HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2005/08/09 Jt. RDA/Port
~~f?
-.-
"-- ----
....o::--~-=
~- -~
C1lY OF
CHUlA VISTA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2005
4:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING
JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
MEETING CONCURRENTLY WITH
THE BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
Council/Agency Members Castaneda, Davis, McCann, Rindone; Mayor/Chair Padilla
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on any subject
matter within the Council/Agency's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State law, however,
generally prohibits the City Council/Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any issues not included on
the posted agenda.) If you wish to add,ress the Council/Agency on such a subject, please complete the
"Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to
the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your
name and address for record purposes and follow up action.
ACTION ITEMS
The items listed in this section of the agenda are. expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by
the Council/Agency, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the
Council/Agency and staff recommendation may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who
wish to speak, please fill out a Request to Speak form available in the lobby and submit it to the Secretary to
the Redevelopment Agency or City Clerk prior to the meeting.
1. PRESENTATION ON THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
COMPONENTS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Conclusion of Phase II collaboration with the Citizens Advisory Committee
and the public. Presentation of the master plan components, including
proposed uses, density and height ranges, and the financial analysis.
[Director of Community Development]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Redevelopment Agency and City
Council:
a) Receive the presentation on the Chula Vista Bayfront Master
Plan components and financial analysis; and
b) Adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING
STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
PROCESS FOR THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
AND THE TWO OPTIONS FOR THE RESORT CONFERENCE
CENTER SITE; AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA,
AND THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO TO ADDRESS PUBLIC
FINANCING AND ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING OF THE CHULA
VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN THROUGH A JOINT
POWERS AGREEMENT OR OTHER SUCH AGREEMENT
ADJOURNMENT
The Redevelopment Agency will adjourn to an adjourned meeting on August 9,
2005, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who
require special accommodates to access, attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service
request such accommodation at least 48 hours in advance for meetings and five days for scheduled services
and activities. Please contact the Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency for specific information at (619)
691-5047 or Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TOO) at (619) 585-5647. California Relay Service is
also available for the hearing impaired.
City Council/Redevelopment Agency, August 9, 2005
Page 2
PAGE 1, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
!
08/09/05
JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY / CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
A) RECEIVE PRESENTATION ON THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT
MASTER PLAN COMPONENTS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
B) ADOPT A RESOLUTION 1) AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED
WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN AND THE TWO
OPTIONS FOR THE RESORT CONFERENCE CENTER SITE; AND
2) AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND THE PORT OF
SAN . DIEGO TO ADDRESS PUBLIC FINANCING AND
ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING OF THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT
MASTER PLAN THROUGH A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OR
OTHER SUCH AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY: EXECUTIVE DIRECTO
4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO 0
BACKGROUND
In June 2002, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Vista/Chula Vista City Council
(Agency/Council) and the Board of Port Commissioners (Port Board) authorized City and Port staff to
proceed with a master planning effort for the Chula Vista bayfront. The goal of the Chula Vista
. Bayfrant Master Plan (CVBMP) is to create a world-class waterfront supported by sound planning
and economics and that has broad-based community support.
In March 2004, the Agency/Council and Port Board approved the expansion of the planning area to
incorporate the 128 acres of privately- and publicly-owned lands known os the "Midbayfront"
properties. At this point, Pacifica Companies became a partner in the master planning process
along with the City and the Port. This enabled staff to begin ioint planning both properties, and to
explore the feasibility of a land exchange between the two properties, which could then allow
residential use to be placed on existing Port property. In total, the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
encompasses approximately 550 acres.
On May 25, 2004, the Agency/Council and Port Board directed staff to perform further analysis of
the two draft CYBMP land use plans developed during Phase I, with a preference for the plan known
1-1
PAGE 2, ITEM NO.:
MEETING DATE:
/
08/09/05
as "Plan C". They alsa authorized staff to proceed with Phase II of the master plan process to
identify a specific development program with alternatives and to conduct a financial feasibility
analysis of the plan.
During Phase II, the CVBMP team has worked extensively and collaboratively with the expanded
Citizens Advisory Committee and the public to solicit input on the master plan program. Phase II is
at its conclusion. Staff and the consultant team will present the master plan components, including
proposed uses, density and height ranges, and the financial analysis as described in the attached
Port agenda item report prepared for August 9, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Redevelopment Agency/City Council:
1) Receive presentation on the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan components and
financial analysis; and
2) Adopt a resolution (1) authorizing staff to proceed with the environmental review
process for the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan and the two options for the resort
conference center site; and (2) authorizing staff to enter into negotiations between
the City of Chula Vista, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, and
the Port of San Diego to address public financing and entitlement processing of
the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan through a Joint Powers Agreement ar other
such agreement.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
Based on sound planning and economic analysis conducted during Phase II of the CVBMP, as
well as extensive input from the Citizens Advisory Committee and the community, the two land
use plans reviewed by the City Council and Port Board in May 2004 have evolved into master
plan concepts with proposed specific uses and locations, and density/height ranges. The
environmental process will be conducted in Phase III. Staff proposes to analyze first-phase
components (uses proposed to be constructed within the first five years) of the "preferred" master
plan and two "options" for siting the resort conference center, at a proiect-specific level. All other
components would be analyzed at a programmatic level os these levels are defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The preferred master plan contemplates the
successful completion of the land exchange between the Port and City.
The proposed land trade would result in the City-jurisdictional land, currently located in the
northern portion of the bayfront master plan area known as the Sweetwater District, transferring
to Port-jurisdictional land (with the exception of Parcel S-4 adjacent to the E Street exit ramp).
1-2
PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: I
MEETING DATE: 08/09/05
Further, portions of current Port-jurisdictional land located in both the Harbor and Otay Districts
would transfer to City-jurisdictianal lands. The primary land use proposed for what would be
future City-jurisdictional lands is residential development.
The second master plan concept (Plan "8" that was reviewed in May 2004) assumes na land-
trade will occur. The Plan 8 master plan concept will be analyzed in the environmental review
process as an alternative. Multiple propased land uses on the Sweetwater properties to be
analyzed in the environmental review include office, mixed use commercial/retail/civic,
residential, a hotel, and open space areas. The Plan 8 master plan concept is not supported by
the Citizens Advisory Committee pri(1cipally because it would allow residential development on
the Sweetwater District if approved.
Attached is the Agenda Item prepared by Port staff (Joint City Council/Port 80ard meeting of
August 9, 2005), which further details planning and economic analysis conducted during Phase
1.1, and some of the implications of a major resort/convention destination (like a Gaylord
Entertainment development) upon the CV8MP.
FISCAL IMPACT
Upon approval of the Joint Planning Agreement between the Port and the City, and with
Redevelopment Agency/Council consent, the City and Port agreed to share equally the cost to
complete the environmental review and reallocated a portion of the monies remaining in the
City/Port MOU funds to fund the City's share of this cost. Therefore, there is no fiscal impact
resulting from this action item. Pacifica Companies, as a partner with the Port and City in the
CVBMP planning effort, will fund 25 percent of the total environmental consultant costs for the
CVBMP. Funds are available in the Port's Land Use Planning FY 05/06 Operating Budget for a
consultant to prepare the required environmental review document far this project. Pacifica
Companies will provide the reimbursement for its share of the costs.
ATTACHMENTS
San Diego Unified Port District Agenda Item - August 9, 2005
1-3
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
AGENDA ITEM
DATE:
July 29, 2005
SUBJECT: CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN:
A) RECEIVE PRESENTATION ON THE MASTER PLAN
COMPONENTS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
B) ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
THE MASTER PLAN AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED
WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
C) ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA TO
ADDRESS PUBLIC FINANCING AND ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING
OF THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN THROUGH A
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OR OTHER SUCH ARRANGEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Phase II of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) is at its conclusion.
Presentations will be made by staff and the consultant team on the master plan
components, including proposed uses and density and height ranges, and the financial
analysis. Staff requests that the Board of Porl Commissioners (Board) grant preliminary
approval of the master plan and authorize staff to proceed with the environmental
review process. Staff also requests that the Board authorize staff to enter into
negotiations with the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency to
address public financing of the CVBMP infrastructure improvements and entitlement
processing, through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) or other such arrangement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan:
A) Receive presentation on the master plan components and financial analysis
B) Adopt resolution granting preliminary approval of the master plan and authorizing
staff to proceed with the environmental review process
C) Adopt resolution authorizing staff to enter into negotiations with the City of Chula
Vista and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista to address public
financing and entitlement processing of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
through a Joint Powers Agreement or other such arrangement
1-4
Page 2 of 12
AGENDA ITEM
FISCAL IMPACT:
. This Board action will allow the environmental review process to proceed. Funds in the
amount of $500,000 are available in the Land Use Planning FY 05/06 Operating Budget
for a consultant to prepare the required environmental review document for this project.
Pacifica Companies, as a partner with the Port and City in the CVBMP planning effort,
will reimburse the Port 25% of the total environmental review consultant costs for the
CVBMP (Certificate of the Treasurer 04-163).
DISCUSSION:
Backqround
In June 2002, the joint Board and Chula Vista City Council (City Council) authorized
Port and City staff to proceed with a master planning effort for the Chula Vista Bayfront.
The goals of the CVBMP planning process were three-fold: to develop a world-class
waterfront, one that is supported by sound planning and economics, and one that has
broad-based community support.
In March 2004, the Board and City Council approved the expansion of the 420-acre
CVBMP planning area to incorporate the 128 acres of privately- and publicly-owned
lands known as the "Midbayfront" properties. This enabled staff to begin joint planning
both properties, and to explore the feasibility of a land exchange between the two
properties, which could allow residential use to be placed on existing Port property.
During Phase I of the planning process, the Port and City engaged in an extensive,
award-winning public participation program, comprised of 15 Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) meetings, 7 Power Plant Working Group meetings, 7 public
workshops and joint Board/City Council meetings, over 25 community presentations,
distribution of 3 newsletters, and establishment of a CVBMP webpage. As a result,
there was overwhelming community support for two of the land use plans developed
during the one-year Phase I process.
On May 25, 2004, the joint Board and City Council gave preliminary approval of the
CVBMP Phase I land use plans supported by the community and known as "Option C"
and "Option B" (with a preference for "Option C"). They also authorized staff to proceed
with Phase II of the master plan to identify a specific development program with master
plan alternatives and to conduct a financial feasibility analysis of the plan.
Since Phase II began, the CVBMP team, comprised of Port and City staff, Pacifica
Companies representatives, and consultants Cooper, Robertson & Partners (CR&P);
Katz and Associates, Inc.; Wade Communications; Economics Research Associates
(ERA); and RECON Environmental, Inc., has worked extensively and collaboratively
with the expanded CAC and the public to educate and solicit input on the master plan
program. During Phase II, 16 additional CAC meetings were held, including two
"charette" workshops that enabled participants to review plan alternatives in three
1-5
Page 3 of12
AGENDA ITEM
dimensions, five meetings on economics, and a bayfront tour. A public meeting was
also held in December and over 15 additional community presentations were
conducted.
On February 8, 2005, Port and City staff provided updates on the CVBMP to the Board
and City Council. On March 8, 2005, Port and State Lands Commission staff gave a
presentation to the Board on the land exchange concept in general and its application to
the CVBMP.
CVBMP Overview
The CVBMP project area encompasses a total of approximately 550 acres including
approximately 490 acres of land area and 60 acres of water area. As part of CR&P's
early analysis, the project area was logically organized into three distinct districts _
Sweetwater, Harbor, and Otay. The Sweetwater District, approximately 128 acres,
includes the northern section between the southern boundary of the Sweetwater Marsh
National Wildlife Refuge and the South Bay Boatyard site. The Harbor District,
approximately 271 acres, includes the middle section of the project area between the
boatyard and J Street/Marina Parkway. The Otay District, approximately 149 acres,
includes the southern section of the CVBMP study area, between J Street and the
former LNG site.
Based on extensive CAC and community input, the CVBMP team has developed a
master plan for the Chula Vista Bayfront that strives to: balance revenue-producing
development with public open space and infrastructure improvements; promote
economic development throughout the region; and create a vibrant, active, unified
waterfront with strong connections to the rest of Chula Vista. The CVBMP proposes to
redevelop existing underutilized and vacant areas in the City of Chula Vista and on Port
tidelands with a variety of uses including: park, open space, civic/cultural, recreational,
residential, hotel, office, entertainment, and retail. Ecological buffers are proposed
where appropriate to protect adjacent environmentally sensitive resources. The plan
proposes to extend Chula Vista's traditional grid of streets to ensure pedestrian, vehicle,
bicycle, and transit links. The CVBMP also proposes a continuous open space system,
fully accessible to the public, which seamlessly connects the Sweetwater, Harbor, and
Otay Districts through components such as a continuous shoreline pedestrian walkway
or "baywalk" and a continuous bicycle path linking the parks and ultimately creating
greenbelt linkages. Significant park and other open space areas in each of the three
districts are proposed along with a defined signature park and the creation of an active
commercial harbor with public space at the water's edge. The plan also proposes to
enhance existing physical and visual corridors while adding new ones.
Financial Analvsis
ERA prepared an initial analysis of the financial performance and fiscal impacts of the
CVBMP based upon a 25-year plan. Program elements provided through CVBMP
planning consultants CR&P, cost estimates provided by engineering consultants Kimley
Horn and Associates, and other economic and market data provided by marketing
1-6
A GENDA ITEM
Page 4 of 12
consultants The Sedway Group and PKF Consultants, formed the basis of the analysis.
The analysis considered the following:
· Estimated cost of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and sewers necessary to
support the new development;
· Private development proformas from the private developer perspective in order to
estimate the financial feasibility of the private developments; and
. Potential public sector revenues to the Port, City of Chula Vista, and the Chula
Vista Redevelopment Agency.
Gavlord Entertainment
Earlier this year, Gaylord Entertainment (Gaylord), operator of several large-scale
convention center resort hotels in the United States, approached the Port and City
expressing its interest in the Chula Vista Bayfront for its west coast expansion. In June
of this year, Gaylord formally expressed an interest in immediately developing an
approximately $600 Million resort conference center facility on the bay. Staff initially
estimated that a development of this magnitude could dramatically bolster the
economics of the CVBMP through earlier development of a major "anchor," which could
include the addition of over 1 ,500 hotel rooms, 400,000 square feet of conference
space, and several restaurants. It should be noted that the initial CVBMP financial
analysis prepared by ERA was completed prior to considering the inclusion of a resort
conference center anchor within the project. However, latter ERA reports did look at a
resort conference center facility of a similar magnitude and concluded that a resort
conference center facility could have a positive economic gain on the plan. The initial
findings of ERA's analysis are discussed below, exclusive of any financial effect that a
major resort conference center might have on the plan.
Infrastructure and Public Improvements
In the ERA analysis, the cost of the infrastructure that would be required in order to
support new development proposed for the CVBMP was estimated at $260 - $280
Million. Total public sector costs for the first 25 years of project development, including
infrastructure, maintaining parks, open space, promenades, marinas, and readying
parcels for private development, were estimated at $475 - $520 Million, translating to a
net present value (NPV) of $260 - $280 Million.
Private Development Feasibilitv
ERA prepared 10-year development proformas for each of the private development
components of the plan prior to Gaylord's unsolicited proposal. The costs for the
infrastructure described above were allocated to each of the private development
parcels assuming that each would contribute reimbursement for a portion of up-front
costs. The results of the analysis revealed that only the denser residential scenario and
certain retail parcels located along the harbor would perform well. Most other private
components of the plan were indicated to be marginally feasible, or would require gap
1-7
Page 50f12
AGENDA ITEM
funding or abatement of infrastructure reimbursements or ground lease payments in
order to achieve returns sufficient to attract private developers. The initial analysis
indicated that the up-front development costs for the lodging parcels were too high,
driven in large part by the costs associated with constructing structured parking, but that
the potential exists for closing some of the financial gaps.
Port Revenues
ERA initially estimated total potential revenues to the Port in the first five years of the
project development (through 2031) at $590 - $650 Million, translating to an NPV of
$170 - $190 Million. Revenues would be comprised of lease revenues, parking
revenues and infrastructure reimbursements. Lease revenues were estimated at $280 _
$300 Million. Port revenues alone would not be sufficient to offset the public costs
associated with the project and it was suggested that partnerships with other agencies,
such as the City and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency, be explored.
Fiscal Revenues to the City of Chula Vista and Bavfront Redevelooment Proiect Area
ERA also initially found that the CVBMP could impact the balance sheets of the City of
Chula Vista by generating new retail sales taxes (both through the planned new retail
components and the expenditures of new visitors, employees and residents elsewhere
in the city), new transient occupancy taxes (TOT), and development impact fees. There
would also be associated costs to the City in providing services to the new
development. Total net revenues to the City were estimated at $45 - $100 Million, or an
NPV of the 25 year impacts estimated at $25 - $35 Million.
Net new property tax revenues to the Bayfront Redevelopment Area would depend on
the number of residential units ultimately approved. ERA ran scenarios for 1,500
residential units, which could generate an estimated total net impact of $165 - $190
Million (NPV of 25 year impacts $65 - $75 Million); and 2,900 units, which could
generate an estimated total net impact of $225 - $250 Million over 25 years (NPV of $80
- $100 Million).
1-8
AGENDA ITEM
Page 60'12
Summary Table 6 - Summary of Net Present Value of
Net Public Sector Impacts, 2007 - 2031
(In Millions of 2005 Dollars)
Source
Public Costs
Port Revenues
CVRA Revenues
Cit of Chula Vista Revenues
Total Revenues
Total
Less Potential Private Sector Gap
Fundin Re uirement'
Total Public Sector 1m act
1 Excluding Arena/Event Center
Note: This table is illustrative only for the purpose of comparing public costs to potential revenues. No
potential public agency revenues have been allocated to the project and should not be assumed to be
allocated.
Source: Economics Research Associates
Table 6 above illustrates that while total public sector revenues are capable of
outweighing the capital and operational costs (if the various agencies determined to use'
those revenues to cover such costs), the result would be an overall deficit when private
sector gap funding is factored in.
ERA's initial analysis of the fiscal impacts of the CVBMP project indicate that it could
generate significant public sector revenues that could be used to both leverage the
public investment required and service the development. ERA stresses, however, that
such revenues would be dependent in large part on hotel, entertainment, and specialty
retail uses that are considered relatively risky from a developer's perspective. It should
be noted that the ERA financial analysis is not a static document and will evolve and be
updated as necessary to specifically address financing and phasing strategies for
implementing the CVBMP.
Positive Economic Imoacts of a Resort Conference Center
The CVBMP financial analysis summarized above did not consider the destination
resort conference center anchor component recently proposed. The addition of a major
resort/convention destination (like a Gaylord development) could not only generate
lease revenues, property taxes, retail taxes, and transient occupancy taxes, but could
also generate indirect revenues through the demand it could generate for other lodging,
restaurant, retail and recreational uses. As a result, the magnitude of the impacts
associated with a resort conference center type facility could have a very substantial
impact on the overall CVBMP project feasibility from both the public sector and private
development perspectives. The market support for private development could be
1-9
AGENDA ITEM
Page 70f12
accelerated by the addition of an anchor facility, and the risk associated with private
development could be reduced. Subsequently, the increased viability for the private
development could reduce the risk of the public resources required to implement the
plan. Therefore, in staffs view, the destination draw capability of a Gaylord-type product
would be highly desirable for the CVBMP.
Master Plan Components - Plan A
Based on sound planning and economics, and extensive CAC and community input, the
land use plans approved by the Board and City Council in May 2004 have evolved into
master plan concepts with proposed specific uses and locations, and density/height
ranges. Staff proposes land uses and density/height ranges that will maximize flexibility
in attracting development and minimize subsequent environmental review, which will
facilitate timely implementation of the master plan components. In the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR), staff proposes to analyze the first phase components (uses
proposed to be constructed within the first five years) at a project-specific level, with all
other components analyzed at a programmatic level, as these levels are defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Staff proposes to analyze the following uses and density/height ranges for the proposed
project "Plan A" (formerly referred to as "Plan CO) in the EIR (refer to the following
attachments: Attachment 1, "Plan A Draft Illustrative Plan"; Attachment 2, "Plan A
Parcel Plan"; and Attachment 3, "Plan A Proposed EIR Density and Height Ranges").
For ease in referencing the uses, each specific plan component has been assigned an
individual "parcel number." Parcel numbers that begin with "S" are located in the
Sweetwater District, with "H" in the Harbor District, and with "0" in the Otay District.
Sweetwater District
The Sweetwater District includes the lowest intensity development of the three districts
and focuses on lower scale, environmentally-sensitive and environmentally-themed
uses, including a large ecological buffer, other open space areas, mixed use
office/retail/civic, and hotel. It also proposes new roadway improvements to E and F
Streets. For Plan A, no residential use is proposed in the Sweetwater District.
SP1
SP2
SP3, SP4,
SP5, SP6,
SP7,S5
400-foot-wide ecolo
Wetlands
Parks/Open Space
42 acres
18 acres
14 - 16 acres
N/A
N/A
N/A
1-10
AGENDA ITEM
Page 8 0'12
51 Mixed Use Officel Commercial 200,000 - 300,000sf 40 to 60
Recreation
51 Civic/Cultural 10,000 - 50,000sf 30 to 45
52 Conference Hotel 250 - 400 rooms 40 to 60
53 Mixed Use Office/ Commercial 60,000 - 120,000sf 30 to 45
Recreation
Harbor District
The Harbor District includes the highest intensity development of the CVBMP and
encourages an active, vibrant mix of uses including: a resort conference center with
1,500 to 2,000 rooms and a large conference center on H23 as a destination anchor
component; a large signature park and other open space areas; residential (subject to
the proposed land exchange); retail/entertainment; mixed use office/commercial
recreation; civic/cultural; other hotels; piers; and collector parking uses. The Harbor
District is central to downtown Chula Vista and would provide a significant link from the
city to the bayfront via the extension of H Street, ending in a new pier. A mix of low,
medium, and high-rise buildings, and new and improved roadways (such as proposed
Marina Parkway modifications) are proposed throughout the Harbor District. Also
proposed are two options for reconfiguration of the existing harbor to create a new
commercial harbor, and improvements to the navigation channel.
'" ,':':' '?;,<s;~!~_':_ :~5.,;>"::(~;;i';;~i' -"M< ' "
HP1 32 acres N/A
HP3 12 to 14 acres N/A
HP5, HP11 11 acres N/A
HP7, HP8, HP9 6 acres N/A
HP12, HP13 11 acres N/A
HP10, HP14 4 acres N/A
HP15 8 acres N/A
HP28 1 acre N/A
HW1, HW2, 1,100 slips N/A
HW6
HW4 Commercial Harbor 15 acres N/A
1-11
AGENDA ITEM
Page 9 0'12
Resort Hotel/Marine Sales and 50 to 65
Service
H3 Civic/Cultural/Retail 200,000 - 400,OOOsf 45 to 75
H8/H9 Retail, Commercial Recreation 50,000 - 100,000sf 30 to 45
H12 Retail/Fe Terminal 15,000 - 25,000sf 30 to 40
H15 Mixed Use Office/Commercial 300,000 - 475,OOOsf 170 to 200
Recreation
H15 Hotel 200 - 250 rooms 170 to 200
H18 Collector Parking with wrap- 2,000-3,000 parking spaces,
around ancillary Mixed Use 200,000 - 400,000sf Mixed 85 to 155
Office/Commercial Recreation Use/Commercial Recreation
H21 Retail 75,000 -150,000sf 30 to 45
H23 Resort Conference Center 1,500 to 2,000 rooms 250 to 300
Regarding residential use, staff recommends a project goal of 2,000 units located on
parcels H13 and H14 in the Harbor District (with a maximum height range of 50 to 300
feet) and on parcels 01 and 02 in the Otay District. This goal of 2,000 units is
consistent with the maximum number of units recommended for analysis in the EIR by
many CAC members at their June 1.5 meeting. However, the current financial analysis
data indicates that 2,000 units may be marginal and the analysis did not consider a
labor component or LEED certification. Consequently, staff feels that additional flexibility
is needed in the EIR analysis to continue to refine the appropriate number of residential
units. Therefore, staff recommends that the EIR analyze a range of 2,000 to 2,400
residential units, and that refinement of the residential component occur as part of the
environmental and financial analysis update process.
Otav District
The Otay District inCludes medium intensity development and consists of a mix of uses
such as residential (see discussion under Harbor District above), energy/utility zone
uses such as power generation facilities (relocation of the power plant and switchyard),
low cost visitor-serving recreational uses (such as a recreational vehiCle park, a new
"South Park," and other open space areas), and an ecological buffer.
OP1
OP2
OP3, OP4
40 acres
15to 18 acres
28 acres
N/A
N/A
N/A
1-12
A GENDA ITEM
Page 10 of 12
N/A 155
N/A 70 to 115
N/A 20 to 105
CAC Input on Plan A
The Plan A proposed uses (for the non-residential components) and density/height
ranges were presented to the CAC on July 13, 2005. A list of CAC comments were
received and is contained in Attachment 4. Overall, CAC members' comments on Plan
A were well-balanced. To address height concerns expressed by some CAC members,
staff proposes that the Harbor District retail parcels H8, H9, and H21 be predominantly
1 to 2 stories, but could be as tall as 3 stories. Furthermore, staff proposes that the S2
conference hotel be predominantly 1 to 2 stories but could rise up to 3 to 4 stories in
non-sensitive areas, and that the H1 resort hotel be predominantly 3 to 4 stories, but
could be as tall as 5 stories.
Plan A - Resort Conference Center Options
To maximize flexibility of the CVBMP, staff proposes to analyze two additional options in
the environmental review process that include the resort conference center in two key
locations. These options would have the same level of analysis as Plan A in the EIR.
These options were presented to the 'cAC on July 25, at which 16 of the CAC members
voted to support inclusion of a resort conference center facility in the plan, or,
alternatively, an events center if the resort conference center is not constructed.
Furthermore at that CAC meeting, many of the CAC members supported the location of
the resort conference center on the HP1 site. Draft illustrative plans for Options 1 and 2
will be revised in response to the comments received from the CAC on July 25.
Ootion 1 (see Attachment 5) is similar to Plan A in that it proposes the resort conference
center on H23; however, it proposes a maximum 20-story hotel tower on H9 with a
bridge connecting the two structures across Marina Parkway. Compared to Plan A,
retail use on H8/H9 would be reduced from a range of 50,000 - 100,000 square feet to
a range of 10,000 - 25,000 square feet due to the hotel tower; however, there would be
2.3 acres of new park space at H8/H9. All other proposed uses in Option 1 would be
the same as in Plan A.
Ootion 2 (see Attachment 6) proposes the resort conference center on approximately 31
acres on portions of H1, HP1, and HP10, and on parcels H3 and H14, and set back at
least 400 feet from the shoreline. The H1 yacht club building will be reduced in size. A
portion of the signature park would transfer and occupy S2 in Sweetwater. The
signature park would continue onto parcels HP10, a portion of H1, HP1, H8, and a
1-13
Page 11 of 12
AGENDA ITEM
portion of H9 in the Harbor District, wrapping around the western end of the resort
conference center. The signature park in this option would total about 41 acres, about 9
acres more than the signature park proposed in Plan A. Compared to Plan A, retail use
on H8/H9 would be reduced from a range of 50,000 - 100,000 square feet to a range of
25,000 - 50,000 square feet, with a predominant height of 1 story, but could be as tall as
2 stories. The proposed civic/cultural center would move from H3 to H23 with a
maximum of 400,000 square feet of civic/retail use and parking. In lieu of the S2 and
H1 hotels proposed in Plan A (totaling 900 rooms), Option 2 proposes a single 500-
room resort hotel on S1 in the first phase, with a maximum height of 8 stories near the
freeway and stepping down to a maximum of 2 stories as it approaches the Sweetwater
Wildlife Refuge. Conditions of approval would be that the signature park would be built
at the same time as the resort conference center and contain a 100-foot-wide buffer
along the extension of H Street on parcels H8 and a portion of H9. The CAC would
continue to address architectural issues. All other proposed uses in Option 2 would be
the same as in Plan A.
Plan B
In addition to analyzing Plan A and the two additional options that include the resort
conference center, staff proposes to analyze in the EIR, at a programmatic level, a Plan
B that assumes no land eXChange and therefore no residential use in the Harbor and
Otay Districts. Plan B alternatives propose residential, office/retail/civic, and hotel uses
(as well as the ecological buffer, wetlands, and park/open space areas proposed in Plan
A) in the Sweetwater District, and additional retail/entertainment uses on parcels H 13
and H14 in the Harbor District.
Plan A Phase I Components
Staff proposes to analyze the first phase components, which are proposed to be
constructed within the first five years, at a project-specific level in the EIR, and all other
components analyzed at a programmatic level. Phase I is envisioned to consist of high-
quality development and public improvements that will be concentrated in the Harbor
District and will be a catalyst for surrounding CVBMP public and private development.
The proposed Phase I components are: the H23 resort conference center (for Plan A
and the two additional options that include the resort conference center), the HP1
signature park (and in Option 2, the S2 signature park), the H13 and H14 residential
use, the H15 mixed use office/commercial recreation/hotel, the H18 mixed use
office/commercial recreation/parking, the extension of H Street, Marina Parkway
improvements, a portion of the HP28 H Street Pier, H8 and H9 retail around the harbor,
the HP3 baywalk, and a multi-modal transit plan with shuttles, bike paths, and collector
parking lots.
Financinq of the CVBMP
In order to implement the proposed Phase I and subsequent phase improvements, a
financial participation agreement between the Port, the City of Chula Vista, and the
Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency will be required. Staff requests that the Board
authorize staff to negotiate with the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista
1-14
AGENDA ITEM
Page 12 of12
Redevelopment Agency to address additional entitlement processing and the financing
and phasing of the CVBMP infrastructure improvements in order to implement the
project, through a JPA or other agreement. Staff will request authorization of a
proposed financing agreement at a future Board meeting.
Recommendation and Next Steps
Staff requests that (1) the Board grant preliminary approval of the master plan and
authorize staff to proceed with the environmental review process; and (2) the Board
authorize staff to enter into negotiations with the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Agency to address public financing and entitlement processing of the
Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan through a Joint Powers Agreement or other such
arrangement. During the EIR process, staff will continue to work with the community on
specific design issues relating to the CVBMP. It is anticipated that the EIR will be
certified in late 2005, followed by State Lands Commission approval of the land
exchange, and Coastal Commission approval of the Port Master Plan and Local Coastal
Program amendments (that incorporate the preferred plan) by Spring/Summer 2006.
Coastal development permits can then be issued and the first phase components
implemented.
Port Attorney's Comments:
Not applicable.
Environmental Review:
This proposed Board action will allow staff to proceed with the environmental review
process for the CVBMP.
Equal Opportunity Program:
Not applicable.
PREPARED BY: Ralph T. Hicks
Director, Planning
Randa J. Coniglio
Area Real Estate Manager
Wileen C. Manaois
Senior Planner
1-15
en
C
:p
QJ
QJ
.....;E
.E-
~'O
OC
0..::1
QJo
c::U
tt::~
.l9U
~G
......--
NU
c..
I-CD
z......
LUC
;E'o
:C"
UU"l
~~
<:(co
(,/r--~,,'~ L~7' ~ ~"" ~
I ~::;.~.~~.
,~~ ~-
; -~
I! ,~
II' /
f) / J
J, 'I' ! // /!~-_'vJ
, , #' --"""':/
-0 ..jj d' .-/"
'J J,.f /"",/
r ;0 //
~, (~~~v /1'
\~ ,,:.-..~ '___.n.- In!JlS!O AelO
l\<~~7~-"~ .
1 '~~ l. i,l " l
',f ') '~~ )" II
, ~" " "-.. ii
"'" ~ I ,'"" " ii
( "''''....r \", ,.../'j'
,~~ ~J~ .
~ )/-'
'~'>i j
...,'.....
s;.'dH
h..fi
...~..
'......
. .........
.........,~..
....~
''\ \
B ~r<" \ ....H \\
'-----" \ \.'" \ \
l;"dH J \ \ \
, ) \
\ ~/,- \
\ ~"/..\,,,,\
I ~ \ ~\
.. \ \
\ \
\ \
, \
\ '
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \ J i
\ \ 1 !
\ V ~
\ !
1O~\a JaleMtf~s
I ;
, I
IO!JlS!O JoqJBH
....
.
"
\
"
/---;
I /
} .
I f
f .
! ('
\.~.,
"'\ \
~\,
" '\
~ ') "-.~.
~ i f",,--., \
\ - A. 'I
) !?lr\ \
,
\
\
i
I
1-17
Z
:5
0.
"
~
U1L1'l
<to
::Ei?l
I-N
zjI::;-
Oz
0::5
~c..
00--'
w
~u
. U1 "
......<t
>0.
:5<t
::Jz
:r::5
Uc..
"
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
Plan A - Proposed EIR Density and Height Ranges
S=Sweetwater; H=Harbor; O=otay
ATTACHMENT 3 to Staff Report for
B 9/05 Joint BPC/OJ Ci Council Meetin
area
No.
Propose S8
Maximum Maximum
51 Mixed Use Office/Commercial Recreation 200,000 300,000 2 to 4 40 to 60
53 Mixed Use Office/Commercial Recreation 60,000 120,000 2 to 3 3D 10 45
H15 Mixed Use Office/Commercial Recreation 300,000 475,000 14 to 17 170 to 200
H18 Mixed Use Office/Commercial Recreation, 200,000 400,000 6 to 10 65 to 155
Collector Parking (2,000-3000 spaces)
Total 1,420,000 760,000 1,295,000 260,000 420,000 500,000 875,000 0 0
~
~
CD
Conference Hotel 250 400 2 to 4 40 to 60
Resort HoteVMarine Sales & Service 350 500 3 to 5 50 to 65
Hotel 200 250 14to 17 170 to 200
Resort Conference Center 1,500 2,000 20 to 25 250 to 300
Total 950 2,300 3,150 250 400 2,050 2,750 0 0
Buffers 42 0 0 15 18
Wetlands 18 11 11 0 0
Parks/Open Space 16 58 63 64 72
Pfomenade (12,OOO-IS,00D linear feel) 0 12 14 0 0
Total 76. 81 88 79 90
0-3 RV Park (RV parking spaces) 236 175 236 1 to 2 15 to 35
0-4 Power Plant
-stacks (height In feet) 155
--towers (height in feet) 70 to 115
-structures (height in feet) 20 to 105
Notes: Parcel 51 appears twice under MU Office/Comm. Recreation and Civic; parcel H15 appears twice under MU Office/Comm. Recreation and Hotel.
Acreages shown reflect gross acreage.
Based on February 2005 parcel plan.
Table does not include proposed residential use.
072905
ATTACHMENT 4 to Staff Report for
8/9/05 Joint BPC/OI City Council Meeting
CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN - PHASE II
July 13, 2005 Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting
CAC Comments on Staff Proposed Master Plan Density/Height Ranges
Pat AGuilar. Crossroads II
. It appears that 400,000sf civic/retail on H3 will not be feasible; instead suggests
deleting the office component in 51 and increasing the civic use density.
. 1.3 million total square feet of office use is unrealistic and doesn't attract people
to the bayfront, and should be significantly reduced to perhaps 375,000 square
feet, Office use does not support the WOW factor and can be located anywhere;
the bayfront should be reserved for more exciting uses.
. Residential use also does not support the WOW factor.
Ken BaumGartner. The CorkY McMillin Comoanies
. Supports maximum flexibility and increased intensity of uses.
. Need morning, afternoon, and evening pedestrian traffic through a mix of office
and residential use to make the retail work.
. Residential use should be l)rought in earl y on and can help support more of the
infrastructure requirements than any of the other uses.
. Retail use may need to be subsidized early on.
Jack Blakelv. CV Downtown Business Association
. More than 1.0 million square feet of office use is too high; may be more
appropriate to reduGe that use density and increase densities of other uses.
. The CAC was asked to come up with a "WOW" factor for the bayfront; is
concerned that having one-level Motel 6's on prime waterfront property is not a
"WOW" factor. There should be no I-story buildings in this plan. The plan
proposes a 400-foot-wide buffer and other open space improvements that cannot
be financed through I-story development.
. Doesn't think increasing density of civic rather than retail use will be financially
feasible.
. Supports 2,000 residential units in the plan.
1
1-19
John Chavez. South Bav Forum
o Questions whether 2,000 residential units is the right num ber given the increase in
projected revenue for the CVBMP resulting from the Resort Conference Center
proposal; perhaps a lower number is appropriate.
Nick DeLorenzo. SD Council of Desian Professionals
o Is concerned that the proposed amount of civic use will not fit on the H3
civic/retail site.
o Reducing height will increase the buildings' massing on the site, which would be
unattractive. Prefers having some increased height within the parcel with
appropriate design incorporated to minimize raptor concerns.
o Supports multiple uses, such as paving and park, within the SDG&E easement
corridor in the Otay District.
o Massage the 03 RV Park into a nicer shape; perhaps site it within the SDG&E
easement corridor.
Ian Gill. Hiahland Partnershio
o Feels the level of intensity in the plan is very low.
o Need'to have feasible development with sufficient flexibility to endure several
cycles of development.
o Opposes reducing fleXibility of uses.
o Parcel S4 would be appropriate for office or hotel use, or a civic building serving
as a gateway to the Sweetwater District.
o Supports higher intensity use on the Sl mixed use office/retail/civic parcels and
the S2 conference hotel; perhaps reduce SP1 buffer area to accommodate this.
o Heights near the freeway should not be limited to 3 to 5 stories; it should be
whatever good planning will allow.
o The Resort Conference Center concept could fit well in the Sweetwater District.
o Supports the proposed uses and height ranges in the Harbor District, and broad
use descriptions to maximize flexibility of uses recog nizing the challenges in
attracting trust-related office use. The proposed uses also provide sufficient open
space and accessibility.
o Concerned that the plan does not have a jobs/hOUSing balance.
o Supports co-location of office and residential uses.
2
1-20
. Opposed to removing residential use from the Otay District, which wi II reduce
flexibility; feels residential use here is appropriate since it was removed from the
Sweetwater District.
. Supports public transit/parking intercept concept at HiS; would also make a good
residential site. .
. Residential near the freeway would not be an issue if properly mitigated.
. RV Park relocation to Otay District needs to visually pleasing in design yet be
workable for this longstanding bayfront tenan t.
. Need to accommodate SDG&E's undergrounding requirements (ie, access, etc.).
Chris Lewis. CV Chamber of Commerce
. The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce supports commerce, and this cannot be
achieved with i-story hotels. 3-story development is needed to attract developers.
. Need to consider return to retailers also; residential mass is needed to attract
retailers (like downtown San Diego).
Jim peuoh. SD Audubon Soci etv
. Concerned about the maximum height of the S2 conference hotel at 40 to 60 feet
considering its proximity to the F&G Street Marsh; doesn't think 4 stories will fit
there; should follow the Vacation Village model by reducing to 1 and possibly 2
stories maximum if done well.
. Doesn't think 3 to 5 stories will fit on the Hi resort hotel site; Hi should follow the
Loews Hotel model and be reduced to a maximum of 2 stories.
. HS and H9 retail uses should be reduced to 1 to 2 stories maximum, but
predominantly 1 story, with good visual and phYSical access between the buildings
to allow for views and access from the signature park to the harbor.
. Include an aesthetically-pleasing storm water treatment facility in the Otay District
as had been shown in previous renderings.
. Supports reducing density at the S2 conference hotel and increasing density and
height at the Sl mixed use office/retail/civic site.'
Rudv Ramirez. CV General Plan Uodate
. Retail on the bayfront should be the type that attracts visitors.
. Would like to see the greenbelt connection between the Harbor and Otay districts
and how it relates to heights/massing and opening of corridors.
Emerald Randoloh. CV Bovs & Girls Club
. The proposed retail use should serve both residential and hotel uses.
3
1-21
. Civic uses are wonderful and a WOW fa ctor but don't pay for themselves.
. Building all the proposed open space areas will be challenging.
Allison Rolfe. SD Bavkeeoer
. Concerned about the maximum height of the S2 conference hotel; should be
reduced to a maxim um of 1 to 2 storie s like Asilom ar and Vacation Village.
. Concerned about the maximum height of the H1 resort hotel, and H8 and H9 retail
parcels, which are within the flyway, so the heights should be lower (1 to 2
stories). To compensate for the height and density reduction on these parcels,
would support increasing the maximum height of the H3 civic/retail parcel to 6 or
8 stories because it would not be in the flyway and is next to the Goodrich
industrial buil dings.
. Concerned about the maximum height of the H21 retail parcel due to its proximity
to the J Street Marsh; should be reduced to a maximum of 1 to 2 stories.
. Concerned about having maximum heights that may lead to building of towers,
which could result in perching issues. However, appropriate design could alleviate
this concern.
. Concerned that in a scenario where the power plant would remain in its existing
location, the proposed 01 and 02 residential uses would be within 1,000 feet of
the plant; therefore, one of the EIR alternatives should include no residential use
in the Otay District and the residential density tra nsferred to the Harbor District.
The proposed RV Park could be relocated to 01 and 02.
. The EIR should consider the new Air District rule that prohibits residential
development within 500 feet of a freeway.
. Concerned about the potential reduction of the OP2 buffer width on the 04 former
LNG site and potential impacts to the J St Marsh area; suggests working out issues
with SDG&E regarding the width of the OP4 easement.
. Supports achieving the WOW factor through a mix of uses.
. Supports higher maximum height at the Sl mixed use office/retail/civic site.
. Supports higher maximum heights nea r the freeway, lower near the water,
consistent with previous discussions.
Jeff Wells. Voit Commercial Brokeraae Comoanv
. Maintain flexibility in uses and allow for a mix of uses, which will benefit the EIR,
the builders, and public access.
4
1-22
REPLACEMENTS FOR ATTACHMENTS 5 & 6
ITEM NO.1 - BLUE AGENDA
1-23-/1
(-.2..3 -13
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.
AND
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER
PLAN AND THE TWO OPTIONS FOR THE RESORT CONFERENCE
CENTER SITE; AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND
THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO TO ADDRESS PUBLIC FINANCING AND
ENTITLEMENT PROCESSING OF THE CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT
MASTER PLAN THROUGH A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT OR
OTHER SUCH AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, the Board of Port Commissioners (Board) and the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula/Chula Vista City Council (Agency/Council) directed staff
to perfonm further analysis of the two Phase I draflland use plans known as Land Use Plans Band
C, as amended by the CAC, with a clear preference for Option C, as amended by the CAC, both of
which were designed to achieve a world~class waterfront through a unique mix of land and water
uses; and .
WHEREAS, the Board and Agency/Council authorized staff to proceed with Phase II of the
master plan process to identify a specific development program with master plan alternatives and to
conduct a financial feasibility analysis of the plan; and
WHEREAS, the consultant team conducted an initial financial analysis for a range of
development intensities based upon the market study and public outreach conducted during Phase I;
and
WHEREAS, the Port and City continued to conduct an extensive public outreach and
participation program during Phase II and worked with the consultant team led by Cooper Robertson
and Partners to refine the range of development intensities for the 25-year plan, to identify the
components to be constructed within the first five years (first-phase), and to begin environmental
data collection; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will evaluate the CVBMP based upon
the range of identified intensities developed during Phase II and the financial analysis will be
updated as necessary to specificarly address financing and phasing strategies for implementing the
CVBMP; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the plan known as Plan B be reviewed as an alternative
under CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a financial participation agreement will address the financing and phasing of the .
CVBMP infrastructure improvements and additional entitlement processing in order to implement the
project.
1-24
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council and the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Chula Vista do hereby direct staff to proceed with the environmental review
process for the CVBMP and the two options for the resort conference center, and to enter into
negotiations between the City of Chula Vista, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista,
and the Port of San Diego to address public financing and entitlement processing of the CVBMP
through a joint powers agreement or other such agreement.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
".
Laurie Madigan
Director of Community Development
0-- ~--J._
Ann Moore
City Attorney and Agency Counsel
1-25
t<
-."'R'"
:ft~'-'rn'" 'e
"..,...". ~"'. .'. .. .'.' -..". . . ..
. .. '-
-.e:OALI
SUMMARY POSITION
Port District/Chula Vista City Council
Joint Meeting
Chula Vista Bayfront Masterplan
Coalition Members: Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego Imperial County Labor
Council, San Diego Baykeeper, South Bay Greens, San Diego Audubon Society, Southwest
Wetlands Interpretive Association, Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Chapter, Center on
Policy Initiatives, Friends of the San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuges
Request
. OPPOSE staff recommendation for analysis of a maximum of 2,400
residential units,
. SUPPORT CAC majority recommendation to analyze a range of residential
units from 1,000 to 2,000 in a land trade option.
. We do not support any project that locates residential uses on the Sweetwater
District. The whole justification of the land trade alternative is to ensure that
the right uses get in the right places and residential is not appropriate on the
Sweetwater District.
. Port/Council should direct a planning guideline requiring all buildings of over
3 stories to be "stepped back" and moved as far from the shoreline as possible
should be directed.
. Site planning should require that height be as far from the shore as possible to
allow the most open public access and the safest flyways for birds flying
between South Bay habitat areas,
. An altemative use for the north Otay District should be analyzed in case the
South Bay Power Plant is not decommissioned,
. We request that the CAC consensus positions supporting elimination of a sports
arena in the event that a Resort Convention Center is built and relocation of the
yacht club to a location on the shoreline of the boat basin be part of your motion.
1:3
PRESIDENT
Bruce H. Warren
President-EIee!
Richard D. Barrett
DIRECTORS
Kristen Miller AlioIli
Simon Andrews
Lynne Cooley Baker
Richard Barrett
HcNiard Blackson
Teddy Cruz
Joan Dahlin
Christopher Hell
Lawrence Herzog
Sara lagur
Paul Marra
Vonn Marie May
Michael Mclaughlin
Judith A. Swink
Bruce H. Warren
Pas! President
Alan Hoffman
FRIENDS OF C3
WilliamlShawna
Anderson
Tom Anglewicz
PamlTerry Arnett
Richard C. Brasher
Tom Carter
Kurt Chilcott
Diane B. Coombs
Kathleen Garcia
Ronald Getoor
Charles R. Gill
Allen Jones
Mariette Kobrak
Bill Lund
Frederick M. Marks
HiamillonlPeggy Marston
Waller/Judith Munk
Laura W. Nathanson
BarbaralRodney Orth
Ellen R...ele
James K Robbins
Karen Scarborough
Glen Schmidt
Jud~h A. Swink
Stephen B. Williams
Don J. Wood
CORPORATE SPONSOR
American Assets, Inc.
H.G. Fenton Company
San Diego Association
of Realtors
San Diego County
Water Authority
Van Dyke. LLP
BENEFACTORS
ClareILoch Crane
Montague/Joan Griffin
Citizens Coordinate for Century 3
P. O. Box 87381 San Diego CA 92138-7381 619/232-7196
August g, 2005
Chula Vista City Council
Port of San Diego Commissioners
RE: CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN
Dear Councilmembers and Commissioners:
Citizens Coordinate for Century 3 is one of the oldest and most respected civic
organizations in the San Diego Region. We provide a forum for citizens to
voice their opinions and concerns about regional planning issues. Our goals
and objectives for the region are set forth in "Toward Permanent Paradise"
and we use them in evaluating projects and plans and in making proposals to
decision making bodies.
C-3 recognizes that our region will continue to grow and we also have a
record of strongly supporting preservation of our important natural
resources. We have long discouraged costly sprawl development and
advocated "Smart Growth" in and near existing communities with appropriate
urban design standards, amenities and proximity to transit facilities.
C-3 aDDlauds the Land Use Plan
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Citizen Advisory
Committee and we want to commend your staff for being so helpful and
committed to make this planning process a success. C-3 believes that all
planning must start with an understanding that the waterfront is first and
foremost a public space. We are pleased to see some of the retail in the
Harbor area moved back further opening up the waterfront and views in this
exciting pedestrian space. We support the most recent land use plan with the
locations and acreage for each proposed use. The large percentage of open
Bayfront land and that to be reclaimed is impressive. However, we remain
concerned that despite extensive cooperation and collaboration, the
remaining debate has been framed around the appropriate number of
residential units for this land without adequate recognition of the full
interrelationships at play in a successful walkable community. Higher
densities well serve environmental justice.
A Strono Neiohborhood needs Sufficient Numbers for Neiohborhood Retailers
to Thrive
There are many factors that make up a vibrant community, and neighborhood
services are key to creating a truly walkable neighborhood. Drawing retailers
who meet the daily needs of residents within walking distance contributes to
several worthy goals: public safety (more eyes on the street); strong tax base
(more commercial transactions); public health (fewer car trips, cleaner air,
more physical activity); and a robust component of affordable housing.
Chula Vista City Council & Port of San Diego Commissioners
August 9, 2005
Page 2
Neighborhood retailers require a minimum number of units to meet their
business plan.
The residential density proposed for the Harbor and Olay portions of this plan
must provide a minimum number of households (2700 - 3300 dwelling units)
to make the community able to draw the full range of neighborhood services
(grocery, drug store, bank, cleaners). Since the project approved may be
reduced from the number studied in the EIR, but cannot be increased, it is
important to study the higher total number of units to support a strong
neighborhood retail component in the mixed use. More units may yield
further benefit.
A Diverse Neiahborhood is Stronaer Yet
Were it possible to increase the component percentage of affordable housing
units over that required by law, additional density is well worth the reward of
a vibrant socioeconomically diverse community. Market rate unit counts make
more affordability possible.
Page 2
CITIZENS COORDINATE FOR CENTURY 3
Two other aspects on this point deserve mention - in this type of
development, maximum allowable densities are very difficult to configure
design wise - we can expect some loss there before buildout. Further, the
project must generate adequate revenue to provide the infrastructure and
many public amenities set forth here while providing a return on investment.
The developers' willingness to submit to a comprehensive planning process
and consider a complex land swap further recommend fair consideration of
these elements here.
Desian is Important - A Vibrant Street. Open Space Flow and Iconic
Landmarks
In order to avoid a walling off effect, we advocate well designed mixed
use higher buildings at various heights with open space around them
providing for civic uses and view corridors.
As we have found out in other areas, not everyone wants to live in a single
family home and we need to provide choices in this new community.
We have some concern that the park west of the proposed Resort Conference
Facility may be overutilized by their patrons and events to the detriment of
local public and tourist use. We would encourage design standards for this
facility to assure it reflects the character and history of Chula Vista. A good
design would address public access and pedestrian flow here.
The result, if done with attention to all elements of the density equation
(retail services, design, affordability percentage, public infrastructure),
becomes a living example of a diverse, walkable vibrant new community with
active parks and protected habitats. Again, C-3 thanks you for the
Chula Vista City Council & Port of San Diego Commissioners
August 9, 2005
Page 3
opportunity to participate in a significant effort to plan what can be
Chula Vistas' Jewel on the Bay.
Sincerely,
CITIZENS COORDINATE FOR CENTURY 3
~.~
~~
C-3 President
Chula Vista Dayfront Master Plan - Phase II
Board of Port Commissioners and
Chula VISta City CounciVRedevelopment Agency
Joint Meeting - August 9, 2005
1
r;
, .
.....~~
-, ~..
-4- .",-
r
<,..~.,
~, . i
. j
\,
~
,"'it
. ',,'c,'''''' ~.
.-:-+.~~--,--'~
t' ._.,
;:
"..,/
"
l,~
$
-""1.. _]
2
3
Harbor Configuration - Option 1
") .
'-<.~
"
~
-,
4
5
6
7
8
9
Plan Comparison
Proposed Use PlanA PlanA PlanA
Option I Option 2
Signature Park 32 acres 35 acres 41 acres
Office/Comm. 760 -1,295ksf 760-1,295ksf 560 - 995ksf
Recreation
Retail 140 - 275ksf 100 - 200ksf 115 - 225ksf
Civic/Cultural 210 - 450ksf 210 - 450ksf 200 - 400ksf
Hotel 2,300 - 3,150 2,300 - 3,150 2,000 - 2,750
rooms rooms rooms
10
Next Steps
· BPC/CV City Council Action: August 9
. EIR Notice of Preparation: Mid-August 2005
· Draft EIR Public Review: OctoberlNovember 2005
· EIR Certification: January 2006
· SLC Approval: March 2006
. CCC Approval: Spring 2006
11
1
""--'"
K:'1
~~"'llIiI!IlI
. \~.'
'';:l "'.~,:':c:"
~;' ~~..--:"-~"~-
.- "V'''''!''" .,..:...:w
-.
':~~~~I~~~!i:
\.~ '
..:..\
/
rr 'if'l t ~\\ \\"'
;f..1 ":':'-'''i'\:>'^''~.~'''~
~\~ .~ .,~ ~~ \
i ...~.~YJ~AA~~~""'''~"' \
..,;,~_~...\~~.~",...~~~.c"" .,..,~
'~~'~"""~'\*"'~~~
-t f ;;J~ ..:;,~~:~.,
l It~. 1~~ "l....~,~..!l....."I.'S!',j,..~..."\:'~I.-...J..~~u..':O)>
f,-""'-~" .-.... -'C""
,J,:t---..t:!-..1iii:' ._ . _ ,," ~
~'.
.
:. "\-
"'. \
~.
,
.,
t
I
,
,
~
"",.
---..~-,-........."..---'---
ChUl3 V,sta B<lyfronl
Chula Vista Bcf
~'.tsOn&Pijf/nfJ'S
2
3
4
.,-.'
~I
.'
i/II' 'c. . ..
~-"
Iff' I/!fIf::
'.:?:'.':~
I
.....
~'ISOIl&P
5
,
.~
~\
.,
\-- ..
'. . 'iiIIii\;
- ;I-'",,,;~, .
. IIJ;on&P;Jlrne<s
6
7
J
.-..
..~
~_.....-_._--~.j
~.=;=:=~ ~~."~ I
8
-F
I,
i"
r
-'~IS(=---
'i
J
,
i
9
10
11
Of'ENSP~CElEGEND
W_
a_n...
TIdoI......
_......_SJ.."...
_C""'.-.,iolH_.150cra0
_l-.ncho.
_ExtandoodN...Cn....n..
:;::: S...O.___.!2ac,.
~.
E F H J L
I ... L
". . ,~- ...1
I "--.
=*~ -...:.,
Chula Vista BayfrOflt Str
12
'1
E
l!
..
i
!l
.
i
I
,
i
I I
....m.. I ::.4i
'h"I>.,..-n
I
.
__ "",:.H__ ..::...~
-".,"" L..,;;;;:.:::"", ~ J.,li V' ....~:::.":;
.;-~... - 1f .)..or ..
t ~ _\ 11 . ~
' o\"ol'
"""""".......
_ --...u_
- ':'="'-0,..__ .__
-
-
-
-
_N_
--
---
-
ep.....T.. *_
Chua I
..
--
I I
I
.-
I
.....-.......
_ ___..c-cIIIIII
t':;t', ::::...-
Deve
Chua I
13
!:
If
n
,.
;..
I
i:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Financial Analysis:
Summary of Findings
Prepared for:
Joint San Diego Port District and City of Chuta Vista Board Meeting
Chula Vista, CA
August 9, 2005
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
Introduction
. Findings of financial analysis of the
Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan
. Analysis of costs and revenues over
time - public and private sector
. Two scenarios:
. 2,900 residential units
. 1,500 residential units
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
IB1
1
Project Costs - Public Versus Private
Total Public and PrIvate Coats - 2,900 Units
51,646,900,000
$343,600,000
c --~~.._..___.~
l- Public (17.3'/o).!I Privat~ (82.~J
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
Project Costs - Public Versus Private
Total Public and PrIvate Coats -1,500 Units
51,282,500,000
$343,600,000
r-Public (21.1%) 0 Private (78~9%>l
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
IDI
2
NPV of Development Proformas by Use
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,000,000
o 1,500 Units
. 29QO Units
$0
($5,OOO,OOO)
($10,000,000)
($15,000,000)
($20,000,000)
($25,000,000)
($30,OOO,OOO)
($35.000,000)
.p ~""\ ,,~..... ,,'8> ,..... ,,0.,' .?'....... ~ ~ ~'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~
"t.'7 c1f" &I' ~"1<><J'~ ~..."Y ~e..s> Jfi ji >-./"
~'f ..sPO'".;!>' vV"cr
~... cr'~,
N>.~ .>>~
/" -..1;"
<1'
Note: At Given Rates of Return; lodging assumes conventional product typeslopera~ng structure
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
liD
Port/Public Costs by District
DI.trtbutlon of Public Coata by DI.trtct
I
I
HlIrbor
.2%
Swutw.....
.,.
Of.y
I,.
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
IB1
3
PorUPublic Costs by Use/Type
Dlsb1buUon 01 Public COs.. by U..
17%
.%
---I
I
21%
!.E~..A~~~entaIlBuffers 0 Parking _ Parks/Plazas. Marina. Demolition/Misc. . Private Site prepa~ti~~!
$120.0
$100.0
,",'
I '""
~
$<0.'
$20.0
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
PorUPublic Costs Over Time
Port/Public Sector Costs by Cost Category, 2007 - 2031
Bill
$0.'
#~~~~~~~r~~~~~#~#~~~#~~~~
. Infrastructure Ccm .SiteOewlopment~1s . Soft Costs . Operating Costs
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
lIB
4
Port District Revenues Over Time
Port District Revenues by Revenue Category, 2007.2031
$30.00
$2500
$5.00
$20.00
$15.00
$1000
$000
#~~~~~~r~~~~~#~~##~~#~#~~
___~lnfr8S~OCbreReirrb.JI"sements .lease .Parking~uesl
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
IB1
City of Chula Vista Impact Fee and
Property Taxes Over Time
City of Chula Vista Impact Fee and Property Tax Revenues, 2007 .2031
$7.000,000
$6,000,000
$5.000,000
$4,000,000
$3.000,000
$2.000,000
$1.000.000
'"
#~~~~r~~~~#~~##~##~~###~~
.I~ Fees- 1.500 Ll"it. .lmpllC1 F_. -2,900 Ll-II.. OPropertyT......-l,SOOU'il. . PropoortyT...... . 2,900 lrit.
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
IB1
5
City of Chula Vista Retail Sales Tax
and TOT Revenues Over Time
CltyQf Chuli! Vim Retail Sal.. Tax and Transient Oc;cupancyTax Revenues. 2007.2031
$'.,000,000
$12,000,000
$10,000,000
58,000,000
Sl5.000,OOO
$4,000,000
~T.....T'on_Oc<urwo:yT....1
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
..
CVRA Revenues Over Time
'25
Incremental Net New CVRA Revenu-~s Over Time. 2007 . 2~~
'20
$15
~
~
~
$10
$5
$0
#~~~~~~~~~~~~~##~~~~
I01,500Units.2.900lk1ltsl
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
..
6
Net Fiscal Impact to City of Chula Vista and
CVRA Combined Over Time
Total Net Fiscal Impact. City of Chula Vista and CVRA Combined. 2007 .2031
$25.000.000
$5,000,000
$20.000.000
$15.000.000
$10,000,000
~
#~#~~r~~~~#~~~##~####~~#~
101,500 L.rII..2,900 I.I-itsl
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
...,
Summary of Net Present Value of Net Public
Sector Impacts, 2007 - 2031
(In Millions of 2005 Dollars)
Source
Public Costs
Port Revenues
CVRA Revenues
Ci of Chula Vista Revenues
Total Revenues
Total
Less Potential Private Sector Gap
Fundln Re ulrement 1
Total Public Sector 1m ct
2,900 Dwelling
Units
260.0 - 280.0
170.0 - 190.0
85.0 - 95.0
25.0 - 35.0
280.0 - 320.0
20.0 . 40.0
1,500 Dwelling
Units
260.0 . 280.0
170.0 -190.0
65.0 . 75.0
25.0 - 35.0
260.0 . 300.0
0.0 . 20.0
1 Excluding Arena/Event Center
Note: This table Is illustrative only for the purpose of comparing publk costs to
potential revenues. No potential public agency revenues have been allocated to the
project and shoufd not be assumed to be allocated.
Financial Analysis: Summary of Findings
..
7
'PAClTICAi
L,~".,~
~ -
'..1 -" :
~..."'" '!JlI L\
.. '" ,..~
The CVBMP Joint Meeting of the
Port Board and City Council
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 4:00pm
A Framework for
Residential Development
carrie'lohnson
Public Space - A Framework for Residential Development
PubliC Sp3ice ~r:
OtCi'yi)isl:rict
t!~;~-
~8 ~~c:.FY:'
"JU=t .'._ -:c
. ':l,Jt
R :~
~l :~
I 1 .!
~. /"1
'....,,~
~1t ';;;a
..J.-4
:12\,;-'
.'. ,.'
:I.. "",:~,,:::,
,,' '.
.
- '. ,~..
J"- '.'~'.T
','
,:,'
...I~.,.
Public Space ~n
Harbor District
carrierjohnson
1
Public Space - A Framework for Residential Development
o '-
~:-1---:-::,i'. ~ '<
Connect
Distinct Neighborhoods
Assure Public Openness
Encourage Diverse
Experiences
....I
Connect Public and
Residents to the Water
if~~I.F.I~~1
Public Space Amenities carrierjohnson
Connect Distinct Neighborhoods
~~~.IF.If:~]
carrierjohnson
2
Connect Distinct Neighborhoods
~
iPAClFlCA
,..=c~
Otay District South
carrierjohnson
~1EDc]
carrierjohnson
3
Assure Public Openness
~
.
~~
7:;';><
1~~!D!0]
Harbor District South
carrierjohnson
Encourage Diverse Experiences
tr~~Ipqi
carrierjohnson
4
Encourage Diverse Experiences
..
ir:l:C~F.I~
Harbor District North
c3rrierjonnson
Connect Public and Residents to the Water
~
-,,"
J~~IF.I~
carrierjohnson
5
Connect Public and Residents to the Water
~
...~. '..-#'(
....'~.:--,~~
,. ~......;.;;;.,;.;;,.r t_..... ..
~/_....- ~1.r..-,-
"'.",,":_ _'O-""";-J___
~Z"{~:, '''~.. pril.)::~
.
.-
~..?~::;:~--' ~ ~ " or
~ ~-,,4'7~."t"'>ci:1. "-. ~~~
, ~-.'i~i""~"_ ,__, ,
~~~")jc>' ?;.?2~2;"'>;. ..... ;.
..cE'r'-_<:-::--:r'~'::"'/';..~3~~' e '_(0
r,.. " '. ,>-;;: "'.."", _ t '
,~. . 'r~" "'S;i'. .. it,
,.';h~'i:/~" " '," ~' .,' ~~:./'-.
"]"--~- ,". ' ,~
.. ) ~
.....-r_r :-
,,~--;.....>,~..,
.... / "", ~-
,( '. " . . .
<:/'-:'~~ ;-..~.:'- '.:,.K~,j{.' "-'~;._::a.-:
"~i6~.:~q.'~"" '.
"',' ~.~ ~i~"{'~'4.'
.. "'.-,. 1.4!t.. ~-.;
~+ -n .fl';
/. >'i'l~
?-f/- ....C~.
H~ '
T
i1~S!!:~
J Street Portal
carrierjohnson
Connect Public and Residents to the Water
,,;
....;--
I
'IF
-
iPACIl'ICA'
"=",;11
Marina Parkway
carrierjohnson
6
Public Space - A Framework for Residential Development
:'\.,I3t'.H': =.'. '.~.',-~'.-
['a ' "'-,-.-
'~J=.,'=
~.ill~., :;
it ,._ 10---.0 _
~If- -:-,~,,-
.Jr.. 1\0,
._--~----
::-1\1:~ <'. ...... .
, , I
/ ' !
uJ.'e:
~.=
I ,i
,~\ .-:'I
~,-
V4'
~
IN,CIF.TSAj
carrierjohnson
7