HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/08/05 Item 7
CITY COUNCIL &
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA STATEMENT
~lff:. ellY OF
~ CHLJLA VISTA
AUGUST 5, 2008 Iteml
ITEM TITLE:
A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORMAL
CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS FOR AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE URBAN LAND
INSTITUTE
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
B. RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE URBAN LAND
INSTITUTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,000, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR ~ /. J/-
/ ?PI'
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF REDEVELOPMENT "'D HOUSING
CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,,/9/1L
4/5THS VOTE: YES 0 NO D
SUMMARY
In the coming years, Chula Vista' s vacant bayfront may soon transform into a world class
destination. The H Street corridor provides an opportunity to connect the bayfront and the Chula
Vista community and revitalize it along the way. Staff is recommending that the Redevelopment
Agency (Agency) enter into a contract with the lirban Land Institute (ULl) Five-Day Advisory
Services Program (Program) to provide an unbiased implementation program for redevelopment of
the H Street Corridor between Interstate 5 and Third A venue (Corridor).
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a
"Project'. as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to
Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no
further environmental review is necessary.
7-1
August 5, 2008, Item--L
Page 2 of 4
RECOMMENDATION
Councill Agency adopt the resolutions.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On January 24, 2008, the Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation directed staff to consider
using the expertise of the ULI Advisory Council to advise the Redevelopment Agency in its
redevelopment efforts. On July 10, 2008 City Council approved the Climate Change Working
Group Measures Draft Implementation Plan. Measure #6 of this Plan, "Smart Growth" at
Trolley Stations, identified a work program that included the ULI Program.
DISCUSSION
Background
Recent demographic changes and population growth in California have brought about renewed
interest and need for revitalization and redevelopment of cities' urban centers. Recognizing the
need for revitalization of its own urban area several years ago, Chula Vista embarked upon a
visionary framework for revitalization through the adoption of the updated General Plan
(December 2005) and Urban Core Specific Plan ("UCSP", April 2007). While the real estate
market has since cooled, Chula Vista continues its efforts to revitalize the older western portion
of the city with the progress of the Bayfront Master Plan and development of a major
hotel/convention center.
The Bayfront represents the largest opportunity in the; city for future development. With
sweeping views of the San Diego Bay, large parcels of undeveloped land and recent steps to
secure the Gaylord Entertainment hotel-convention center, the Bayfront may provide the needed
"catalyst" for redevelopment. As the Bayfront Master Plan and the cornerstone hotel/convention
center move closer to reality, renewed private investment will seek to capitalize on the
opportunities to compliment uses and serve the visitors and residents of the Bayfront.
With the Bayfront's front door at H Street. the Corridor is quickly emerging as a potential
"backbone" for redevelopment. H Street is ideally situated as a major gateway to the city's
commercial and fmancial centers and a direct link of the Bayfront and the city's historic heart of
the community, the Third Avenue commercial district (see Attachment I). Large land owners
located along the Corridor include the South County Court House, Scripps Hospital, and the
Chula Vista Center, a regional shopping mall. All are interested in expansion and redevelopment
opportunities. Recent development activity such as the development of the Gateway Center,
with Class A office space, and the opening of coffee shops, restaurants and professional offices
along the Corridor demonstrates the demand and interest for the area that can only grow with the
potential of the Bayfront.
Urban Land Institute Advisory Services Program
While recent discussions with land ovvners and development activity in the Corridor has
provided renewed hope for revitalization, it is imperative that the City is poised to take
advantage of its opportunities when the market returns and plans for the Bayfront solidify. A
cohesive strategy to address market potential, planning and design or financing and development
7-2
August 5, 2008, Item2
Page 3 of 4
is needed to take the visionary framework of the UCSP to concrete implementable actions that
can facilitate appropriate and quality redevelopment along the Corridor.
Staff is proposing to contract with the ULI for the Program to prepare such a strategy (contract
included as Attachment 2). ULI is a well established international non-profit research and
education organization, which provides leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating
sustainable communities. As the preeminent, multidisciplinary real estate forum, with a
membership of over 35,000 members and associates from 90 countries, ULI has access to experts
representing the entire spectrum of land use and development disciplines.
Through ULI's unique program, an interdisciplinary team of its member experts help sponsors
find creative, practical solutions for issues such as downtown redevelopment, land management
strategies, evaluation of development potential, growth management, community revitalization,
and bro'Wnfield redevelopment. The unique team-based approach to bring city, business,
development, and community interests together with ULI niche experts provides an opportunity
that is unparalleled. The Program has assembled well over 500 ULI-member teams to help
sponsors find solutions and build consensus around land use and development challenges.
For Chula Vista, the program is specifically designed to help answer questions related to the land
use and development issues we face along the Corridor and will:
.:. Bring recognized real estate expertise from across the United States to provide an assessment
of the market feasibility and economic potential of the Corridor as a connection between the
Bayfront and Third A venue commercial district;
.:. Gather data on the many quality-of-life objectives of the community and the ongoing
business and economic operations; and
.:. Fulfill General Plan and other city objectives to forge an integrated, action-oriented
implementation plan for the Corridor.
The interdisciplinary team "vill consist of eight to nine members; typically several developers, a
landscape architect. a planner. a market analyst, a finance expert. and others with the niche
expertise needed to address the issues/challenges most relevant to the Corridor. To complete the
assignment, the team takes on an intensive agenda which includes:
.:. .-'ill in-depth briefing day composed of a tour of the site and meetings with City
representatives:
.:. Hour-long interviews of typically 80 to 100 key community representatives: and
.:. A day and a half of formulating recommendations. The final days are dedicated to the panel
preparing findings and conclusions, which are presented to the sponsor on the final day
through an oral presentation. i\fter the panel is completed, a written report (sample included
as Attachment 3) will serve as an implementation plan for redevelopment of the Corridor.
Additionally, the City has the opportunity to build upon the ULI Program. In early 2008, the H
Street Corridor, as a smart growth and transit focus area, was one of three project areas selected
by the San Diego Association of Governments (SA..l\IDAG) for a Smart Growth 3-D Visual
7-3
August 5, 2008, Item ':f-
Page 4 of 4
Simulation grant. Through the grant, the City will be able to provide a three-dimensional,
conceptual visualization of the implementation plan developed by ULI. Being able to visualize a
plan helps one to better understand building massing assumptions, the integration of frontage
property appearance, and pedestrian access along the Corridor.
Bidding Process Waiver
Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.56.070 requires that contracts for all supplies, equipment
and services when the estimated cost exceeds $100,000 shall be awarded by the City Council to
the lowest responsive bidding process. Exceptions to this requirement may be granted where
there is a commodity or service available from only one known source as the result of unique
performance capabilities, compatibility requirements or market conditions. The competitive
bidding requirements may be waived by the City Council when they are impractical, impossible
or the city interests would be materially better served by a different procurement process.
Staff is recommending that the formal bidding process be waived for the ULI Program. This
recommendation is based on the following capabilities that are uniquely being offered to the
Agency by ULI:
.:. ULI is uniquely qualified with capabilities to draw from over 35,000 members located in 90
countries who represent the entire spectrum of land use and development disciplines; and
.:. The Program is the only one of its kind and has the unique experience of completing more
than 500 Advisory Service panels, in 47 states, 12 countries, and 4 continents.
ULI has demonstrated their breadth of expertise and experience through their Program and
numerous panel completions. These service capabilities were found to be necessary in order to
meet the goals of the General Plan.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Redevelopment Agency Board and City Council
members and has found no property holdings within 500-feet of the boundaries of the Corridor
which is the subject of this action.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund as a result of adopting this resolution. This
action will appropriate $120.000 of the Redevelopment Agency's existing Fund Balance to the
services and supplies budget of the Redevelopment Agency Merged Project Area Fund.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Map of H Street Corridor
2. Two Party Agreement
3. Sample Report
4. Supplemental Report - Update on Process Since 7/22/08
Prepared by:
Stacey Kur:::, Senior Project Coordinator, Redevelopment & Housing
7-4
~ ~JJ:1J ~ H~~
III I --1 [TTlllT----n , I:
=d~~ =~t:~ I i
::I 3 ::1::1 I i
~~. [l ~ ~ ~ ~ I
~ ' ~ I
~ ..J ~'H in IlliUiLjI
,'~~ i ! I r [I .
""" I' rii
-I ll~; I - I "I f '~
~ rI4~nO~ ~ ~
F I I t= - 81BffilIHHffi
"1 I ill 11II111111
=
f--
L
aA'r/ 4ll!:I J ----'
=~8
~ '~ ~E~
- El~ en
-~
=1=::1:
-
==
=i=
r:r
eMpeoJ8
T
I
8
III
..
III ..
.- GI
>..
. I'll C
c-'- _ GI
::I U
.c
U
L
;--
L-
III
U~
L
m~
I r
~1~
II- -:1'
...= -
...=
== iE ll1IDfil T
~,' en-= ~
e.=~
[ UJij
I
-
I--
t:::
,- 1IIIIIIIIl
III 1I11 I 1I111111
II111111111111111
Illflr-11mllll!11
I 111111 IIIDIllDJI
II~I
1 I I r
l~~ m
5 aJeJsJaJul
Irq---
n
Attachment 1
THE ATTACHED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED
AND APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND WILL BE
FORMALLY SIGNED UPON APPROVAL BY
THE CITY COUNCIL
Dated:
? \ ~(/' [;0
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista and
ULI, the Urban Land IIlstitute
for Advisory Services
7-6
Attachment 2
Parties and Recital Page(s)
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
ULI - the Urban Land Institute
for
Advisory Services
This agreement ("Agreement"), dated for the purposes ofreference
only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in
Exhibit A, Paragraph I, is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A,
Paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 3, and
the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form
is set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are
set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following
facts:
Recitals
Whereas, the H Street Corridor is a critical component of the revitalization of the City of
Chula Vista; and
Whereas, General Plan LUT Objectives 2, 52, 53, and 57 identify the H Street Corridor
as a critical component for focusing redevelopment effor;ts to encourage a mix of uses within
walking distance of a transit station that contain significant public gathering space and vibrant
mixed use area; and
Whereas, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) has extensive knowledge of complicated land
use and planning matters and has conducted Advisory Services Seminars for a number of other
agencies which uniquely qualifies ULI to provide advisory services through their 5-day Advisory
Services Seminar; and
Whereas, waiving the consultant selection process is in the best interest of the City
because ULI has prior experience working with a number of other agencies in conducting
Advisory Services Seminars and has extensive knowledge of complicated land use and planning
matters and has the specific professional resources uniquely qualified and suited to conduct the
Advisory Services Seminar; and
Whereas, ULI warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner
such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of ULI to City within the
time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
(End of Recitals. Next Page starts Obligatory Provisions.)
Page I
7-7
Obligatory Provisions Pages
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED for valuable consideration the City and
Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows:
I. Consultant's Duties
A. General Duties
Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7,
entitled "General Duties"; and,
B. Scope of Work and Schedule
In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also
perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled "Scope of Work and
Schedule", not inconsistent witb the General Duties, according to, and within tbe time frames set
forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City sucb Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit
A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of tbe essence of tbis
agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and
Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined
Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate
this Agreement.
C. Reductions in Scope of Work
City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the
Defmed Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City
and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a
corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction.
D. Additional Services
In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant
to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"),
and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant,
Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate
Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph IO(C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon.
All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed.
E. Standard of Care
Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or
Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in similar locations.
Page 2
7-8
F. Insurance
Consultant must procure insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work under the
contract and the results of that work by the Consultant, his agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors and provide documentation of same prior to commencement of work. The
insurance must be maintained for the duration of the contract.
Minimum Scope ofInsurance
Coverage must be at least as broad as:
(I) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form
CGOOOI). .
(2) Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Automobile Liability,
Code 1 (any auto).
(3) Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and
Employer's Liability Insurance.
(4) Professional Liability or Errors & Omissions Liability insurance appropriate to the
Consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance
Contractor must maintain limits no less than:
I. General Liability:
(Including operations,
products and completed
operations, as applicable)
$1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and
property damage. If Commercial General Liability insurance
with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit must apply separately to this projectllocation or
the general aggregate limit must be twice the required occurrence
limit.
2. Automobile Liability:
$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers' Compensation
Employer's Liability:
4. Professional
Errors &
Liability:
Liability or
Omissions
Statutory
$1,000,000 each accident
$1,000,000 disease-policy limit
$1,000,000 disease-each employee
$1,000,000 each occurrence
Page 3
7-9
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At
the option of the City, either the insurer will reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured
retentions as they pertain to the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the
Consultant will provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the City guaranteeing payment of
losses and related investigations, claim3dministration, and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions
The general liability, and where applicable, the automobile liability policies are to contain, or
be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
(I) The City of Chula Vista, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are
to be named as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of automobiles
owned, leased., hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the Consultant, where applicable,
and, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on
behalf of the Consultant, including providing materials, parts or equipment furnished
in connection with such work or operations. The general liability additional insured
coverage must be provided in the form of an endorsement to the contractor's
insurance using ISO CG 2010 (11/85) or its equivalent. Specifically, the endorsement
must not exclude Products/Completed Operations coverage.
(2) The Consultant's General Liability insurance coverage must be primary insurance as
it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees,
or volunteers is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way
relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.
(3) Coverage shall not extend to any indemnity coverage for the active negligence of the
additional insured in any case where an agreement to indemnify the additional insured
would be invalid under Subdivision (b) of Section 2782 of the Civil Code.
t41 Consultant's insurer will provide a Waiver of Subrogation in favor of the City for the
required general liability policy.
If General Liability, Pollution and/or Asbestos Pollution Liability and/or Errors & Omissions
coverage are written on a claims-made form:
(I) The "Retro Date" must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the
beginning of the contract work.
(2) A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review.
Page 4
7-10
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with licensed insurers admitted to transact business in the State of
California with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A V. If insurance is placed with a
surplus lines insurer, insurer must be listed on the State of California List of Eligible Surplus
Lines Insurers ("LESLI") with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A X. Exception may
be made for the State Compensation Fund when not specifically rated.
Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements
effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements should be on insurance industry
forms, provided those endorsements or policies conform to the contract requirements. All
certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work
commences. The City reserves the right to require, at any time, complete, certified copies of all
required insurance policies, including endorsements evidencing the coverage required by these
specifications.
Consultant will provide City 30 days advance written notice of intent to cancel subject
insurance or advise the City in writing immediately upon knowledge of insurer's intent to cancel.
Subcontractors
Consultants must include all subconsultants as insureds under its policies or furnish separate
certificates and endorsements for each subconsultant All coverage for subconsultants are subject
to all of the requirements included in these specifications. '
G. Security for Performance
(I) Performance Bond
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 18, indicates the need for Consultant to provide
a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately
preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the
City a performance bond in the form prescribed by the City and by such sureties which are
authorized to transact such business in the State of California, listed as approved by the United
States Department of Treasury Circular 570, htto:llwww.fms.treas.2:ov/c570. and whose
underwriting limitation is sufficient to issue bonds in the amount required by the agreement, and
which also satisfy the requirements stated in Section 995.660 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
except as provided otherwise by laws or regulations. All bonds signed by an agent must be
accompanied by a certified copy of such agent's authority. to act. Surety companies must be duly
licensed or authorized in the jurisdiction in which the Project is located to issue bonds for the
limits so required. Form must be satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which
amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Exhibit A,
Paragraph 18.
Page 5
7-11
(2) Letter of Credit
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph IS, indicates the need for Consultant to provide
a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding
the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an
irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the
bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of
this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount
satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space
adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Exhibit A, Paragraph IS.
(3) Other Security
In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph IS, indicates the need for Consultant to provide
security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the
parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then
Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount
satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney.
H. Business License
Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with
Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code.
2. Duties of the City
A. Consultation and Cooperation
City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the
Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to
achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files
and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees
to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, and
with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond thirty (30)
days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the
Consultant's performance of this agreement.
B. Compensation
Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City
periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17, but in no event more frequently than
monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhihit A, Paragraph 17, City shall compensate
Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth
in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a
"checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set
Page 6
7-12
forth in Paragraph 18 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses
as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph II.
All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of
the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper,
and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 17(C)
to be charged upon making such payment.
3. Administration of Contract
Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A,
Paragraph 12, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent
them in the routine administration of this agreement.
4. Term
This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions
hereof.
5. Liquidated Damages
The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A,
Paragraph 13.
It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this
Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in
performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to
compensate for delay.
Failure to complete the Defmed Services within the allotted time period specified in this
Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of
the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the
Consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated
Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 13 ("Liquidated Damages Rate").
Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant's control, other than delays caused by the
City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the
expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect
of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can
be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work.
6. Force Majeure
The performance of this Agreement by either party is subject to acts of God, war or threat of
war, govemment regulation, acts or threats of terrorism, disaster, fITe, strikes, civil disorder,
public health crises, curtailment of transportation facilities or other circumstances beyond the
Page 7
7-13
control of the parties unreasonably delaying or making it inadvisable, illegal or impossible for
either party to perform its obligations hereunder. This Agreement may be terminated without
penalty for anyone (I) or more of such reasons by written notice from one party to the other;
provided that the party delayed or unable to perform shall promptly advise the other party of
such delay or impossibility of performance, and provided further that the party so delayed or
unable to perform shall take reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of any such delay or
nonperformance.
7. Financial Interests of Consultant
A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer
If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 14, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is
deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and
disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required
Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 14 of
Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney.
B. Decline to Participate
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make,
or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a
governmental decision in which. Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant bas a
financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.
C. Search to Determine Economic Interests
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and
represents that Consultant bas diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's
economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political
Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does no~ to the best of Consultant's
knowledge, have an economic interest whicb would conflict with Consultant's duties under this
agreement
D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants
and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the
term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair
Political Practices Act.
E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests
Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants
and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant
Page 8
7-14
learns of an economic interest of Consultant's that may result in a conflict of interest for the
purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder.
F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests
Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate
family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have
any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter
of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of
any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"),
other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14.
Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment,
remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or
Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreemept.
. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of
this Agreement, or for twelve months thereafter.
Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest
within the Term of this Agreement, or for twelve months after the expiration of this Agreement,
except with the written permission of City.
Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for
any third party that may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement,
except with the written permission of City.
8. Hold Harmless
Consultant shall defend. indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and
appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and
expense (including without limitation attorneys fees) arising out of or alleged by third parties to
be the result of the negligent acts, errors or omissions or the willful misconduct of the
Consultant, and Consultant's employees, subcontractors or other persons, agencies or firms for
whom Consultant is legally responsible in connection with the execution of the work covered by
this Agreement, except to the extent that those claims, damages, liability, costs and expenses
(including without limitations, attorneys fees) arise from the sole negligence or sole willful
misconduct of the City, its officers, employees. Also covered is liability arising from, connected
with, caused by or claimed to be caused by the active or passive negligent acts or omissions of
the City, its agents, officers, or employees which may be in combination with the active or
passive negligent acts or omissions of the Consultant, its employees, agents or officers, or any
third party.
With respect to losses arising from Consultant's professional errors or omissions, Consultant
shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers
and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense {including
Page 9
7-15
without limitation attorneys fees) except to the extent that those claims arise Erom the negligence
or willful misconduct of City, its officers or employees.
Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys fees and
liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents or employees in defending against such claims,
whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall
not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. Consultant's obligations
under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
9. Termination of Agreement for Cause
If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner
Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the
covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the
effective date thereof at least five (5) days before tbe effective date of such termination. In the
event of City's termination of this Agreement, all finished or unfinished documents, data,
studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the
option of the City, become the property of the City, provided that City shall first pay Consultant
just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and
other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts
payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breacb.
10. Errors and Omissions
In the event that the City Administrator determines th~t the Consultants' negligence, errors,
or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City
greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant
shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended
to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement
II. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City
City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written
notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty
(30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all fmished and unfinished
documents and other materials described hereinabove shaH, at the option of the City, become
City's sole and exclusive property, provided that City has first paid just and equitable
compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the
effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for
damages or compensation arising onder this Agreement except as set forth herein.
Page 10
7-16
12. Assignability
The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any
interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the sarne (whether by assignment
or notation), without prior written consent of City.
City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in
Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants".
13. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material
All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems
and any other materials or properties (collectively "materials or properties") produced under this
Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City, provided that City has paid
Consultant just and reasonable compensation for the services rendered in producing such
materials or properties. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this
Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United
States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have
unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the
Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any
such materials or properties produced under this Agreement. Consultant shall retain a perpetual,
royalty-free license to use any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms, or other materials or
properties for educational, non-commercial purposes.
14. Independent Contractor
City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent
contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under
this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products.
Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes
under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of
City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled
including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits,
injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax,
social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the
payment of sarne and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto.
15. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures
No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a
claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as
same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this
reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the
implementation of sarne.
Page II
7-17
Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the
purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement.
16. Attorney's Fees
Should a dispute ansmg out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the
prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to
reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be
the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought.
17. Statement of Costs
In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation
of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause
the inclusion of, in said report or documen~ a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar
amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document.
18. Miscellaneous
A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City
Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as
City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever.
B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker andlor Salesman
If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15 is marked, the Consultant andlor their principals is/are
licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or
salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are
licensed real estate brokers or salespersons,
C. Notices
All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be
deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United
States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt
requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated
parties.
D. Entire Agreement
This Agreemen~ together with any other written document referred to or contemplated
herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the
subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended,
Page 12
7-18
modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against
which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought.
E. Capacity of Parties
Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has
legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that
all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement.
F. Governing LawNenue
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the
federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the
City ofChula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance
hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista.
(End of page. Next page is signature page.)
Page 13
7-19
Signature Page
to
}\greernentbe~een
City of Chula Vista
and
ULI - the U rhan Land Institute
for
Advisory Services
IN. WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby
indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent
to its terms:
Dated:
Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Chula Vista
By:
Cheryl Cox, Chair
Attest:
Donna Norris, Interim City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Bart Miesfeid, Interim City Attorney
-
Urban Land lnsh?"
BY:C.~
Cheryl Cummins
President, The Americas
By: ~~~/ ~
Senior Vice President, CommURitY'"J
By: ~ -~/
Thomas W. Eitler 2:'
Director, Advisory Services
7/2/vr
Dated:
7/1/:>(,
Exhibit List to Agreement
(X) Exhibit A.
Page 14
7-20
Exhibit A
to
Agreement between
City of Chula Vista
and
ULI - the Urban Land Institute
for
Advisory Services
1. Effective Date of Agreement:
2. City-Related Entity:
( ) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California
(X) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of
California
( ) Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a
( ) Other:
, a [insert business form]
("City")
3. Place of Business for City:
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
4. Consultant:
ULI - the Urban Land Institute
5. Business Form of Consultant:
( ) Sole Proprietorship
( ) Partnership
( ) Corporation
(X) Non-Profit Corporation
6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant:
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Page 15
7-21
Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20007-5201
Phone: (202) 624-7000
Fax: (202) 624-7140
7. General Duties:
ULI shall conduct a 5-day Advisory Services Panel Seminar and provide a final report
of recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista.
8. Scope of Work and Schedule:
A. Detailed Scope of Work:
ULI sball provide a volunteer panel that collectively bas a varied and broad experience
and knowledge applicable to the issues of the H Street Corridor study area (west of
Third Avenue). Once the contract has been executed, ULI and the City will work
together to frame the assignment and identify the particular issues to be addressed by
tbe panel, whicb may include but not be limited to assessment of the Corridor's
economic potential and urban design, and development of an implementation strategy.
ULI shall arrange for the panel members to visit the location upon which its
recommendations are sought for a period of not less than five days (tbe "panel
session"), starting on panel start date, to be determined by ULI and tbe City.
During tbe panel session, ULI shall directly and thr'lugh its staff:
. study the designated area;
. consnlt witb public and private officials, representatives of otber relevant
organizations, and other individuals familiar witb the issues involved; and
. prepare its conclusions and recommendations whicb will be presented to the
City and its invited guests in oral form at the close of the on-site assignment.
ULI shall provide the City with a written summary of its conclusions and
recommendations. The City ,viII be provided 200 copies of the report.
ULI shall absorb the travel and living expenses of its panel and staff while on site.
B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services:
(X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement
( ) Other:
C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables:
Deliverable No.1: N/A
Page 16
7-22
Deliverable No.2: NfA
Deliverable No.3: NfA
D. Date for completion of all Consultant services:
December 31, 2008
9. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant:
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista shall supply, at its expense, the
following items to ULI:
. Furnish to each panel member, not less than 10 days in advance of the panel session,
such pertinent background data in the form of reports, plans, charts, etc., as may be
presently available or readily developed for the preliminary study of the panel,
prior to its inspection on site. Two copies are to be sent to the ULI Project
Manager.
. Arrange, insofar as possible, to have appropriate persons, including public officials
and private individuals, representatives of relevant organizations, and others,
available for the purpose of consulting with and furnishing information to the panel
on specific matters relevant to the assignment as may be necessary and advisable
during the period of the panel's visit.
10. Compensation:
A. ( ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For performance of all of the Defmed Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall
pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set
forth below:
Single Fixed Fee AmOWlt:
, payable as follows:
Milestone or Event or Deliverable
Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee
) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances
against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for
each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that
phase has been paid. Any payments made hereWlder shall be considered as interest
free loans that must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily
completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit
against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amoWlt or percentage set
forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of
the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that
phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and
unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or
such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof
Page 17
7-23
demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim
advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that
said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor.
The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to
a time and materials basis of payment.
B. (X) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement.
For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defmed Services by Consultant as are
separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each phase of Services,
in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not
commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase,
unless City shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase.
!.
Upon signing of contract
Presentation of panel's recommendations
Upon City receiving final report
Fee for Said Phase
$ 57,500
$ 57,500
$ 5,000
Phase
2.
3.
( ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances
against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for
each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that
phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder sball be considered as interest
free loans that must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily
completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City sball receive credit
against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set
forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of
the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that
phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and
unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or
such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof
demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim
advance payment be made unless the Contractor sball have represented in writing that
said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor.
The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to
a time and materials basis of payment.
C. ( ) Hourly Rate Arrangement
For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay
Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said
Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule herein below according to the
following terms and conditions:
Page 18
1-24
(I) ( ) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement
Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said
Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of
the Defined Services herein required of Consultant for $
including all Materials, and other "reimbursables" ("Maximum Compensation").
(2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement
At . such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to
("Authorization Limit"), Consultant shall not be entitled
to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and
approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional
Services at Consultant's own cost and expense.
Rate Schedule
Category of Employee
Name of Consultant
Hourly Rate
$
$
$
$
$
( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after [month], 20_, if delay
in providing services is caused by City.
Ii. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement
For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services
herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below:
(X) None, the compensation includes all costs.
Cost or Rate
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
() Reports, not to exceed $
() Copies, not to exceed $
() Travel, not to exceed $
() Printing, not to exceed $
() Postage, not to exceed $
() Delivery, not to exceed $
() Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $
() Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs:
Page 19
7-25
, not to exceed $
, not to exceed $
$
$
12. Contract Administrators:
City: Stacey Kurz, Senior Project Coordinator, Redevelopment and Housing
Consultant: Matthew Rader, Senior Associate, Advisory Services Program
13. Liquidated Damages Rate:
( ) $
( ) Other:
per day.
14. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest
Code:
(X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer.'
( ) FPPC Filer
( ) Category No. I. Investments and sources of income.
( ) Category No.2. Interests in real property.
I
( ) Category No.3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject
to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of tbe department.
( ) Category No.4. Investments in business entities and sources of income that engage in
land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property.
) Category No.5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type
which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista
(Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or
equipment.
1. If Consultant, in the performance of its services under this agreement: (1) conducts research
and arrives at conclusions with respect to its rendition of information, advice,
recommendations or counsel independent of the control and direction of the City or of any
City official, other than normal contract monitoring; and (2) possesses no authority witb
respect to any City decision beyond the rendition of information, advice, recommendations or
counsel, Consultant should not be designated as an FPPC Filer.
Page 20
7-26
( ) Category No.6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type
which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's
department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment.
( ) Category No.7. Business positions.
( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project
Property, if any:
IS. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman
16. Pennitted Subconsultants:
~
17. Bill Processing:
A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time:
( ) MontWy
( ) Quarterly
( ) Other:
B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing:
( ) First of the Month
( ) 15th Day of each Month
( ) End of the Month
( ) Other:
C. City's Account Number:
65140-6301
18. Security for Performance
Page 21
7-27
( ) Performance Bond, $
( ) Letter of Credit, $
( ) Other Security:
Type:
Amount $
(X) Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary
requiring the payment of compensation to ULI sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain,
at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until
the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred:
( ) Retention Percentage:
(Xl Retention Amount: $5,000
%
Retention Release Event:
(Xl Completion of All Advisory Services
( l Other:
Page 22
7-28
Attachment 3
7-29
September 22-2'1, 20U2
An Advisory Services Panei Report
ULI-the Urban Land Institute
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, KW
Suite 500 West
Washington, D,c. 200U'I-5201
7-30
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 forums
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
infonnation 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 spectrum of the land
use and development disciplines. Professionals rep-
2
1-31
resented include developers, builders, property
O~'11ers, 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 infonnation 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 infonnation generally avail-
able to those seeking knowledge in the field of
urban land use.
Richard M. Rosan
President
@2002byULI-the Urban Land Institute
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street. N.W.
Suite 500 West
~;ashington. 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.
CLl Catalog Number: ASS050
Cover photo by Leslie A. Smith.
An Advisory Services Panel Report
he goal of ULI's Advisory Services Program
is to bring the finest expertise in the real
estate field to beal' 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
issues such as downto\'m redevelopment, land
management strategies, evaluation of develop-
ment potential, growth management, community
revitalization, brownfields redevelopment, military
base reuse, provision of low-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 panel team is composed of highiy qualified
professionals who volunteer their time to ULI.
They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel
topic and screened to ensure their objectivity.
ULI panel teams are interdisciplinary and typi-
cally inciude several developers, a landscape
architect, a planner, a market analys~. a finance
expert, and others with the niche expertise
needed to address a given project. l-LI teams
pro'ide a holistic look at development problems.
Each panel is chaired by a respected ULI mem-
ber "With pre\'ious panel experience.
The ag'enda for a five-day panel assignment IS in-
tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-
posed of a tour of the site and meetings \vith spon-
sor representatives: a day and a half of hour-long
interviews oftypicaliy 80 to 100 key community
representatives: and a day and a half oi 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 conclusions 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 l~sit.
including sending e).."tensive briefing materials to
each member and arranging for the panel to meet
San Pedro, California. Septernber 22-27.2002
with key local community members and stake-
holders in the project under consideration, partie.
ipants in ULI's five-day panel assignments 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 ULl's unique
ability to draw on the knowledge and expertise of
its members, induding land developers and own-
ers, public officials, academicians, representatives
of financial institutions, and others. In fulfillinent
of the mission of the Urban Land Institute, this
Advisory Senices panel report is intended to pro-
l~de ohjective ad,ice that will promote the re-
sponsible use of land to enhance the emironment.
Rachelle L, Lelitt
Senior 'lice President. Policy and Practice
Mary Beth Corrigan
Vice President, Advisory Services
Nanc~' Zivitz Sussman
Senior Associate. Advisory Services
Meghan Welsch
Associate. Advisory Services
Jason Bell
Panel Coordinator. Advisory Services
N anc)' H. Stewart
Director. Book Program
David james Rose
Manuscript Editor
Betsy VanBuskirk
Art Director
Martha Loomis
Desb:top Puhlishing Specialist/Graphics
Kim Rusch
Graphics
Diann Staniev-Austin
Director. Publishing Operations
3
7-32
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. Halm, Mayor, and staff members Troy
Edwards, Abigail 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 panei cosponsors: the City of Los _4...nge--!
les Community Redevelopment Agency. the City
of Los Angeles Harbor Department, and the San
Pedro Peninsula Chamber of Connnerce.
The city commissioners and staff members from
the Community Redevelopment Agency. the Har-
bor Department, and the Plauning Department.
From the Community Redevelopment Agency:
commissioners David Farrar. ehairman: John
Schafer, Shu Kwan Woo. Douglas R. Ring, John A.
Ornelas. Marva Smith Battle-Bey. and Madeline
Janis-Aparicio and staff members John McCoy.
Ed Donnelly. Rafique Khan. Susan Totaro. Betty'
Pace, and Mo."y _AJice Crowe.
From the Harbor Department: commissioners
Nicholas G. Tonsich. president; Elwood Lui.
Thomas A. \\larren. James E. Acevedo, and
Camilla Tovmsend 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
7-33
The San Pedro Peninsula Chamber of Commerce:
Jayme Wilson, Jim Cross, and Leslie Smith as well
as the chamber's individual supporters: Jerico De-
velopment, Crail-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 Insurance
Agency, C&S Insurance, Sheraton Los Angeles
Harbor Hotel, Butterfield Communications) Mary-
lyn Ginsburg, Greer/Daily/Minter, the Kathennan
Company. Tom McCain, DDS, Harbor Brake Ser-
vice, HarborFront Properties, Harbor View Office
Building, Hussey Insurance 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 also would like to thank the Los ...4...nge-
les Harbor Watts Economic Development Corpo-
ration. cochaired by Dennis C. Lord and John
Papadakis. ror coordinating the project.
The panel would especially like to recognize the
efforts of the follo,-,ing people during the panel's
on-site visit: John Papadakis. Jayme Wilson, and
Da\id Farrar.
The panel is particulariy indebted to the more than
100 (;ommunit~v residents, neighborhood council
representatives. government and business lead-
ers. and property owners who provided unique
and valuable insights during interviews and the
community rorum.. 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 SUlYices Panel RB1Ion
ULI Panel and Project Staff
Foreword: The Panel's Assignment
Overview and Summary of Recommendations
6
i
Market Potential
10
13
18
26
Planning and Design
Development Strategies and Implementation
Conclusion
00
0'J
About the Panel
34
San Pedro, California, September 22-27, 2002
5
7-34
J. Kevin Lawler
Managing Partner
N-K Ventures, LC
West Palm Beach, Florida
Ed Freer, ASLA
Principal Designer
SmithGroup JJR
Madison, Wisconsin
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
7-35
Jennifer Meoli Stanton
Director of Market Planning and
Advisory Services
Faison
Charlotte, North Carolina
Leslie Holst
Senior Associate
Policy and Practice
Jason Ben
Panel Coordinator
Advisory Services
An Advisory Services Panel Report
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
planning for the indi,idual 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 quaIity-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.
Part of the city of Los Angeles, the waterfront
community of San Pedro is home to one of the
world's busiest harbors, the Port of Los Angeles.
Increasing international trade has sustained ship-
ping volume at the port, while industrial acti,ities
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-
tovm 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 _.. Oakland
. San Jo~
Fresno.
. Los Angeies
San Pedro. -;'ong Beach
7-36
"~
'"'.
.San Diego
''"'
\
"
/
)
~
.J
7
.,,,,,,",",,..,~.,
Lo~ A"9ole. Courn:y
O"'",!oCount.y
Fuik<r'Mn
S"udy.~.=
.-
::'/",
'C
v-
".
-
,
sition with a surrounding neighborhood 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 Angeles 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 longstanding 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
"ith 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 building, !mown as
the old Logicon Building or the Pacific Trade Cen-
8
7-37
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 gallelies, and
professional offices are now replacing them. A Los
Angeles County Courthouse, the Harbor Depart-
ment Headquarters, and other municipal and pri-
vate offices now anchor the downtown, creating
an important component of weekday business ac-
tivity. Private developers have restored a number
of attractive historic buildings and many of these
dovmtown 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 business corridor that is distinct from
the central downtown distlict.
Stretching four miles from the Vincent 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 Angeles Harbor Department, the waterfront
contains a variety of active maritime-related uses,
two museums. several marinas, and a hea\ily used
public beach and boat launch. The fishing fleet and
related support activitie8 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 abar,-
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 'l;vithin a long.
An Advisory SelYices Panel Report
term agreement. The Harbor Department con-
trols the southern segment of Ports 0' Call.
As San Pedro was slow to experience the urban
renaissance that took root in many central cities
and waterfronts dnring the 1990s, the port and the
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 eRA was signed to coordinate
downtov,'11 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.
In June 2001, MayorJames K. Hahn and Council-
woman.J anice 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 dO"\Vlltov,rr. and the
waterfront.
San Pedro has three active neighborhood COl.ulcils,
all of which are interested in downwwn 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. Califomia. September 22-27. 2002
addition, the Port Community Advisory Commit-
tee, representing a range of business, labor, and
community groups, serves as an advisory body to
the Harbor Department Board of Counnissioners.
The CRACs decisions concerning downtown San
Pedro are guided by input provided by the Port
Community Advisory Committee.
A panel of community stakeholders developed plans
for a waterfront Grand 'Promenade. In June 2002,
the Hal'bor Counnission approved the concept of
the promenade. This promenade plan is set forth
in the Waterfront Access Task Force for the Com-
munity and Harbor (WATCH) plan addressed
later in this report.
9
7-38
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 by 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.
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 corrununity to its
waterfront.
However, the panel is equally cognizant of the fact
that the waterfront i8 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
dOwntO,^,ll;
. 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 li,ing.
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
7-39
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 of the Grand
Promenade---€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 belief that 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 "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 sta.rts its work with the understanding that
the San Pedro community and the port have been
and ""ill 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 fishing 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 global market con-
ditions and opportunities with steadily increased
An Advlsnry Services Panel Report
containerization and the continuing gromh and
popularity of the cruise ship industry. All of this is,
of course, 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 occurred 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, hO\"'8Ver, in.
valve the restoration of the old, nor do they entail
the introduction of a major bMe of national chain
retailers. The size of the market base limits the
scope of the retail 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
slLrprised to discover tnat. in a thriving. supply.
deficient metropolitan market. so little new hous-
ing has been developed in the community and that
the CRAs development plans (such M 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 increMing 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. Fe",- new facilities have been added
and no attempts at "branding" the San Pedro com-
munity were evident during the paners visit.
An obstacle to increasing tourism is the limited ac-
cess to and the generally undennaintained 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, California, September 22-27,2002
Village, and virtually no attention to grounds
maintenance is a testament to the powerful draw
of the waterfront.
,
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
\\ithin the community, including "gateway" en-
tries at the northern and southern ends of the
dO'wnto\V1l 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
dO"IA71town core and waterfront.
Though the issue of "gateways" into the downtown
and waterfront areas is not "lAithin the panel's
charge or study area, the panel strongly urges
11
7-40
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 Harbor 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. W'hen the Harbor Watts Economic
Development Corporation, the Port Community ,
Advisory Committee, the San Pedro DO'il'lltown
and vVaterfront Task Force, neighborhood coun-
cils, the chamber of commerce, and business and
labor u..'1ions are added to the mix. even more lay-
ers and interests emerge.
It would be 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
7-41
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 Trust-
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 transfonnation of the San Pedro Downtown
and Waterfront Task Force into a pennanent
organization to coordinate the implementation
of waterfront and downtov,'1l 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 eAisting organizations-the Port of Los
Angeles and the CRA-regarding directed devel-
opment initiatives in the waterfront area and the
core dO,",l1tOi,.V'1l.
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 SelYiGes Panel Report
an Pedro's history as a port hub, a fishing
village, and later as a Iivelwork town domi-
nated by the port is still in evidence as it
has transformed 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 ,..tUlge-
ies. YetI San Pedro has not shared in the dynamic
growth of the overall metropolitan area. With a
population of 9. '7 million, Los _4..ngeles is now th~
lar.gest Clty m the United States. The city has an
unemployment rate of less than 5 percent. which
fueis 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 captrn"ed its share of new residents or
businesses. San Pedro commuters drive to mili-
tary bases; office workers drive to dovvntovm Los
Angeles, Long Beach, Torrance. and other south-
ern California business centers; and service work-
ers drive to the airport. San Pedro is well located.
providing residents ",ith convenient access to the
major employment centers in gyeater Los Ange-
les, but it is not positioned to capture the residen-
tiaL retail, or office market overuow.
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 19308 a.."'1:
deea mOvie theater that is often used as a set in
the production of iihns. 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
countries-the ships, the fascinating visual show
of a working port, the distinctive restaurants, and
the flourishing arts community are assets that
enhance the quality oOlfe and define the character
of tlus place. Most important, San Pedro has per-
sonality.
To recognize San Pedro's market potential is to
embrace the fact that approximately 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
do",-,-utov,rn, 68.5 percent of residents are Hispanic.
The presence of thi, ethnic group continues San
Pedro's rich history as the home of hardworking
immigrant farnihes. If the town's founding families
and community leader, regard the Hispanic com-
munity as an obstacle. or regard it as irrelevant.
then San Pedro will not realize its captive buy-
ing power.
San Pedro"s dOlNLlto'livn was once thriving, with
family-o~'Tled businesses and destination retail a':.
Ports O' Call Village at the harbor. As the compo-
sition of residents living in San Pedro changed, a
radical transfonnation or the retail industry was
happening simultaneously. San Pedro's history as
a fishing village and a company town dominated
b~' 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 malis as the population shifted to
7-42
13
't
e-':+--- ."
suburbs. Nowadays, as American lifestyles con-
tinue to change, malls are feeling the squeeze fi'om
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.
~4Jso. upscale city singles between 25 to 35 years I
of age have discovered San Pedro. finding it an
attractive and fun place to live.
San Pedro is grovving at less than 1 percent a year.
It is not declining, nor is it surrounded by outward
growth alATay from tOlATTl. High-income gTolAih is
creeping ever slowly around the edges of \.V"estern
Avenue, along the coast. and inward.
Existing retailers in dOVllltO"Vn San Pedro can pro-
vide a base upon which to reestablish the business
district as a pedestrian destInation. F or 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 be~'ond Gaffey
Street. CmTently, foot traffic from the waterfront
to downto"rn is not significant. San Pedro's do'WTI-
town can be tied to its waterfront, provided that
waterfront retail uses are complementary and en-
hance the overalL San Pedro retail experience.
DOwntOVlIl lies outside San Pedro"s main traffic
corridors-Gaffey Street and Pacific Avenue. Its
restaurants and stores are visited as destinations
14
7-43
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, VIllale & 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 reo
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 O' Call Village is
obsolete, yet 72 percent of San Pedro's residents
say it has good restam'ants. No trendy themed
chain restaurant is better for San Pedro's retail
market position than its long-term. family-o'Wlled
and -operated gathering places. San Pedro can
build upon this traditionallegac)'. 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 biessed ",rith 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
do\V-ntown to rebuild into a pedestrian-friendly
retail corridor. Dovmtown merchants that serve
niche lifestyle interests, such as the local \Vine shop,
can drav;- from both area residents and tourists,
An Advisory Services Panel Report
luring them from the concentration of entertain-
ment uses and restaurants at the port.
Upscale retailers seek locations where they can hit
the bull'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 been established to effectively compete
with the destination offerings in Long Beach. For
example, when a Border's Books & Music or a
Barnes & N able 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. How'ever, population and in-
come gro,-,,'th signals to retailers that an opportu-
nity to locate in an up-and-corning residential and
tourist market exists. By revitalizing its housing
stock and welcoming new residents. San Pedro
'\Ivill 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 do"",.1.
tovm and at the waterfront. Vacant buildings
around downtovm and in \iev.' of the connection
between the waterfront and aowntoWTl may be
prime retail locations one day. Funds to purchase
and provide buildout expenses and financing for
key locations to connect downto'Wll to the water-
front should be considered.
Curb appeal is difficult to maintain in a retail envi-
ronment filled Viith public streets and independent
San Pedro. California, September 22-27. 20C2
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 unify 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 spepd a day and a dollar in
San Pedro. .
Housing starts are an alternative tool retailers
use to assess a market when sales volumes or de-
mographics de not match spending power. The
Los Angeles housing market is so undersupplied
that national housing reports currently list the va-
canc~- 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
7-44
there may have been fewer than 350 net new units
added in the past ten years. Only 27 permits were
issued in 2001, "ith the first six months of 2002 on
par "ith this pace.
Housing growth stimulates commercial gro"th.
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 intill housing in quantities
large enough to counter the disproportionate share
of low-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 recommended as a strategy for eco-
nomic development at this time. Thougn not a
priority~ new office development constitutes a
potential option if certain conditions are met. Re-
sponsible office development in today"s economy
involves preieasing or preselling to stable, credit-
worthy businesses with the potential to provide
livable-wage jobs for local residents.
Economic development recruiters could use tax
incentives and other resources to attract large-
footprint tenants who would gain some advantage
by locating near the port. Potential tenants in-
clude vendors, suppliers, investors, lenders, seI'.
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
7-45
San Pedro's waterfront can and should be the cat-
alyst for the community. There are numerous ex-
amples of successful waterfront projects all along
the West Coast, indeed allover the world. Most
of the successful uses are a combination of parks,
public facilities, and commercial services.
An active container pOlt 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
one 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 ofthis 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 worbing waterfront
that can celebrate the harbor and its heritage.
The waterfront should not become a sterile envi-
ronment. It also ShOUld not be dominated b)' chain
retailers that can be replicated at Long Beach or
anyv...here else.
The waterfront car. be an economic engine in many
ways. Because children constitute 25 percent of
San Pedro's population: the waterfront needs to
be a place where things can be touched and climbed
on, and this fact should be reflected in any devel-
opment plans. The follovving is a partial list or po-
tential active and passive recreational. retail. and
entertainment uses ror deveiopment on pOrt land:
. parks ana trails:
. museums and aquariums:
. public art galleries:
. intel~retive historical and educational opportu-
nities:
. boating, windsurfing, and hang gliding:
. vrildlife viewing:
. festival/staging:
All AdYisOlY SelYices Panel Repon
. tourism-oriented retail and restaurants \-vith
outdoor seating;
. athletic facilities;
. fishing/fishing charters;
. retired naval ships, ~rr.ecks, and submarines:
. botanical gardens;
. a cooking school;
. carriage rides;
San Pedro, California, September 22-27, 2002
. a chapel;
. a band shelVamphitheater;
. markets-fish, produce, flowers, candy;
. a resort hotel;
. shipbuilding; and
. a marinaJnautical shoplbass pro shop.
17
7-46
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 planning
grid was an effective link to the oceanfront envi-
ronment for early businesses and residents. Over
time, industrial, port, and transportation uses have
disconnected the waterfront from the historical
downtown of San Pedro. Reclaiming the physical
relationship between the San Pedro community
and the waterfront is essential to physical revital-
ization, in the panel's opinion.
Nwnerous studies have been conducted over re-
cent years. The Pacific COlTidor 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,
estahlished 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 of the 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 dovm 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 "aligrnnent" or 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
7-47
. COlmect the dOvvlltowl1 grid directly to the wa-
terfront;
. introduce clear gateways to the community \\ith
wayfinding signage while establishing a strong
entry along Harbor Boulevard;
. establish distinctive subdistricts along the prom-
enade, including a cruise tenninal, 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 a8 the "main street/' Pacific Avenue as
the "market street," and Seventh Street as the
"artists' walk":
. establish "addresses'~ for residential neighbor-
hoods and preserve and strengthen community
connections:
. connect cultural amenities vvith open space and
recreation resources;
. develop parcel H -2 as mixed-use downtov..'1l hous-
ing "ith ground-floor retail: and
. encourage residential infil1.
Clearly, the powerful concept of the promenade.
engendered by the WATCH planning process. has
established an effective symbol for opening acces.::
for the San Pedro com!nunity to the sea. The prom-
enade concept allows for the introduction of a mix
of compatible, nonindustrial uses, both pubhc
and private, along the waterfront. including
recreation, retail, and restaurants as well as an
e,:panded cruise terminal facility. a maritime mu-
seum, public art, and the commercial fishing vil-
lage. To be successful, this concept can be imple-
mented with consideration given to the following
priorities:
An Advisory Services Panel Report
P~ys,cai and Vi"ua'
Cr~"c~nt
Dis,;r'c;
Fl5~lng "I~~;
Entry/G~uway
Main Cha~n~1
~
T~c""n"l i9iand
\r~-c,,"Y ._,,~<
K"Y:
Resid~ntial
'1istociC C"n"Ocal BU5ine5s J;5t~i.;t with Prop05<::d Mix~d Jse
Communi'tyWatl'lriront Park
"u~liG Ac:cef>s
c=:::=J Jn~titutionai or <'iJ~lic Buildin'3~
. Agree on the desirability and validity of the
promenade-eA"tendllg 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 terminal, the mu-
seum, and the restaurants and shops downtov.'1l.
San Pedro, Califomia, September 22-27, 2002
:'owntow~ J~v~lopment SiU;
. Execute the first segment "ith skill and keen
attention to detail. The quality of design and
materials used will be critical.
. 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 0\\11.
. Make the initial section work "ith improve-
ments on Sixth and Seventh streets and Pacific
19
7-48
--' C~"t"e 5t...,,~t
] UR~SidenCial Nei~n~or!1ood
UULJ
EntrylGauw3y
1A
---
I;ictocyr_ane"\
\ (W~:lnd'ng !
i! 0 (0) 0 0'f'C Av,
~DD DO 0>."
IDDOOOO[
OD~[~\][
~~8[jQJ~
~ ~R'dCacL'"
I~... _ I Parkmg
I _ ~ ~
- L.!\. :ar:me I~useum Disuict F~
Station
20
7-49
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 'idistricts'" such as the sug-
gested Downtovm, 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 Angels Gate as icons to
help establish a "San Pedro brand identity."
In addressing the development of the waterfront,
the panel has delineated the following develop-
ment districts: District lA, District IB, 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 l'orth Opportunities Diagrams Ion pages 19,
20, and 21) delineate these districts and provide
an overall view of the panel's recommendations.
Separated from the downtovm by Harbor Boule-
vard, District lA stretches from approximately
Third Street to the cruise terminal. F or District
lA, the panel recommends:
. redeveloping Harbor Boulevard as a strong
entry so that it does not cut off the dO\\'T1toiNI1
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 Repon
lining the structures with commercial and retail
uses to screen parking; and
. designing public access to the promenade and
the 'waterfeont that is sensitive to the security
needs of the cruise terminal.
The Museum District encompasses the area sur-
rounding the Los Angeles Maritime Museum be-
tween approximately Third and Ninth streets.
For the Museum District, the panel suggests:
. locating local museums in one area, giving them
an identity;
. a110'Wing the Los Angeles Maritime Museum to
expand its collection into a new building along
the promenade;
. considering opening 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 IB extends from the edge of the Museum
District at approximately Ninth Street to the
edge of the main channel, including Ports 0' Call.
District IE reinforces the entry to the port. The
panel recommends:
. developmg a port museum or other public build-
ings;
. displaying an entry sculpture that will provide
a signature statement and an opportunity for
new art;
. creating a waterfront park where people can
watch the boats-and where c..ruise ship passen-
gers can watch the people in the park: and
. erectmg 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 Cabril10 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 22-272002
,:>~y5;'/II"MVi5ual
Nc'qhborhoo,," Lin~"q"e
Cr~;>cent
Di.,tc;c~
Fi..hjnq F",~-c
/
marina MIl proceed in the near terTIl. However,
the panel believes that this land is too valuable for
land-based boat sales aud 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 sensithity 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
7-50
-.~(""
C\'la.""~\
'>N~~~
;o..~\'I\"~ f"~"'"
"'~~? '
be evaluated; if reuse is not cost-beneficial, the
structure should be removed to permit a complete
redevelopment of the area and the watern'ont.
,
For the H-2 site, the panel recommends the devel-
opment of a three- to four-story mi.xed-use build-
ing with street-level commercial space topped by
residential units. 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 pro;ide a transition from
the current stock of historic two-story structures
to the large commercial buildings from the 1970s.
In terms 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 terminal to the bottom of SlAih 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.
Z2
7-51
J> ,~
o _
Em:;y5tatu~
K~:
"ropos."dF;;rKlana
R"e;id"ntiill
~n1;ry/G;;t"""ily
It is difficult for ;isitors 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.
Botb primary and secondary gateways pro,iding
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 Services Panel Report
Public infrastructure improvements designed to
link the dOlmtowl1 and the waterfront should in-
clude pedestrian crosswalks, signalization im-
pro\"emems, clear signage for directions, way-
finding and branding, parking upgrades, facade
improvements along Sixtn and Seventh streets,
open space development, and tree planting, The
paners vision for ~hese improvemems as they
relate to Harbor Boulevard is deplcted in the
illustration on page 25.
Clustering improvements along the main roads in
the centra! business district that lead to the water-
front can provi.de greater visual impact, and the
use of signage can characterize San Pedro as a
place Viith an identity. Facade improvements,
storefront avvnings, and other elements that can
tie together the restaurants and the shops can
create a welcoming atmosphere. Guidelines pro-
motmg good design should be set using the man)'
examples of building facade and streetscape im-
provements that exist in dOVvl1tOv,rn San Pedro as
benchmark.s to evaluate proposals.
Residentia! development, especiall)' new market-
rate housing. is an effective tool to stimulate exist.
ing commercial and residential areas and act as a
San Pedro, Caliiornia, September 22-27,2002
~'~"~---
catalyst for new retaiL office, and tourism uses.
The statutory prohibition on housing as an ele-
ment of the California State Tideland Trust iE a se-
riou, 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 ~ith traditiona! 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
7-52
_/(~~~
'==-~'~ '-_ "",,--, L
~ '=- ~-
"\\' F7
"'i=i~~j I~
Jb I ~
III \ ~
I I \\~ '
!L'r\V
lL ~~~(
~ --' \
...."..~ \\
~\\
~-";/,/I, / / 1,Ij /
~ / 'I
/ i
'-'~!'I~
~;;..v
~"" I
~Gt...., :,;.",W.,.~",O""""'"
l:
!,'
"""''',,''.''"''''.:''"'",10'
veloprnent on the H -2 site. and as new discrete m-
fill elements and on the upper floors of renovated
commercial buildings, can all activate ground-floor
retail uses throughou: the dO~Tnto~l1 area.
This proposed new urban infill and expansion,
both at. the waterfront and in the dO~71tO'W'Tl com-
mercial district. must maintain the authem:icity
of the San Pedro experience to excite visitors
and comfort residents, A strong deSIgn recogniz-
able to San Pedrds longtime populace can incor-
porate these new elements into the existing fab-
ric and intensi..fy, 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. I~ feels that a fresh, yet
classic look can greatly enhance the atmosphere
24
7-53
~ U LJl,. J IL.Jt.J
''']0 DO DC
'-J 0 0,0 DC
""~ II i"'\CCl r -'~'C,' ,-
, ILl UJ IJ
J' . ,.
-loot
'JD~C
""'-"':=J 0 [ \\]
""""'~ ,\
.._,,,,..., ~ ~J ,_
~~ -
~ ,~
"~"'~'" ~",I':'~"""'"
'""o"..."'EO""I'u......
"~"'.""o','",..,k"'"""..
(')""'."...",,"'.""'...."''"00
and character of a new development while retain-
ing the historical roots of the community.
Revitalization of the downtown business district,
focused primarily on the link between the water-
front and improvements to SiJ..'th and Seventh
streets and Pacific Avenue, must be supported by
strong and purposeful design guidelines. 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.
cations as well as the new design guidelines need
to be implemented through the creation of an
overlay district.
An Advisoll SelVlces Panel Report
Buffer
Pedestrian
Walkway
'~"'~
/~. i.'\V
f[j~~U ( i
;! I
L1
J
f- Harbor
Finally, the execution of the proposed open space
and new development of the waterfront will pro-
vide clear evidence that a new culture of trust and
open communication has become an integral part
or the communityls character.
San Pedro. California, Septernber 22-27,2002
7-54
~
~?" "f,~I~;,
Boulevard -7
r
,~
-''1 (jfl
"U\'.' /
((') v,
iii," /
,J if,.
\\ f
\ K
\,
\ (\
:1, ~
)1 "
1,1 i fJl ^
~,
.~ ~~;t:;t.~;;~;;I~t~G\I'
Combined
P edestria n! Ree reatio n
Path
25
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 5e, 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 baniers have
impeded redevelopment. Although these baniers
have started to fall, trus 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 corrunon vision and a unified frame- ,I
work for acruevement. The panel endorses the
communit)"'s VlBion 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 \ision.
During the panel's visit. community leaders and
stakeholders repeatedly expressed frustratior,
regarding prior failed development efforts as
well as institutionally imbedded conflicts tha:
thwart progress for unified development. Based
on the panelists' professional experience and ob-
servations, the folloVling are offered as guidelines
for success:
. Establish a trust to ensure public access to the
waterfront.
. Eliminate confusion among stakeholders.
. Reduce the number of committees with over-
lapping and missions and members.
26
7-55
. Focus more on specific actionable steps and less
on process.
. IntegTate 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 includes the following four anchors.
Successful ousiness ventures rely on strong part-
nerships of mutual benefit and respect. Real estate
development on the waterfront car, create new
buildings and healthier businesses-but these eco-
nomic efforcs "ill fail if the)' are not based on a
relationship or 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 recorrunends, as the first step to round-
ing this relationsrup. the establishlnent of the San
Pedro Communit)" Waterfront Trust to hold the
public areas ofthe waterfront for the benefit of
the public at large. The process for capturing eco-
nomic value at the waterfront will succeed or fail
depending on the underlying strength and 8US-
tainabilit)' of the partnersrup between :;he port
and the community.
The port's mandate for these lands, to be held in
~rust for the public, is essentially port deveiop-
ment oriented. Trus mandate serves the port well
An Advisory Services Panel Repor!
\"Then 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,
cOlmnercial, and residential uses.
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 dO'WTltoVi11.
Currently, 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 of retailers both on port propM
erty and in downtovm San Pedro.
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 downto"ll
will enhance the porfs economic strength by cre-
ating significant real estate value, increasing the
\~ability 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 pro\~sion of port funding for the
promenade and the waterfront recreation area.
U pfront investment from the port is particularly
important, as this is the foundation upon which all
further investment by other parties will depend.
It is beyond the panel's scope of work to quantify
the level 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 of the capital funding
for the mitial improvements for the first phase of
the promenade and the lands for major develop-
ment sites in the Crescent Area.
The panel's impression is that San Pedro hail been
stuck in a Kafkaesque world of endless planning.
Many things have contributed to this scenario: a
lack of cooperation between the port and the com-
munity; fear that development "ill contribute to
the notion that San Pedro is a social dumping
ground; and concern that development "ill fur-
ther destroy the character of the downtown.
Circumstances, however, have changed: the rela-
tionship with the port hail the potential to grow:
there is consensus on the need to preserve the
character of the d01N1ltown; 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 prac'Lica-
ble to capture investment and value.
The implementation of these foW' strategic initiaM
tives \\111 require cooperation among- the Dort. the
chamber of commerc~, the eRA, and the ~ommu-
nity. The continued ieadership of Councilwoman
Hahn, representmg the 16th District, and the
mayor will be critical. This leadership ~~ll be par-
ticularly important in the early stages to 8llS1ITe
that sustainabie relationships and cooperation are
firmly established.
The San Pedro communit\: has an advama2'e in
having an organiza-cion al~ead~' in place th;t is
charged with the coordination or existing plans ror
the waterfront, dovvntO\VT, redevelopment. and in-
tegTation of the panel's findings and recommenda-
tions. This entity-the San Pedro \^,raterront and
Dow'1ltmvn Task Force-would be the appropriate
organization, in the panel's opinion, to Ol,Tersee a
coordinated development process for the water-
front and the downtown. TIllS organization can
serve as the pubiic forum where transparency can
27
7-56
be incorporated into the implementation process
to build trust and accountability. The charter of
this group and its membership will need to be ad-
justed to reflect this expanded oversight role.
The 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 ofrepresen-
tation from the Los Angeles Visitor and Conven-
tion Bureau and the Department of Cultural Af-
fairs. The three 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 dovmtown projects.
The organizational corollary to the task force is
a new permanent organization-the San Pedro
COr.1lllunity Waterfront Trust. The panel strongl)'
recommends that this new entity be formed "'
a private, nonprofit organization with fiduciary
responsibility for the deveiopment and the ongo-
ing operation of the promenade and public open-
space areas.
The trust 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 re\italization
of the downtown.
Having a trust will foster feelings of certainty about
the future, which is 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
7-57
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 Dis-
trict)-two members;
. the maritime museum/aquarium-one member;
and
. the community-two members.
In addition to the governing board, the day-to-day
operations of the trust will be supe!'\~sed 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 ""ith
renewals. The port will retain control or all its
lands outside of the public rights-of-way for the
promenade and the watersidE: uses and physica.
structures such as the bulkheads and the exist-
ing marina.
The panel encourages the parties to let :he mu-
seum and aquarium foundations participate in the
trust. As the partnership evolves, opportunities
for synergy ",rith the truSt and the foundationi3
will be grea:.
It is recommended that the trust staff contrac:
the design of the improvements for the water-
front promenade ami significant public: areas. In
addition. the trust would oversee the day-te.-day
operations and maintenance responsibilities to
outside vendors.
The panel emisions ~he port to be a logical SOlITce
of sta.>1:up funding for the trust. .ith 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 community 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 the 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 progJ'am, which requires 1 percent
of the capital improvement cost of all construe-
tion, improvement, or remodeling undertaken
by the city to be allocated for public art;
. existing capital improvement bond issues;
. the Los Angeles Convention and Tourism 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
financially 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.
San Pedro, California, Septernber 22-27, 2002
The port needs to move quickly to establish a capi-
talline item for the construction of Phase !, con-
sisting of the promenade and arrival plaza. This
upfront commitment of the Phase! 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 momentwn of ongoing private real estate
development at the waterfront ",rill 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 the port
assign development revenues from the retail and
housing development areas to the trust, thus sub-
stantially lowering its Ijet 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
"ill 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.
The process for proceeding \Vith 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 Waterfron: Task Force
assume prim..")' responsibility for coordinating
this process.
Tbe panel recommends new private development
in three principal areas: a new retail. commercial,
and restaurant center proximate to the cruise ship
terminal; new housing in the Crescent Area: and
29
7-58
30
housing and adjacent development in the do'/m-
town. The panel envisions the responsibility 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 Pedro 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 taking five actions.
As the panel's design recommendations 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
7-59
create a compatible look and address an overall
design character, rather than uniformity.
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.
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-
specth"e 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.
After a transparent selection process haE 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.
This vvill fulfill the objective of a "seamless inter-
face between the waterfront and the dovmtown"
and will capture the ta., increment value of new
private development necessary to ensure long-
term financing and sustainability.
Housing will be a principal economic engine of
waterfront development and dO"'Iltown revitali-
zation. Tbe panel calls specific attention to the
housing sector in order to maximize its economic
contribution to the waterfront revitalization and
An Advisory Services Panel Repon
reconnection process. It recorrunends that the fol-
lowing four steps be taken.
The Crescent Area housing development on the
waterfront property has the potential to provide
substantial 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.
These include the following: a revolving fund to
purchase underutilized industrial and commercial
sites in and around the dOVi,'1ltovi11 and reconvey
them for market-rate residential development;
a revolving fund to preserve single-family mar-
ket-rate housing throughout the Pacific Corridor
Redevelopment .Atiea: and assembling sites for
the development of market-rate housing in the
do\vnto,-,'TI.
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 do~vnto~rn is vital to
increase the spending power and thus spur addi-
tional commercial development in the downtown.
Development of the B-2 site as a market-rate,
mid-rise. and mixed-use residential property can
be an important early step toward repopulating
the dO\\'UtovlI'..
The market evaluation section of this report gives
little support to the notion that an office use is
likely in the old Logicon huilding. The CRA should
acquire and demolish this structure so that the
San Pedro, California, September 22-27,2002
site could be used for development or housing sim-
ilar to that recommended for the H-2 site.
Consistent, thoughtful design guidelines are an
important development prerequisite for the do,,",-
town. The panel strongly recommends that these
be adopted as a zoning qverlay to ensure the pres-
ervation of dO\\'1ltown's character as new private
investment occurs.
The city of Los Angeles and the San Pedro Cham-
ber of Commerce are cUlTently working together
to revive the former Business Improvement Dis-
trict IBID), which has been inactive for several
years. TIllS BID can be a potent vehicle for the
San Pedro revitalization strategy. Its main func-
tion was to ensure frequent trash pich."Up in the
downtown. Now, trash pickup and puhlic safety
should be only a starting point.
Current efforts should revitalize and expand the
boundary of the BID and the scope of 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,
ehhanced public safety, signage, and physical
maintenance.
The panel recommends re,i,ing the BID \lith an
urgent need to expand its scope and to include all
stakeholders at the table. The effort to reestablish
31
7-60
the BID should move quickly ahead and comprise
the follol<ing:
. promotional events, marketing, signage, and
branding ought 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 eRA, and the
BID should work together to get an access plan
implemented by CALTRA:iS and the city; and
. the museum and aquarium ought to be in-
cluded in the BID to coordinate promotion
and marketing.
32
7-61
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 pmsue 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-
sewn, and the aquarium to the BID will make it
more effective at branding and promoting the
attractions of San Pedro.
An Advisory Sel1ices Panel Report
he waterfront has always been central to
San Pedro's economic vitality. N ow, San
Pedro has a unique opportunity to capitalize
on 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
of the institutional constraints that have thwarted
redevelopment efforts in the past. The panel was
impressed with the apparent commitment among
all the parties to corrunon goals.
ft 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 citizens and civic leaders that
"the stars are aligned" for action to occur.
In the real estate development industry. "going
with the flow" generall~' begets success. Those
whu 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 such a foundation re.
quires careful planning, aligning or resoure", to
execute. and properl:v' assessing risks.
San Pedro. California. September 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
rein vestment. The history of hastily executed
projects is generally a tale of long-term trouble.
The panel is equally concerned that the initial
projects-be they public, private, or public/pri-
vate joint ventures-set the standard. This stan-
dard would include:
. high-quality design;
. integration with the existing rabric 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 cautiom 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
7-62
Panel Chair
West Palm Beach, Flon:da
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 Pahn 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 financial senices 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- t
mercial and residential development projects; port-
folio transactions: and financing and commercial
leasing matters throughout the United States and
overseas. Ir, total, he haE been an adviser in more
than $5 billion of real estate development. finance,
and investment transactions over' his consulting
career. Lawler currently works ror the cities of
Daytona Beach and Miramar. servllig as a real es-
tate financial adviser on several large-scale publici
privatE development projects.
Lawter is an active member of eLL In addition to
serving in the Institute:s '1eadership group," he
serves on the policy and practiCE: committee and is
a member oithe Multifamily Council (Gold Flight).
Lawler has served on ten Advisory Services pan-
els and several project analysis teams. and has
been a '~ce chair of ULI's Southeast Florida Dis-
tricI Council. In October 2000, ULI recogruzed his
service "ith the Robert O'Donnell Award.
He has lec,ured on real estate development and fi-
nance at George Vlashington University Business
SchooL the vVharton School, Harvard Business
School. Georgetown Uruversity, and the Univer-
sity of Miami. Lawler is a graduate of Michigan
34
7-63
State University and received an MCP degree
from the Kennedy School of Government at Har-
vard University.
lv! adison, Wisconsin
Freer, the principal designer with SmitbGroup 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, ~ith 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 follo"ing: waterfront development projects
in the metropolitan St. Paul, Minnesota, area; down-
town Sanford, Florida; New Rochelle, New York;
Racine. vVisconsin; 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 pariicipated
in the U.S. Depariment of Commerce's Sympo-
sium on Economic Development of Tourism and
Destination Resorts, Athens, Greece; and has
taken pari 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 SelYlces Panel RllIIort
MiaTni, Florida
In 1995, Gonzalez started DMG Consulting Ser-
'l;1.ces, 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
vdth Miami-Dade County immediatel;- after re-
ceiving her masr,er:s degree trOIT; 2\ ortheastern
Cniversit:- in 1979. In 1989. she attended ~he
Senior Executlve Program m State and Loca!
Government at the John F. Kennedy Schoo; of
Government.
Begmning as a management interr.. Gonzalez
worked ror most of her county career in the c:api-
tal improvement and cieveioprnent fields. County
land acquisitions, architect and engineer selec-
tion, and capital budget expenditure oversight
were some of her responsibilitieE in the Capital
Improvements Diyision. In 1989, the division was
merged "ith the county.,s facilities and construc-
tion management divisions and she was named
director of the new DepaJ."":ment of Development
and Facilities Management.
A.tlanta. Georgia
Kimsey is vice president and a principal of Nile~
Bolton Associates (NBAl, a. professional design
fi.rm providing architecture, interior design, iand-
San Pedro. California. September 22-27. 2002
scape architecture, and urban planning services.
A licensed architect in seven states, Kimsey re-
ceived a bachelor of arts degree and a master of
architecture degree from Yale University and has
been with NBA for 22 years.
NEll. developed a national reputation for work in
mixed-use developments, multifamily housing,
transportation architecture, department stores,
universities, clubhouses, hotels, and resorts. vVith
exposure to diverse project types and geographic
locations, Kimsey has had extensive experience in
working with both private and public organiza-
tions. He is cUlTently principal-in-charge of the
San Jose State University Campus Village, a $171
million mixed-use project.
Kimsey has been active in numerous business and
civic associations, induding the Urban Land Insti-
tute, the American Institute of Architects, and the
Atlanta Partnership of Education. As president of
the Buckhead Busbess Association, he was the
lead facilitator for a community visioning char-
rette for Atlanta's prerrner business and retail
neighborhood. Kimsey served or the CLl Advi-
sory Services panel for the California sta;;e capital
in Sacramento and has been a vice chair of 1;L1"s
residential and multifarni.l~' councils.
Reno. ~Vevada
Long specialize, ir publiciprivate partnerships,
economic development. and real estate finance.
His consultam practice serves public and private
cUent8 in Nevada and California.
Long was city manager of Fairfield. California,
where he negotiated the first municipal partici-
pation agTeement with a regional shopping mall.
Since leaving tne public sector in 1996. Long has
worked on a \"\-ide range of issues. including base
reuse. developer negotiations, project feasibility
analysis, marketing. redeveiopment. strategic
planning, and public finance.
Long has lectured for the School of Public Admin-
istracion at Golden Gate University and has taught
economic development and organizational change
internationally. He also has served on ULI Ad\'1-
35
7-64
sory Services panels and is a faculty member for
the Urban Land Institute, teaching the advanced
real estate development process course. Long has
a.,~ MPA 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.
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 has 17 years of real estate experience.
At GECIA, she also served as a vice president in
the asset management group. a position in which ,I
she oversaw more than $500 million in commercial
and multifamily assets. Her responsibilitieE in-
cluded developing strategic propert)' business
plans, reviev.'ing and approving property operat-
ing budgets, negotiating ieases, performing hold!
sell a..'1alyses, and managing asset dispositions.
Mitchelson jomed a predecessor entity of GECIA
in 1987, having begun her real estate career as a
financial analyst for Cia.,"€mon~ 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:i:; degree in business
administratior.L, \vith a concentration in financE:,
from Northeastern University.
Cha1"lotte. North Carolina
Stanton is the director or market planning and ad-
visory serviceE for Faison, identifying acquisition
and development opportunities for investors, ere-
36
7-65
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 ,ice presi-
dent of Research and Market Planning Services
at Trammell Crow Company. She operated the
firm's Research and Market Planning 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 Capital 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 Elizabethto\1:Tl 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-
ha\ior and retail management from Purdue C ni-
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 SelYices Panel Repo~
Attachment 4
Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services Program
H Street Corridor
Public Outreach Efforts
In response to Councilman Castaneda's request for participation from property
owners, either written, verbal or financial staff did the fOllowing:
Property Owners
On July 25, 2008 a letter was mailed to eighty nine (89) property owners fronting
H Street between Interstate 5 and Third Avenue (Exhibit "A"). The letter
summarized the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services Program and our
intent to recommend Agency approval of the contract with ULI on August 5th. A
self addressed stamped post card was provided asking each owner to indicate
their level of interest in participating in the ULI process (Exhibit "B").
Businesses
During the week of July 28, 2008 Redevelopment & Housing staff visited
businesses along H Street. These initial contacts were made to provide business
owners and managers with a brief summary of the ULI Advisory Services
Program and our intent to recommend Agency approval of the contract with ULI
on August 5th All contacted businesses were provided with the letter and
postcard in Exhibit "B" so they can indicate their level of interest in participating in
the ULI process.
Public Comments:
In response to comments made by the public during Public Comments, staff has
done the following:
Patricia Aguilar, "...the area between srcJ and 4th along H Street is a
sensitive area.. .and should be treated with sensitivity to the people in that
area".
We have attempted to address this issue bv includinq lanquaqe within the
resolution that puts this concern on the record for the Advisorv Service
Panel:
"WHEREAS, the Urban Land Institute will review the 2005 General Plan
and 2007 Urban Core Specific Area Plan development standards and
guidelines, including the provision of building setback and massing when
conducting their analysis; and
WHEREAS, the Community is concerned about the interface of Mid-rise
and High Rise Development along the H Street Corridor that abuts single
family neighborhoods"
7-66
Attachment 4
Earl Jentz, "... it is to expensive, timing is wrong"
The preparation of an H Street Study was part of the Community
Development strateqic plan since March 28. 2006 at an estimated cost for
consultants of $450.000. The anticipated completion of the study was the
second quarter of 2007. With the re-orqanization of Community
Development the H Street Study was included in the strateqic plan for
Redevelopment and Housinq on May 24. 2007 with an estimated
completion date of June 30. 2008.
The cost is non-neqotiable and the same cost for any iurisdiction. The
proposed contract is well below the oriqinal estimate of $450.000.
Peter Watry, "...residents should be at the center of the H Street Plan".
To address this concern staff has developed a process that places the
community as the lead in defininq the study.
On Monday July 28th key community leaders, identified for their leadership
in community groups, development activity and/or interest in the H Street
Corridor were invited to participate on a Working Group and learn about
their role in the process.
July 28. 2008 Workinq Group Attendees '
Pat Aguilar Crossroads,
Peter Watry Crossroads
Ken Wright Northwest Civic Association
Frank Zimmerly Northwest Civic Association
Lisa Cohen Chamber of Commerce
Lisa Johnson Chamber of Commerce
Glen Googins Third Avenue Village Association, VP
Carolina Gregor SANDAG
Michael Daney MTS
Tom Henry Henry Development/Phair Company
Chris Lewis Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
Harold West West Builders
Earl Jentz Balboa Realty
Kevin O'Neill O'Neil Construction
The attendees were asked to take the lead to frame the assignment for
the Advisory Services Panel. Staff has arranged five different meeting
times over the next two weeks for the "working group" to prepare the
Statement of the Problem, identify the issues through 12 questions that
will be answered by the ULI panel, identify 80-100 resource people for
panel interviews and help in the preparation of a briefing book to be
7-67
Attachment 4
provided to the panelists. Staff's intent in forming this Working Group is to
allow the Community to frame the issues for ULI, thereby placing the
residents "at the center of the H Street Plan".
Staff has attempted to address all concerns so that this important study can be
conducted in October 2008.
7-68
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
Map of H Street Property Owners
Contacted
7-69
Exhibit B
Letter of Interest & Postcard
C'TY OF CFll'U """'6
Redevelopment
& Housing
July 25, 2008
Dear Property/Business Owner;
Over the past several years the City of Chula Vista has embarked upon creating
a visionary framework for revitalization through the adoption of the updated
General Plan and Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). As a property/business
owner along H Street your future investment and participation in the Chula Vista
community is critical to the success of this vision. The "H Street Corridor" is
quickly emerging as a potential "backbone" for revitalization, with its direct
connection to the city's Bayfront and the historic heart of the community, the
Third Avenue commercial district.
While the real estate market has cooled, Chula Vista continues its efforts to
revitalize the older western portion of the city with the progress of the Bayfront
Master Plan and development of a major hotel/convention center. As these
efforts move closer to reality, renewed private investment will seek to capitalize
on the opportunities to compliment uses and serve the visitors and residents of
the Bayfront. It is imperative that the City is poised to take advantage of its
opportunities when the market returns. A cohesive strategy to address market
potential, planning and design or financing and development is needed to take
the visionary framework of the UCSP to concrete implementable actions that can
facilitate appropriate and quality redevelopment along the Corridor.
In order to move forward in creating such a strategy, staff is proposing to contract
with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to condl..\ct a 5-day Advisory Services
Program (a summary of ULI and the Program is attached). ULI is a well
established international non-profit research and education organization, which
provides leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating sustainable
communities.
The City is extremely interested in your participation in the process. Staff is
anticipating the ULI panel to be conducted during the fall of this year and staff is
scheduled to recommend the Program for approval to the City Council on August
5, 2008, meeting start 4:00 p.m. We have enclosed a self-addressed stamped
card asking for you to confirm your level of interest in participating in the ULI
Program. Please complete and mail the card to us immediately, as we will be
providing the information to City Council on August 5th
If you are interested in learning more about the process, we would encourage
your attendance at the Council meeting and for you to contact Stacey Kurz,
Senior Project Coordinator in the City's Redevelopment & Housing Department
by em ail atskurz@ci.chula-vista.ca.us or by phone at (619) 585-5609.
Sincerely,
/ //
"<;;p'"
,:______?..;7
Eric C. Crockett
Assistant Director Redevelopment & Housing
Attachments
ClTY OF CHULA nSL~
Redevelopment
&Housing
Urban Land Institute (ULI) Advisory Services Program
H Street Corridor
Summary (7/25/08)
ULI is a well established international non-profit research and education organization,
which provides leadership in the responsible use of land and in creating sustainable
communities. Asthe preeminent, multidisciplinary real estate forum, with a membership
of over 40,000 members and associates from 90 countries, ULI has access to experts
representing the entire spectrum of land use and development disciplines.
Through ULI's unique program, an interdisciplinary team of its member experts help
sponsors find creative, practical solutions for issues such as downtown redevelopment,
land management strategies, evaluation of development potential, growth management,
community revitalization, and brownfield redevelopment. The unique team-based
approach to bring city, business, development, and community interests together with
ULI niche experts provides an opportunity that is unparalleled. The Program has
assembled well over 500 ULI-member teams to help sponsors find solutions and build
consensus around land use and development challenges.
For Chula Vista, the program will be specifically designed to help answer questions
related to the land use and development issues we face along the H Street Corridor and
will:
.:. Bring recognized real estate expertise from across the United States to provide an
assessment of the market feasibility and economic potential of the Corridor as a
connection between the Bayfront and Third Avenue commercial district;
.:. Gather data on the many quality-of-life objectives of the community and the ongoing
business and economic operations; and
.:. Fulfill General Plan and other city objectives to forge an integrated, action-oriented
implementation plan for the Corridor.
The interdisciplinary team will consist of eight to nine members; typically several
developers, a landscape architect, a planner, a market analyst, a finance expert, and
others with the niche expertise needed to address the issues/challenges most relevant
to the Corridor. To complete the assignment, the team takes on an intensive agenda
which includes:
.:. An in-depth briefing day composed of a tour of the site and meetings with City
representatives;
.:. Hour-long interviews of typically 80 to 100 key community representatives ("resource
persons"); and
.:. A day and a half of formulating recommendations. The final days are dedicated to
the panel preparing findings and conclusions, which are presented to the sponsor on
the final day through an oral presentation. After the panel is completed, a written
report will serve as an implementation plan for redevelopment of the Corridor.
For additional information about ULI please visit their website at wwwuli.orq,
information on the 5-Day Advisory Progr~'!!ffn be found under "Programs & Services"
H Street Corridor
Urban Land Institute CUll) Advisory Services Program
As the (circle ail that appiy) property owner / business owner / resident located at
, Chula Vista, I am (check all that apply):
Not interested in participating. Do not notify
me of future events.
Interested in participating. Please notify me
of future events.
Additionally, I would be interested in:
Being a resource person for ULI and
participating in the panel interviews.
Sponsoring events (i.e. donations of
food, beverages, meeting space,
financial contribution, etc.).
Please send future correspondence to:
Name:
Business/Organization (if applicable):
Mailing Address:
Phone:
What is the best way to contact you?
Email:
D Ernail
DMail
D Phone
Please return this questionnaire immediately. If you have any questions please contact Stacey Kurz.
City of Chula Vista - Redevelopment and Housing at (6 79) 585-5609.
~:T\()'-CH"'Llt-Y)'TA~.
.
"".
Redevelopment
e~ Ilousing
276 Fourth A venue
Chula Vista, California 91910
City of Chula Vista
Redevelopment & Housing
Attn: Stacey Kurz
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91910
7-72
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE FORl\1AL CONSULTANT
SELECTION PROCESS FOR AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AND THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE
WHEREAS, the H Street Corridor is a critical component of the revitalization of the City
of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, General Plan LUT Objectives 2, 52, 53, and 57 identify the H Street
Corridor as a critical component for focusing redevelopment efforts to encourage a mix of uses within
walking distance of a transit station that contain significant public gathering space and vibrant mixed use
area; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) has an established Advisory Services
Program and is uniquely qualified to bring real estate experts from around the country to provide an
unbiased implementation program for redevelopment of the H Street Corridor; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council waive the formal consultant selection
process of Municipal Code Section 2.56.110 because of the Urban Land Institute's unique experience and
expertise; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality 1\ct (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus,
no further environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the Redevelopment Agency enter into an agreement with
the Urban Land Institute for Advisory Services; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED based on the findings above, the City Council
of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the formal consultant selection process for an agreement
with the Urban Land Institute for Advisory Services.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
Eric Crockett
Assistant Director of Redevelopment & Housing
7-73
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE URBAN LAND
INSTITUTE IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,000, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
WHEREAS, the H Street Corridor is a critical component of the revitalization ofthe City
of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, General Plan LUT Objectives 2, 52, 53, and 57 identify the H Street
Corridor as a critical component for focusing redevelopment efforts to encourage a mix of uses within
walking distance of a transit station that contain significant public gathering space and vibrant mixed use
area; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Land Institute (ULl) has an established Advisory Services
Program and is uniquely qualified to bring real estate experts from around the country to provide an
unbiased implementation program for redevelopment of the H Street Corridor; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council waive the formal consultant selection
process of Municipal Code Section 2.56.110 because of the Urban Land Institute's unique experience and
expertise; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity
,
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore,
pursuant to Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus,
no further environmental review is necessary; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the Redevelopment Agency enter into an agreement with
the Urban Land Institute for Advisory Services; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Land Institute will review the 2005 General Plan and 2007 Urban
Core Specific Area Plan development standards and guidelines, including the provision of building
setback and massing when conducting their analysis; and
WHEREAS, the Community is concerned about the interface of Mid-rise and High Rise
Development along the H Street Corridor that abuts single family neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Land Advisory Services Program will look to the ULI
membership of approximately 40,000 real estate and planning professionals to form a pro-bono Advisory
Services Panel; and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Services Panel will be comprised of either eight or nine real
estate or planning professionals; and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Services Panel is to develop an implementation plan on
policies of the 2005 General Plan and 2007 Urban Core Specific Area Plan; and
7-74
Resolution No.7
Page 2
WHEREAS, staff recommends $120,000 of funds be appropriated to the FY 2009
services and supplies budget of the Redevelopment Agency Merged Project Area Fund; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Redevelopment Agency authorizes
the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with the Urban Land Institute for Advisory Services,
and appropriates $120,000 of available fund balance to the FY 2009 services and supplies budget of the
Redevelopment Agency Merged Project Area Fund.
Presented by
Approved as to form by
7
Eric Crockett
Assistant Director of Redevelopment & Housing
7-75