown and in view of the connection
between the waterfront and downtown may be
prime retail locations one day. Funds to purchase
and provide buildout expenses and financing for
key locations to connect downtown to the water-
front should be considered.
(] ; ~ I .:;' ::,
Curb appeal is difficult to maintain in a retail envi-
ronment filled with public streets and independent
San Pedro, California, Sepfember 22-27, 2002
owners. To the extent that retail in San Pedro can
be treated as though it were investment property,
managed, maintained, and operated as a cohesive
shopping center, the prospects for attracting and
retaining quality retailers will improve. Safety,
cleanliness, consistent signage, frontage condi-
tions, parking availability, and marketing cannot
make a retail district successful, but their absence
can cause it to fail.
Professional management would need to include
walking safety patrols and the provision of fre-
quently cleaned public restrooms. Training and
quality audits for service, display, merchandising,
and coordinated marketing programs would help
to nnify retailers. If the waterfront, local cultural
attractions, and the downtown are marketed in
unison, they will all benefit from the increased
perception of critical mass and from cross traffic.
Furthermore, the downtown district should be
clearly demarcated at both of its entry points.
There are no postcards, T-shirts, or coffee mugs
emblazoned with images of San Pedro; it is not
obvious how to best spend a day and a dollar in
San Pedro.
Sfl! C;1'tnt.~1 h!1:?t1: c\
Housing starts are an alternative tool retailers
use to assess a market when sales volumes or de-
mographics do not match spending power. The
Los Angeles housing market is so undersupplied
that national housing reports currently list the va-
cancy rate as "virtually none." Studies completed
in 2002 for San Pedro estimate that the housing
demand could support over 3,000 new units, yet
15
there may have been fewer than 350 net new units
added in the past ten years. Only 27 permits were
issued in 2001, with the first six months of 2002 on
par with this pace.
Housing growth stimulates commercial growth.
San Pedro's housing market is out of synch with
the greater Los Angeles market. The residential
buying power necessary to attract and support
viable retail downtown and at the waterfront lies
on the other side of Western Avenue. The devel-
opment of market-rate infil] housing in quantities
large enough to counter the disproportionate share
oflow-income and special needs housing that has
been allocated to San Pedro can happen only if
there are parcels large enough to create an im-
pact. An infusion of families to counter the nega-
tive perception of gangs and transients is possible
only if the housing stock and the community are
attractive and well maintained and there are ade-
quate educational opportunities.
With a 40 percent vacancy rate in the San Pedro
office and industrial market area, office develop-
ment is not reconunended as a strategy for eco.-
nomic development at this time. Though not a
priority, new office development constitutes a
potential option if certain conditions are met. Re-
sponsible office development in today's economy
involves preleasing or preselling to stable, credit-
worthy businesses with the potential to provide
livable-wage jobs for local residents.
Economic development recruiters could nse tax
incentives and other resonrces to attract large-
footprint tenants who would gain some advantage
by locating near the port. Potential tenants in-
clude vendors, suppliers, investors, lenders, ser-
vices providers, and companies that already do
business with the port. Relatively proximate to
Los Angeles International and Long Beach aIr-
ports, San Pedro is a commutable distance to
other major employment centers in Los Angeles,
providing an additional advantage to prospective
office tenants.
16
ii'
l ri
I, "
San Pedro's waterfront can and should be the cat-
alyst for the community. There are nwnerous ex-
amples of snccessful waterfront projects ail along
the West Coast, indeed all over the world. Most
of the successful uses are a combination of parks,
public facilities, and commercial services.
An active container port does not preclude the po-
tential for active recreational areas. Charleston,
South Carolina, for example, is the second-largest
container port on the East Coast; it also has become
ODe of the nation's most upscale tourist destinations,
celebrating its military, industrial, social, and ar-
chitectural history. The most appropriate uses for
San Pedro's waterfront are those that preserve
the authenticity of this community, provide active
recreational opportunities for residents, and offer
retail uses and visual entertainment for cruise
ship tourists.
In the panel's view, this is a working waterfront
that can celebrate the harbor and its heritage.
The waterfront should not become a sterile envi-
ronment. It also should not be dominated by chain
retailers that can be replicated at Long Beach or
anywhere else.
The waterfront can be an economic engine in many
ways. Because children constitnte 25 percent of
San Pedro's population, the waterfront needs to
be a place where things can be touched and climbed
on, and thiB fact should be reflected in any devel-
opment plans. The following is a partial list of po-
tential active and passive recreational, retail, and
entertainment uses for development on port land:
. parks and trails;
. museums and aquariums;
. puhlic art galleries;
. interpretive historical and educational opportu-
nities;
. boating, windsnrfing, and hang gliding;
. wildlife viewing;
. festival/staging;
An AdYlsory Services Panel RlllIort
. tourism-oriented retail and restaurants with
outdoor seating;
. athletic facilities;
. fishing/fishing charters;
. retired naval ships, wrecks, and submarines;
. botanical gardens;
. a cooking school;
. carriage rides;
San Pedro, California, September 22-27, 2002
. a chapel;
. a band shell/amphitheater;
. markets-fish, produce, flowers, candy;
. a resort hotel;
. shipbuilding; and
. a marina/nautical shoplbass pro shop.
17
. ('
, l:i_
lanning and design are central to many of
the issues confronting the community of
San Pedro, and they also provide potential
solutions. The historical physical plauning
grid was an effective link to the oceanfront envi-
ronment for early bUBinesses and residents. Over
time, industrial, port, and transportation uses have
disconnected the waterfront from the historical
downtown of San Pedro. Reclalming the physical
relationship between the San Pedro community
and the waterfront is essential to physical revital-
ization, in the panel's opinion.
Numerous studies have been conducted over re-
cent years. The Pacific Corridor Redevelopment
Project Report, the Beacon Street Redevelop-
ment Project, and even the San Pedro General
Plan are all examples. The Pacific Corridor Rede-
velopment Project Report, adopted in May 2002,
established a clear mission and comprehensive
goals for most of the traditional downtown San
Pedro community. Calling for neighborhood pres-
ervation and rehabilitation, it identifies thematic
elements to tie the downtown to the harbor. These
plans have been thoughtful, and many ofthe con-
clusions reached are similar to those of the panel.
However, the planning process has been discon-
nected, with uneven implementation.
Recent visioning exercises through community
workshops, and advisory groups have made signif-
icant progress in breaking down barriers among
the various stakeholders. These efforts also have
identified divergent opinions. It is time to build on
the substantial consensus reached through studies
like the WATCH plan and to continue to resolve
points of contention. As the panel learned during
its visit, the "alignment" of political interests and
the desire of community members to trust one an-
other, city institutions, and elected leaders have
never been better.
Immediate planning initiatives should lay the foun-
dation for the final implementation of the following:
18
. connect the downtown grid directly to the wa-
terfront;
. introduce clear gateways to the community with
wayfinding signage while establishing a strong
entry along Harbor Boulevard;
. establish distinctive subdistricts along the prom-
enade, including a cruise terminal, a maritime
museum and civic center, a festival park, a fish-
ing village, and a marina;
. create a new Crescent traditional neighborhood
development;
. define the downtown commercial area, with Sixth
Street as the "main street," Pacific Avenue as
the "market street," and Seventh Street as the
"artists' walle";
. establish "addresses" for residential neighbor-
hoods and preserve and strengthen community
connections;
. connect cultural amenities with open space and
recreation resources;
. develop parcel H-2 as mixed-use downtown hous-
ing with ground-floor retail; and
. encourage residential infill.
Clearly, the powerful concept of the promenade,
engendered by the WATCH planning process, has
established an effective symbol for opening access
for the San Pedro community to the sea. The prom-
enade concept allows for the introduction of a mix
of compatible, nonindustrial uses, both public
and private, along the waterfront, including
recreation, retail, and restaurants as well as an
expanded cruise terminal facility, a maritime mu-
seum, public art, and the commercial fishing vil-
lage. 'lb be successful, this concept can be imple-
mented with consideration given to the following
priorities:
An Advisory Services Panel Report
Crc:lIc.ent
DllItrlct
FllInlnll Flc~t
Entry/Gat~way
L.A, Marltlm~ MU&l:um DI6trlct
MalnCnann~1
l~rmlnal16land
VICU.ryLa~
Kay,
R~~ldtmtial
Historic C~ntral Buslne5!i DI!itrid with Propol\ed Mixed U5e
, Community Waterfront Pad:
Pub-lie ACC~5'
li:~,,;'('{>llnljtltutlon81 or Public Building"
_ Downtown Development 51t~
. Agree on the desirability and validity ofthe
promenade----extending from bridge to break-
water-to be implemented in a series of phases
over the next decade.
. Begin detailed design of a specific section of the
promenade immediately.
. Identify the right construction "starting point."
The portion of the promenade between the World
Cruise Center and the Los Angeles Maritime
Museum would provide significant synergy
among the activities at the tenninal, the mu-
seum, and the restaurants and shops downtown.
San Pedro, California. September 22-27. 2002
. Execute the first segment with skill and keen
attention to detail. The quality of design and
materials used will be critical.
,< 'h '_1i~'rJ[;'-'i;i-ih;:
. Ensure that this initial phase is concentrated
and focused. Even though work might start on
remediation, demolition, and construction at dis-
connected points along the promenade, the first
new phase must deliver a clear, coherent
scheme that stands on its own.
. Make the initial section work with improve-
ments on Sixth and Seventh streets and Pacific
19
20
----'Cent...5~
JI ~5;dentlaINeleh~Orl100d
UUULJ
Ent.rjtlGateway
I
VlctoryU.~
.,:c
, (W::;ndtn!3
o (9) 0 ~'f'C Av,
000000-
IDDOCUD[
O'D~[1CI
~yg n~fJIl
Red Car Lan/
I ~" s;:- ;:~~~~'
I _ ....__ ~~
L.A. Maritlm~ MU5e:um District Fire:
Station
Avenue to deliver a series of visual experiences
that "tell the story" of San Pedro.
. Make the design flexible to overcome technical
and operational impediments, such as access to
ships.
. Deliver recognizable "districts" such as the sug-
gested Downtown, Museum, and Crescent dis-
tricts, adding variety to and unique signatures
for each segment.
. Program the promenade to link existing resources
such as the maritime museum, the aquarium,
the fishing fleet, the beach, and the pier. These
existing elements should be simultaneously im-
proved and expanded.
. Maintain an appropriate civic character while
delivering the unique, authentic experience of
an active seaport with a significant historical
legacy.
. Use the promenade and AngelB Gate as icons to
help establish a "San Pedro brand identity."
[i::f J!':~v[-'i:;i~~nc:'l
n! i"f:n 8:: t:-;::fi (! n..
In addressing the development of the waterfront,
the panel has delineated the following develop-
ment districts: District lA, District lB, the Mu-
seum District, and the Crescent District. For the
panel's purposes, the central business district
runs from Harbor Boulevard to Pacific Avenue.
The North Opportunities Diagrams (on pages 19,
20, and 21) delineate these districts and provide
an overall view of the panel's recommendations.
Separated from the downtown by Harbor Boule-
vard, District lA stretches from approximately
Third Street to the cruise terminal. For District
lA, the panel recommends:
. redeveloping Harbor Boulevard as a strong
entry so that it does not cut off the downtown
from the waterfront;
. developing a mixed-use project in the area
south of the cruise terminal;
. internalizing the parking structures for the
mixed-use development and the cruise terminal,
An Advisory Services Panel Repor1
lining the structures with commercial and retail
uses to screen parking; and
. designing public access to the promenade and
the waterfront that is sensitive to the security
needs of the cruise tenninal.
The Museum District encompasses the area sur-
rounding the Los Angeles Maritime Museum be-
tween approximately Tlrird and Ninth streets.
For the Museum District, the panel suggests:
. locating local museums in one area, giving them
an identity;
. allowing the Los Angeles Maritime Museum to
expand its collection into a new building along
the promenade;
. considering opeuing the old ferry terminal that
is currently a part of the Los Angeles Maritime
Museum, if the museum has the opportunity to
expand; and
. weaving pedestrian waterfront access along and
around the existing Los Angeles Maritime Mu-
seum building, providing a waterfront prome-
nade wherever possible.
District 1B extends from the edge of the Museum
District at approximately Ninth Street to the
edge of the main channel, including Ports 0' Call.
District 1B reinforces tbe entry to the port. The
panel recommends:
. developing a port museum or other public build-
ings;
. displaying an entry sculpture that will provide
a signature statement and an OPPOltUnity for
new art;
. creating a waterfront park where people can
watch the boats-and where cruise ship passen-
gers can watch the people in the park; and
. erecting a collection of public interpretation
pavilions in the park to showcase information on
the port, local history, or the fishing industry.
The Crescent District follows Crescent Avenue
to the Cabrillo Marina. The panel has based its
recommendations for the Crescent District on the
assumption that the port's plans for the Cabrillo II
San Pedro, California, September 22-27,2002
f'~y9Iclll and Visual
Cn:9Unt
Dis"trlct
Fishln'ilF1tct
/
malina will proceed in the near term. However,
the panel believes that this land is too valuable for
land-based boat sales and would be better used for
residential development. The South Opportunities
Diagram (on page 22) shows the panel's contin-
ued promotion of the promenade and waterfront
access where possible along the east/west channel.
It also contains the panel's recommendations for
developing housing below the bluff in a manner
that creates a waterfront subdistrict. Residential
development should include the following:
. a street plaza;
. a public green;
. linkages to the waterfront and park;
. ties into existing circulation pattern;
. building mass designed with sensitivity to
views; and
. a pedestrian-friendly layout.
The panel suggests that the fishing fleet be main-
tained, with the addition of a retail fishing store
to complement the commercial fish market. The
panel did not specifically address Warehouse L
However, the panel believes that the financial
merits of the adaptive use of this building should
21
-.~r
(;\\.lIlIl>\
INI>f>t
O,\.IIII/l\
".f>'"
fl/l/lt
f\f>"'\1"I~
M/l?
be evaluated; if reuse is not cost-beneficial, the
structure should be removed to permit a complete
redevelopment of the area and the waterfront.
For the H-2 site, the panel recommends the devel-
opment of a three- to four-story mixed-use build-
ing with street-level commercial space topped by
residential nnits. In the illustrations on page 23,
the panel suggests a design that focuses on an
entry courtyard, with covered arcades lining the
commercial space on three sides of the structure
with an architectural style and roof lines that re-
flect those of the local area. A three- to four-story
building of this type can provide a transition from
the current stock of historic two-story structures
to the large commercial buildings from the 1970s.
In terlllB of the sequencing of physical develop-
ment, the panel recommends focusing first on the
promenade and facade improvements in the cen-
tral business district. New commercial uses in Dis-
trict lA should be developed next, connecting the
cruise ternrinal to the bottom of Sixth Street. De-
velopment in District 1B should upgrade existing
restaurants and shops and introduce new ones at
Ports 0' Call Village. Then the development of
civic buildings, such as an annex for the maritime
museum and a waterfront park, should follow.
22
g g
$ ~
Ent.r;yStatU/l
Key:
Propof>ed Par~land
Re",lden'tial
En'tryfGa'teway
c j'; :~;~
It is difficult for visitors to locate downtown San
Pedro and the waterfront. As depicted in the left-
hand illustration on page 24, the entrance to the
historic central business district and the water-
front lies well outside these areas. Opportunities
exist along the primary vehicle circulation routes
-Harbor Freeway, Gaffey Street, and Harbor
Boulevard-to use signage to create "gateways"
leading visitors to the downtown and the water-
front.
Vehicle access along Pacific Avenue is not welcom-
ing. There are few, if any, signs directing motor-
ists to the waterfront and its amenities. Improve-
ments in access and wayfinding can make San
Pedro easier to visit. Consideration should be
given to the quality and location of signs to
achieve the greatest impact.
Both primary and secondary gateways providing
vehicular and pedestrian access to the San Pedro
downtown and waterfront are identified in the
right-hand illustration on page 24. Signage should
be used at these intersections to direct visitors to
the downtown, the waterfront, and parking areas,
giving consideration to pedestrian circulation
routes. The themes for the area should be noted
on the signage.
An Advisory SlllVIces Panel Report
Public infrastructure improvements designed to
link the downtown and the waterfront should in-
clude pedestrian crosswalks, signalization im-
provements, clear signage for directions, way-
finding and branding, parking upgrades, facade
improvements along Sixth and Seventh streets,
open space development, and tree planting. The
panel's vision for these improvements as they
relate to Harbor Boulevard is depicted in the
illustration on page 25.
Clustering improvements along the main roads in
the central business district that lead to the water-
front can provide greater visual impact, and the
use of signage can characterize San Pedro as a
place with an identity. Facade improvements,
storefront awnings, and other elements that can
tie together the restaurants and the shops can
create a welcoming atmosphere. Guidelines pro-
moting good design should be set using the many
examples of building facade and streetscape im-
provements that exist in downtown San Pedro as
benchmarks to evaluate proposals.
<:;.!'fjfZC{ triG Ur.i\r,l.~'L1C'JJn 8:1(1 H'lG
;"d'
Residential development, especially new market-
rate housing, is an effective tool to stimulate exist-
ing commercial and residential areas and act as a
San Pedro, California. September 22-27,2002
catalyst for new retail, office, and tOUli.sm uses.
The statutory prohibition on housing as an ele-
ment of the Califoruia State Tideland Tlust is a se-
rious obstacle to the inclusion of housing along the
waterfront. However, the planning benefits of this
inclusion, especially in the suggested Crescent
District, are significant. Delivering a new intown
neighborhood with traditional neighborhood char-
acter and at a scale appropriate for a true pedes-
trian environment, linked to the adjacent recre-
ational and marine uses, would be a significant
symbolic step forward in San Pedro's rebirth.
At the same time, developing both market-rate
rental and for-sale housing in the downtown dis-
trict, especially as a component of a mixed-use de-
23
~~r=
-;../,
.:;;;;;::;--:.'
~
..,
-'a,.,G.'_....Opl"'''"",,,..
""....,. .,o"ul.o' ~'r."l.""'"
velopment on the H-2 site, and as new discrete in-
fill elements and on the upper floors of renovated
commercial buildings, can all activate ground-floor
retail uses throughout the downtown area.
This proposed new urban infilJ and expansIon,
both at the waterfront and in the downtown com-
mercial district, must maintain the authenticity
ofthe San Pedro experience to excite visitors
and comfort residents. A strong design recogniz-
able to San Pedro's longtime populace can incor-
porate these new elements into the existing fab-
ric and intensify, rather than destroy, the area's
unique ambience.
The panel strongly recommends that tired for-
mulas for predictable generic waterfront develop-
ment should be avoided. It feels that a fresh, yet
classic look can greatly enhance the atmosphere
24
-Joti][t
'.']0
""'1n
--lOOC
JO~C
'",=~O[ \0
----~.~.:'
..,
',./"".,o."E",1)'1"'-'"
(').5.......,.0"',,1"......,
P"....,.VOh."l.orCl...ol.....
t..,~w.yfI"'''"tl'''''..''''''."
and character of a new development while retain-
ing the historical roots of the community.
Revitalization ofthe downtown business district,
focused primarily on the link between the water-
front and improvements to Sixth and Seventh
streets and Pacific Avenue, must be supported by
strong and purposeful design gnidelines. Some el-
ements of the necessary guidelines are already in
place, but responsibility for integrating elements
into a clear, concise document within an appro-
priately defined district, including both the exist-
ing commercial areas and the waterfront, should
be placed in the hands of a single coordinating
agency. Appropriate revisions to zoning specifi-
eations as well as the new design guidelines need
to be implemented through the creation of an
overlay district.
An AdYlsol'J Services Panel Report
';"
Buffer Pedestrian
Walkway
f- Harbor
Boulevard ~
Finally, the execution of the proposed open space
and new development of the waterfi'ont will pro-
vide clear evidence that a new culture of trust and
open communication has become an integral part
of the community's character.
San Pedro, California, Septernber 22-27,2002
r-
rr
. \iid-,f!J;f
Combined
Pedestrian/Recreation
Path
25
,
,
II l: -,!' (: I;;
i"
,!
I":'
.'! i
'-", "
I, i ~, t : ! :
uccess in developing the San Pedro water-
front and revitalizing the downtown will
depend more on institutional strategies
and attitudinal alignment than on real es-
tate per se, in the panel's opinion. San Pedro has
been characterized as the "last southern Califor-
nia beach community to revitalize." According to
many of the organizations and individuals inter-
viewed by the panel, institutional barriers have
impeded redevelopment. Although these barriers
have started to fall, this portion of the report ad-
dresses a strategy and implementation blueprint
to reconnect the waterfront with the community.
At the core of any publicly sponsored development
initiative is a common vision and a unified frame-
work for achievement. The panel endorses the
community's vision of reconnecting the San Pedro
community to the waterfront. In this section on
development strategies and implementation, the
panel presents an outline of a framework for the
community to achieve this vision.
'J l ~,i (3l'
(J'irf [.::'!!t
~ . :':"~'
During the panel's visit, community leaders and
stakeholders repeatedly expressed frustration
regarding prior failed development efforts as
well as institutionally imbedded conflicts that
thwart progress for unified development. Based
on the panelists' professional experience and ob-
servations, the following are offered as guidelines
for success:
. Establish a trust to ensure public access to the
waterfront.
. Eliminate confusion among stakeholders.
. Reduce the number of conunittees with over-
lapping and Inissions and members.
26
. Focus more on specific actionable steps and less
on process.
. Integrate all planning and development to spe-
cifically address the connection between the
waterfront and the community.
. Build on the community's strengths, using the
port as an educational opportunity-marine his-
tory, arts, and cultural resources-and promot-
ing existing tourism as well as the availability
of reasonably priced real estate.
These general guidelines can serve as the mortar
that holds together the building blocks of a sus-
tainable development strategy. At the most basic
level, the panel recommends a development strat-
egy that iucludes the following four anchors.
-:rust ~ind T:'c:,':",Ql(;iC:]Cj) :,,'Lr~~!. 8e Gvlii kt'lG U'i~
:lG\.'Gc!c,::;,'iC:il r!()CCS-S
Successful business ventures rely on strong part-
nerships of mutual benefit and respect. Real estate
development on the waterfront can create new
buildings and healthier businesses-but these eco-
noInic efforts will fail if they are not based on a
relationship of trust and respect between the port
and the community. The port and the commu-
nity need to commit to a process that is open and
participative. Such transparency is vital to build-
ing trust.
The panel recommends, as the first step to found-
ing this relationship, the establishment of the San
Pedro Community Waterfront Trust to hold the
public areas of the waterfront for the benefit of
the public at large. The process for capturing eco-
noInic value at the waterfront will succeed or fail
depending on the underlying strength and sus-
tainability of the partnership between the port
and the community.
The port's mandate for these lands, to be held in
trust for the public, is essentially port develop-
ment oriented. This mandate serves the port well
An Advisory Services Panel Report
when it focuses on its basic mission of cargo, trans-
shipment, and customer service to the interna-
tional trading community. On the other hand, it is
the panel's opinion that the port is inexperienced
and not well equipped to focus on public redevel-
opment of land that is more appropriately used for
open space and recreation as well as for cultural,
commercial, and residential uses.
~ ~:~ : s '\ t: ,;:- r'~ C J:' [( " : , ; '"
The panel believes that the revitalization and the
long-term economic health of San Pedro rely on
early and aggressive development of market-rate
housing adjacent to the waterfront and downtown.
CWTently, housing land values substantially ex-
ceed land values for retail or other commercial
uses.
By promoting the development of housing, the
community will capture substantial economic
value that could be used to fund other activities.
In addition, an influx of residents will create de-
mand for goods and services, contributing to the
economic viability ofretailers both on port prop-
erty and in downtown San Pedro.
;\:1 GD:~'!~r;::r,k-\\l fer I:'c~t i''','d~~.lmsf,t
f\:~U';~t t,e r;"f;8,C:(~
The panel believes that the port's commitment to
cease cargo handling and storage operations on
the west side of the channel goes beyond a desire
to repair its relationship with the community of
San Pedro. This is a good business decision as
well, because a vibrant waterfront and downtown
will enhance the port's economic strength by cre-
ating significant real estate value, increasing the
viability of businesses operating on the water-
front, and improving the port's community image.
These are legitimate business objectives that con-
tribute to the port's bottom line. This economic re-
ality warrants the provision of port funding for the
promenade and the waterfront recreation area.
Upfront investment from the port is particularly
important, as this is the foundation upon which all
further investment by other parties will depend.
It is beYDnd the panel's scope of work to quantify
the Jevel of upfront investment that may be re-
quired. The panel suggests that the port's commit-
ment, at a minimum, should comprise the follow-
San Pedro, California, September 22-27,2002
ing: the public lands it controls on the west side of
the channel for the bridge-to-breakwater prome-
nade; and at least 75 percent oftbe capital funding
for the initial improvements for the first phase of
the promenade and the lands for major develop-
ment sites in the Crescent Area.
I~;f:(; 1::\-' :;:,:~F,H-~ilt 'lS;UCi.~;
0/:;" .,^"j
The panel's impression is that San Pedro has been
stuck in a Kafkaesque world of endless plauning.
Many things have contributed to this scenario: a
lack of cooperation between the port and the com-
munity; fear that development will contribute to
the notion that San Pedro is a social dumping
ground; and concern that development will fur-
ther destroy the character of the downtown.
Circumstances, however, have changed: the rela-
tionship with the port has the potential to grow;
there is consensus on the need to preserve the
character of the downtown; and the panel believes
that market forces can be harnessed to produce
investment that maintains downtown's authentic-
ity. The development and implementation strate-
gies are designed to capitalize on these changed
circumstances and to move as quickly as practica-
ble to capture investment and value.
The implementation ofthese four strategic initia-
tives will require cooperation among the port, the
chamber of commerce, tbe CRA, and the commu-
nity. The continued leadership of Councilwoman
Hahn, representing the 15th District, and the
mayor will be critical. This leadership will be par-
ticularly important in the early stages to ensure
that sustainable relationships and cooperation are
firmly established.
:)..."rl.'(~i!Qrlt (:n11 GCI[!r.r:fU~,;[Ejl1
The San Pedro community has an advantage in
having an organization already in place that is
charged with the coordination of existing plans for
the waterfront, downtown redevelopment, and in-
tegration of the panel's findings and recommenda-
tions. This entity-the San Pedro Waterfront and
Downtown Task Force-would be the appropriate
organization, in the panel's opinion, to oversee a
coordinated development process for the water-
front and the downtown. This organization can
serve as the public forum where transparency can
27
be incorporated into the implementation process
to build trust and accountability. Tbe charter of
this group and its membership will need to be ad-
justed to reflect this expanded oversight role.
Tbe panel suggests that, as a first step, the port,
the city, and the CRA formally ratify this new role
for the task force. This task force has been instru-
mental in promoting the integration of any cohe-
sive waterfront and downtown development plan.
Originally, the task force was anticipated to last
six to eight months. However, the panel recom-
mends the extension of its life and the expansion
of the sponsor base with the addition of represen-
tation from the Los Angeles Visitor and Conven-
tion Bureau and the Department of Cultural Af-
fairs. The tbree initial goals already defined by the
task force should be broadened to include ongoing
coordination of city and council resources related
to the development and maintenance of the water-
front and downtown projects.
\n: I I.... I
The organizational corollary to the task force is
a new permanent organization-the San Pedro
Commuuity Waterfront Trust. The panel strongly
recommends that this new entity be formed as
a private, nonprofit organization with fiduciary
responsibility for the deveiopment and the ongo-
ing operation of the promenade and public open-
space areas.
The tmst would create a new framework for the
management and development of the public areas
of the waterfront. This new framework is essen-
tial for success to be achieved in the private devel-
opment of the waterfront and in the revitalization
of the downtown.
Having a trust will foster feelings of certainty about
the future, which ill important when eliciting in-
vestment from the real estate community. It also
would create the conditions necessary for maxi-
mizing community support and outside funding
for the promenade and the recreation area.
The trust would be directed by a board composed
of seven members who represent the port, the
28
city, and community interests. The board is ex-
pected to consist of the following:
. the port-two members;
. the city (mayor or appointed mayoral represen-
tative, or councilmember from the 15th Dill-
trictl-two members;
. the maritime museum/aquarium-one member;
and
. the community-two members.
In addition to the governing board, the day-to-;!ay
operations of the trust will be supervised by three
senior staff consisting of a chief executive officer, a
chief financial officer, and a chief operating officer.
The senior staff would be hired by the board mem-
bers and would serve at their discretion.
The panel suggests that the port lease those areas
outlined in the recommended waterfront devel-
opment area, consisting of the right-of-way for
the promenade and the public open spaces, on a
long-term, nominal basis of 50 years or more with
renewals. The port will retain control of all its
lands outside of the public rights-of-way for the
promenade and the waterside uses and physical
structures such as the bulkheads and the exist-
ing marina.
The panel encourages the parties to let the mu-
seum and aquarium foundations participate in the
trust. As the partnership evolves, opportuuities
for synergy with the trust and the foundations
will be great.
It is recommended that the trust staff contract
the design of the improvements for the water-
front promenade and significant public areas. In
addition, the trust would oversee the day-to-;!ay
operations and maintenance responsibilities to
outside vendors.
The panel envisions the port to be a logical sow'ce
of startup funding for the trust, with trust staff
immediately commencing private funding efforts
and identification of other funding sources. The ac-
tivities of the trust would be funded through port
and commuuity contributions and assigned devel-
opment revenues. A cost-sharing agreement be-
An Advisory Services Panel Report
tween the port and the trust will need to be an
early part of the implementation process. This
agreement would create incentives for the trust
to seek outside funding for the development and
maintenance of the promenade and recreation area.
The trust will direct subsequent private fundrais-
ing efforts for capital to extend tbe promenade,
and the port will match all raised funds.
Outside funding potentially can come from the fed-
eral and state levels, such as the California State
Coastal Conservancy. Other foundation support
may provide significant grant and fundraising op-
portunities, especially if tied to programming at
the maritime museum and the aquarium.
Funding may be available through the following
public and private sources:
. the Public Improvement Arts Program, or Per-
cent for Arts program, which requires 1 percent
of the capital improvement cost of all construc-
tion, improvement, or remodeling undertaken
by the city to be allocated for public art;
. existing capital improvement bond issues;
. the Los Angeles Convention and 'lburism Bureau;
. extant economic development resources for
business development;
. private investment;
. an expanded business improvement district;
and
. public and private grants.
The trust can also be the vehicle for harnessing
community financial participation. The recently
completed Fisherman's Memorial was funded by
over $200,000 of community donations. San Pedro
has deep roots. It is a community that, given the
opportunity, could strongly embrace the chance to
fioancially support the revitalization of its water-
front. This can involve sponsorship of selected seg-
ments of the promenade by individual community
organizations and entail named parks, benches, or
other landscape features as has been pursued in
Charleston, South Carolina.
Sao Pedro, California, September 22-27, 2002
The port needs to move quickly to establish a capi-
tal line item for the construction of Phase I, con-
sisting of the promenade and arrival plaza. This
upfront commitment of the Phase I rights-of-way
and funding for the promenade and the recreation
area south of the maritime museum is necessary
to create value for both the retail and housing de-
velopments. Without this commitment, establish-
ing the momentum of ongoing private real estate
development at the waterfront will be a challenge.
Early funding of District lA, which extends from
the cruise ship terminal to the maritime museum,
including the arrival plaza, is a vital prerequisite
to capitalizing on real estate development oppor-
tunities.
This initial port investment must consider how to
address the ongoing funding commitment neces-
sary to maintain and develop the land controlled
by the trust. The panel recommends that tbe port
assign development revenues from the retail and
housing development areas to the trust, thus sub-
stantially lowering its net obligation. Housing de-
velopment, in particular, is likely to provide both
substantial value and significant funding.
Funding formulas should also include incentives
for maximizing outside resources so that the trust
will aggressively pursue federal, state, foundation,
and community support. Furthermore, the fund-
ing agreement must recognize the need to create
long-term, ongoing, and sustainable funding for
the trust.
!!\;:~!fc; ':iC\ic:,lrJUi':lCi':f ('.1 Hie :'j::i
The process for proceeding with private develop-
ment of the retail and housing sites needs a credi-
ble framework, in the panel's opinion. This devel-
opment process must be predictable-to the
development community and to the San Pedro
community. The panel suggests that the San
Pedro Downtown and Waterfront Task Force
assume primary responsibility for coordinating
this process.
The panel recommends new private development
in tlu"ee principal areas: a new retail, commercial,
and restaurant center proximate to the cruise ship
terminal; new housing in the Crescent Area; and
29
; !";€:r!j ~;i:? r'F.i"Y t3"i~:1Ii^;(l
c,:,;r,U:0:'c, 'J' ,:Pi'! 'f}! "'
-,'_::U:n J I-C;-IC".';:t~, ,-s ,0,:":.;
'1:::;:11:~,:::,'-,-? S!il~ - r'..~-
"'i-,!-,iS ~~I; 0
--'-,'d-'
:', I-C'::o[! ';: i'~
30
housing and adjacent development in the down-
town. The panel envisions the responsihility for
puhlic sponsorship of the private development
projects to be the port's, the waterfront taskforce's,
and the CRA's. The panel specifically does not rec-
ommend the San Pedl'o Community Waterfront
Trust to engage in or sponsor private real estate
development; instead, this new entity will focus
solely on public improvements and operations of
public lands, and should not get distracted by pri-
vate land development.
To coordinate private development projects, the
panel recommends taldng five actions.
i>8;;;t["; Design and Devs[uj:imctli StsT,::r2J,Js fo.r
~~:i['t \.lie U!c:telfrul1t 8n:l H~.e Dcv,Ir;tG\'m
Af3 the panel's design reconunendations indicate,
a key contributor to the success of waterfront de-
velopment will be its physical character and "con-
nection" to the downtown. Before retaining devel-
opers, the port and the community must adopt
uniform design standards for the waterfront and
the downtown. These standards need to comple-
ment one another. They also should address issues
such as functional connections of private property
to the public use areas of the waterfront as well as
architectural vernacular, building features, park-
ing, building massing, and open space. These de-
sign and development standards are intended to
create a compatible look and address an overall
design character, rather than uniformity.
";,(,,,'1"
U c " ',: 'r ,~
Before any development proposals are made
public, the panel recommends the creation of a
common framework for evaluation and selection
of development proposals and negotiation of
agreements. This will eliminate uncertainty as to
how the process works and the end result.
J,",
I' (~, :':'
(", r:, ~
" ',,'
.1'
Shortly after adopting design standards, the re-
sponsible organizations-the port, the task force,
and the CRA-should issue requests for qualifica-
tions (RFQs) for private development of their re-
spective areas of responsibility. The RFQ process
allows developers to be evaluated based on their
experience, ability to attract tenants, financial
capacity, design capability, and ability to work with
the community. This avoids a developer ''beauty
contest." It also is a lower-cost process for develop-
ers and is more likely, as a consequence, to elicit a
greater response from the development community.
,"j f': GHzs ~ ~'~\'(;te.
Fr::T~~ U,;:u:d UI
EU:-::.liH.--';::S T(:;r~ is- ;;:"IC '2
,'~: it G 2:::::1
After a transparent selection process has been
completed, the chosen developers should be asked
to prepare specific site development plans. Based
on agreed-upon terms and guidelines adopted
prior to the selection process, these plans would
be consistent with well-stated public objectives
and baseline financial terms.
::;~'lcfld: ihe- T,!;:) t)L=(C'd;;fc:;::r,e-i~t ;',n;~:s, tQ
~'nGO!r'I,18S:S the ~t/atElfrr.;nL WhJIH \>I]~?s[lJ:(}
This will fulfill the objective of a "seamless inter-
face between the waterfront and the downtown"
and will capture the tax increment value of new
private development necessary to ensure long-
term financing and sustainahility.
Housing will be a principal economic engine of
waterfront development and downtown revitali-
zation. The panel calls specific attention to the
housing sector in order to maximize its economic
contlibution to the waterfront revitalization and
An Advisory Services Panel Report
reconnection process. It recommends that the fol-
lowing four steps be taken.
:r-
1.[:;': c:'t
The Crescent Area housing development on the
waterfront property has the potential to provide
snbstantial revenue for use in developing the
public amenities of the promenade and recreation
areas. Other California ports have found ways to
address the impediment cited by the Port of Los
Angeles that the California State Tidelands Trust
Act, passed in 1911, prevents the residential de-
velopment of tidelands property. Because the de-
velopment of housing is so important to the over-
all economic viability of the waterfront, the panel
recommends that the port immediately pursue all
practical efforts to remove this burden.
r:~:t" t.; ';1"[ T ~
r!O ;:IT ]i~~' -;:Cl
:';:;
~,,' ,-[
,""',)
1118 ;;0-t','[l1C\',\\
These include the following: a revolving fund to
purchase underutilized industrial and commercial
sites in and aronnd the downtown and reconvey
them for market-rate residential development;
a revolving fund to preserve single-family mar-
ket-rate housing throughout the Pacific Corridor
Redevelopment Area; and assembling sites for
the development of market-rate housing in the
downtown.
These three programs focus on producing and pre-
serving market-rate housing and, thus, may neces-
sitate the use of nonhousing redevelopment funds.
Market-rate housing in the downtown is vital to
increase the spending power and thus spur addi-
tional commercial development in the downtown.
i!r2~'ket lr:c;; :~.~(. S:i_G for \/,2,:\i;t.;'~~",_c~. :',~iC;,I.,i~?
D8\'elO-pn.-,r::nt
Development of the H-2 site as a market-rate,
mid-rise, and mixed-use residential property can
be an important early step toward repopulating
the downtown.
S::I c' ~'~ s: I:r: t
ice; n;e c td
:-1-:(; fJ~0:'S\(' lGr i_:~:'.r'~:i
The market evaluation section of this report gives
little snpport to the notion that an office use is
likely in the old Logicon building. The CRA should
acquire and demolish this structure so that the
San Pedro, California, September 22-27, 2002
site could he used for development of housing sim-
ilar to that recommended for the H-2 site.
,.:[':,"0 :i G\':'
i l';::
.1,
L:
Consistent, thoughtful design guidelines are an
important development prerequlsite for the down-
town. The panel strongly recommends that these
be adopted as a zoning overlay to ensure the pres-
ervation of downtown's character as new private
investment occurs.
The city of Los Angeles and the San Pedro Cham-
ber of Commerce are currently working together
to revive the former Business Improvement Dis-
trict (BID), which has been inactive for several
years. This BID can be a potent vehicle for the
San Pedro revitalization strategy. Its main func-
tion was to ensure frequent trash pickup in the
downtown. Now, trash pickup and public safety
should be only a starting point.
Current efforts should revitalize and expand the
boundary of the BID and the scope o[the San
Pedro Old Town Business Improvement District
to include the waterfront development area and a
marketing program to handle the branding of San
Pedro. The BID should also perform traditional
tasks-street cleaning, trash removal, lighting,
enhanced public safety, signage, and pbysical
maintenance.
The panel recommends reviving the BID with an
urgent need to expand its scope and to include all
stakeholders at the table. The effort to reestablish
31
the BID should move quickly ahead and comprise
the following:
. promotional events, marketing, signage, and
branding onght to be undertaken;
. the service area should be expanded to include
Pacific Avenue;
. retailers on the waterfront should be required
to participate;
. the chamber of commerce, the CRA, and the
BID should work together to get an access plan
implemented by CALTRANS and the city; and
. the museum and aquarium ought to be in-
cluded in the BID to coordinate promotion
and marketing.
32
Currently, businesses in San Pedro's downtown
lack the economic resources to support a BID with
an expanded scope. The panel recommends that
the chamber pursue a three-year grant from the
city to fund the startup costs of the rejuvenated
BID with the commitment that it be self-support-
ing thereafter. The addition to the BID of the re-
tail businesses developed at the waterfront can
contribute significantly to its long-term viability.
Adding the prescribed waterfront retail, the mu-
seum, and the aquarium to the BID will make it
more effective at branding and promoting the
attractions of San Pedro.
An AdvlslllY Services Panel Report
: f
he waterfront has always been central to
San Pedro's economic vitality. Now, San
Pedro has a unique opportunity to capitalize
ou powerful market forces to create a new,
publicly oriented waterfront and new private de-
velopment. The ability to take advantage of this
opportunity will depend Initially upon the removal
ofthe institutional constraints that have thwarted
redevelopment efforts in the past. The panel was
impressed with the apparent commitment among
all the parties to common goals.
It is acutely clear to the panel that the time for ac-
tion is now. It is also apparent that there is a driv-
ing urgency in the community at large and in the
elected and civic leadership to get development
underway. The panel heard the same thing from
virtually all quarters: cease the planning and get
on with development. The panel was also repeat-
edly informed by citizeus and civic leaders that
"the stars are aligned" for action to occur.
In the real estate development industry, "going
with the flow" generally begets success. Those
who develop, finance, and invest in private devel-
opment projects, however, have learned that tim-
ing is only part of equation. Equally important in
the crucible of success is laying the proper founda-
tion for action-and laying sueb a foundation re-
quires careful planning, aligning of resources to
execute, and properly assessing risks.
San Pedro, Califomia, Sepfember 22-27, 2002
The panel cautions: focusing on completing a proj-
ect for the sake of timing opportunity or expedi-
ency could undermine a long-term sustainable
reinvestment. The history of hastily executed
projects is generally a tale oflong-term trouble.
The panel is equally concerned that the initial
projects-be they public, private, or public/pri-
vate joint ventures-Bet the standard. This stan-
dard would include:
. high-quality design;
. integration with the existing fablic of the com-
munity; and
. high visibility in order to change the current
investment climate.
Successful execution of early projects will change
the investment climate in San Pedro and attract
even more investment.
Though the panel concurs that the time for action
is now, it cautions that there remain significant
organizational, regulatory, and financial details to
refine, as well as project-level detail planning yet
to occur. The panel is confident, however, that with
the proper leadership, the city of Los Angeles, the
eRA, the port, and the San Pedro community can
now fully engage the development process.
33
, ,
I'
i t
Panel Chair
West Palm Beach, Florida
Lawler is the managing partner of N-K Ventures,
LC, a development company founded in 2001 that
specializes in urban mixed-use/residential develop-
ment projects. Located in West Palm Beach, the
firm focuses on projects in southeast Florida.
Prior to forming N-K Ventures, Lawler was a
partner in the Washington, D.C., and Miami offices
of a national tinancial services firm, where he was
responsible for real estate transactional advisory
services for private, corporate, and public clients.
Lawler has over 25 years of experience in advis-
ing private and public clients on large-scale com-
mercial and residential development projects; port-
folio transactions; and financing and commercial
leasing matters throughout the United States and
overseas. In total, he has been an adviser in more
than $5 billion of real estate development, tinance,
and investment transactions over his consulting
career. Lawler currently works for the cities of
Daytona Beach and Miramar, serving as a real es-
tate tinancial adviser on several large-scale publicJ
plivate development projects.
Lawler is an active member of ULI. In addition to
serving in the Institute's "leadership group," he
serves on the policy and practice committee and is
a member of the Multifamily Council (Gold Flight).
Lawler has served on ten Advisory Services pan-
els and several project analysis teams, and has
been a vice chair of ULI's Southeast Florida Dis-
trict Council. In October 2000, ULI recognized his
service with the Robert O'Donnell Award.
He has lectured on real estate development and fi-
nance at George Washington University Business
School, the Wharton School, Harvard Business
School, Georgetown University, and the Univer-
sity of Miami. Lawler is a graduate of Michigan
34
State University and received an MCP degree
from the Kennedy School of Government at Har-
vard University.
~;\. ,\
Madison, Wisconsin
Freer, the principal designer with SmithGroup JJR,
has expertise in urban design, community plan-
ning, and waterfront redevelopment. Residing in
and practicing out of SmithGroup JJR's water-
front studio in Madison, Wisconsin, he offers a
substantial portfolio dealing with waterfront com-
munities in the upper Midwest, with a focus on the
Great Lakes.
Freer has worked on projects from conceptualiza-
tion through construction, with extensive involve-
ment during all phases. He has also generated
community support for design initiatives so that
early enthusiasm maintains momentum and ulti-
mately achieves public endorsement.
As principal designer, Freer is currently working
on the following: waterfront development projects
in the metropolitan St. Paul, Minnesota, area; down-
town Sanford, Florida; New Rochelle, New York;
Racine, Wisconsin; and a number of small cities on
the Mississippi River.
As a result of his professional experience, Freer
has been invited to lecture at a number of uni-
versities; has become a resource member of the
Mayor's Institute on City Design; has participated
in the U.S. Department of Commerce's Sympo-
sium on Economic Development of'Iburism and
Destination Resorts, Athens, Greece; and has
taken part in the 27th International Making Cities
Livable Conference, Vienna, Austria.
He received degrees in environmental design and
landscape architecture from the State University
of New York and Syracuse University.
An Advisory Services Panel Report
Miarn~ Funida
In 1995, Gonzalez started DMG COJlllulting Ser-
vices, Inc., a management consulting firm special-
izing in economic development and project imple-
mentation. Since 1996, DMG has served as the
in-house consultant for the Beacon Council,
Miami-Dade County's official economic develop-
ment organization. Projects managed by DMG for
the Beacon Council include the Homestead Reuse
Plan, the South Miami-Dade Marketing Program,
and the development and coordination of the
Miami-Dade Defense Alliance.
Prior to entering the private sector, Gonzalez was
employed by Miami-Dade County as the director
of the Department of Development and Facilities
Management. This agency provided central sup-
port services in the areas of real estate acquisi-
tion and leasing, facility management, and build-
ing construction.
Gonzalez received her bachelor of arts degree from
the University of Florida. She began her career
with Miami-Dade County immediately after re-
ceiving her master's degree from Northeastern
University in 1979. In 1989, she attended the
Senior Executive Program in State and Local
Government at the John F. Kennedy School of
Government.
Beginning as a management intern, Gonzalez
worked for most of her county career in the capi-
tal improvement and development fields. County
land acquisitions, architect and engineer selec-
tion, and capital budget expenditure oversight
were some of her respoJlllibilities in the Capital
Improvements Division. In 1989, the division was
merged with the county's facilities and construc-
tion management divisions and she was named
director of the new Department of Development
and Facilities Management.
: ~. : 1': {',\' -i:'; ~'r-; '{, ,;' i,
Atlanta, Georgia
Kimsey is vice president and a principal of Niles
Bolton Associates (NBA), a professional design
firm providing architecture, interior design, land-
San Pedro, California, September 22-27. 2002
scape architecture, and urban planning services.
A licensed architect in seven states, Kimsey re-
ceived a hachelor of arts degree and a master of
architecture degree from Yale University and has
been with NBA for 22 years.
NBA developed a national reputation for work in
mixed-use developments, multifamily housing,
transportation architecture, department stores,
universities, clubhouses, hotels, and resorts. With
exposure to diverse project types and geographic
locations, Kimsey has had extensive experience in
working with both private and puhlic organiza-
tions. He is currently principal-in-charge of the
San Jose State University Campus Village, a$l71
million mixed-use project.
Kimsey has been active in numerous business and
civic associations, including the Urban Land Insti-
tute, the American Institute of Architects, and the
Atlanta Partnership of Education. As president of
the Buckhead Business Association, he was the
lead facilitator for a community visioning char-
rette for Atlanta's premier business and retail
neighborhood. Kimsey served on the ULI Advi-
sory Services panel for the California state capital
in Sacramento and has been a vice chail' of ULI's
residential and multifamily councils.
:'; ',2 r'J;, LOi: ,\
Reno, Nevada
Long specializes in publicfprivate partnerships,
economic development, and real estate finance.
His consultant practice serves puhlic and private
clients in Nevada and California.
Long was city manager of Fairfield, California,
where he negotiated the first municipal partici-
pation agreement with a regional shopping mall.
Since leaving the public sector in 1996, Long has
worked on a wide range of issues, including base
reuse, developer negotiations, project feasibility
analysis, marketing, redevelopment, strategic
plauning, and public finance.
Long has lectured for the School of Public Admin-
istration at Golden Gate University and has taught
economic development and organizational change
internationally. He also has served on ULI Advi-
35
sory Services panels and is a faculty member for
the Urban Land Institute, teaching tbe advanced
real estate development process course. Long has
an MP A degree from the School of Public Policy at
the University of California at Berkeley and a bach-
elor's degree in economics from Brown University.
~ ':"'; r I
Boston, Massachusetts
Mitchelson manages approximately $800 million in
real estate portfolios on behalf of three pension-
fund clients. She serves as her clients' primary
contact and participates in all matters pertaining
to their portfolios, including the development and
implementation of investment strategies, and the
monitoring of performance relative to client objec-
tives. Previously, Mitchelson held the position of
managing director of portfolio management for
GE Capital Investment Advisors (GECIA).
Mitchelson bas 17 years of real estate experience.
At GECIA, she also served as a vice president in
the asset management group, a position in which
she oversaw more than $500 million in commercial
and multifamily assets. Her responsibilities in-
cluded developing strategic property business
plans, reviewing and approving property operat-
ing budgets, negotiating leases, performing hold!
sell analyses, and managing asset dispositions.
Mitchelson joined a predecessor entity of GECIA
in 1987, having begun her real estate career as a
financial analyst for Claremont Corporation in 1985.
There, she performed financial analysis relating to
acquisitions, dispositions, asset management, prop-
erty management, and real estate syndications.
Mitchelson is a certified property manager and a
member of the Institute for Real Estate Manage-
ment. She holds a bachelor's degree in business
administration, with a concentration in finance,
from Northeastern University.
IHI O[! S'I,:::I!"I;)
Cha1-[otte, NOlih Carolina
Stanton is the director of market planning and ad-
visory services for Faison, identifying acquisition
and development opportunities for investors, ere-
36
ating business plan strategies for challenging real
estate projects and portfolios, preparing store
rollout plans for retailers, and doing due diligence
on real estate decisions for retail and corporate
real estate clients.
From 1998 to March 2002, Stanton was vice presi-
dent of Research and Market Planning Services
at Trammell Crow Company. She operated the
fu'm's Research and Market Plauning Services
unit, providing strategic planning, site selection,
real estate portfolio analysis, marketing presen-
tations, and merchandising plans for internal and
external fee clients, including developers, retail-
ers, capital investors, property managers, and
brokers.
Stanton was director of research at Faison from
1995 to 1998, and served on Faison's Capitai Con-
trol Board reviewing investment opportunities.
She also produced Faison's Market Focus report,
a detailed review of economic, demographic, and
real estate market performance and opportunities
in ten major U.S. cities.
From 1987 to 1993, Stanton was associate profes-
sor at Elizabethtown College and Indiana Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, teaching MBA- and senior-
level courses on consumer behavior, marketing,
advertising management, and retail strategy.
She was project manager for Business Resources
Group, a consortium of academic and industry pro-
fessionals that provides research projects, busi-
ness plans, seminars, workshops, and training ser-
vices to business and government clients.
Stanton received a PhD and an MS in consumer be-
havior and retail management from Purdue Uni-
versity in 1987, and a bachelor's degree in psychol-
ogy, sociology, and communications from the State
University of New York at Cortland in 1983.
An Advisory Services Panel Report