The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Comm Reports/1991/12/18 PLANNING COMIVIISSION City of Chula Vista Calendar of Megtings January 8, 1992 Regular Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers January 18, 1992 Potential Field Trip 9:00 a.m. - San Miguel Properties Public Services Bldg. January 22, 1992 Regular Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers NO WORKSHOP IN JANUARY February 5, 1992 Special Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers February 8, 1992 Potential Field Trip - Kaiser 9:00 a.m. Public Services Bldg. February 12, 1992 Regular Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers February 19, 1992 DINNER WORKSHOP 5:00 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 & 3 February 26, 1992 Regular Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers March 11, 1992 Regular Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers March 18, 1992 Workshop 5:00 p.m. Conference Rooms 2 & 3 March 25, 1992 Regular Business Meeting 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 18, 1991 Page 1 1. Consideration of the Final Environmental Imoact Reoort for the Chula Vista Mall Expansion EIR 91-04 BACKGROUND: On November 13, 1991 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR for the Chula Vista Mall Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Prior to that hearing thc document was circulated for a thirty (30) day public review period. During the public review period the document was taken to the Town Center Project Area Committee (PAC) and the Resource Recovery Committee (RCC) for their comments. At the Planning Commission six (6) people commented on the Draft EIR. Four (4) parties commented in writing on the Draft EIR and one (1) petition was presented to the Planning Commission during the public hearing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission certify that the Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the State of California CEQA Guidelines and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. PROJECT DESCRIFrION: Homart Development, Inc. proposes to expand the Chula Vista Mall located within the Town Center II Redevelopment Project between "H" and 'T' Streets, just east of Broadway. This project would be the second of two phases of redevelopment on the site. The first phase, completed in 1988, added 141,000 square feet of retail space to the mall. The current project (second phase of proposed redevelopmen0 would expand the existing retail space at the mall by a net area of 74,316 square feet. A new Mervyn's department store building, a building housing a Sav-On drug store and multi-screen cinema, and a two-story parking garage would be constructed. An existing, partially vacant building, in the southern area of the property, containing a Sav-On drugstore, a bank, miscellaneous retail space and vacant supermarket space would be demolished. Additionally, removal of a currently vacant J.C. Penney Automotive Center on the site may occur as part of the project. Other improvements to the site would be installing new landscaping, improving the "H" Street entrance to the mall, constructing a new entrance facade, reconfiguring parking areas, and providing upgraded lighting and color in the mall interior. The present mall contains three anchors (J.C. Penney, Sears, and Broadway), smaller retail shops, and a food court. Restaurants along the western and southern peripheries of the property include Allies, Burger King, and The Olive Garden. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 18, 1991 Page 2 CONTENTS OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The Final FIR contains responses to comments received during the public review period including those from Project Area Committee and the Resource Conversation Commission. The Final FIR also contains responses, where appropriate, to the issues raised during the Planning Commission hearing. As a result of the comments received some minor revisions have been made to the text of the FIR. An errata page is in the front of the document which lists all of the pages with changes. Following the errata page are all of the comments received with the responses to each comment next to them. In some cases these responses refer back to the page in the document where the issue is addressed. As a result of further study two sections of the FIR have been changed. These sections are the Traffic and Public Services - Sewer Sections. Based on comments received from the applicant, the City Traffic Engineer and the Traffic Consultant reviewed the Traffic Circulation Technical Report specifically with regards to the need to widen "H" Street. The traffic that will be generated by the expansion and use "H" Street will not warrant the widening of the "H" Street to six lanes. Therefore, the final conclusion in the FIR is that the impact to traffic circulation is adverse and no longer significant. Although the impact is not significant, and therefore, does not require mitigation, the recommendation of the document is still that "H" Street be widened to six lanes as designated in the City's General Plan Circulation element. The widening will also accommodate the needed additional right turn lane into the Mall from "H" Street. Since the widening of "H" Street is now a recommendation and not a required mitigation, the Redevelopment Agency (City Council) can approve the project without requiring the widening of "H" Street immediately, without making a finding of overriding considerations for an impact that is not mitigated. During the public review period additional studies were conducted for the "H" Street sewer line and the impact that the proposed mall expansion would have on that line. The study concluded that the mall was never given credit for the Vons market that closed several years ago. This credit results in the expansion having a minimal increase in the amount of discharge it will have and therefore, there is no impact to public services - sewer from the project. The conclusion has been changed in the FIR and thc mitigation requiring additional studies has been removed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Final EIR 2. Draft Findings City Planning commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 18, 1991 Page 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Reauest for Modification to Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-13 for Thrift Store at 741 Broadway - Skill Centers of America. A. BACKGROUND The applicant, Skill Centers of America, is requesting modification of a condition of approval for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a thrift store, approved by the Zoning Administrator on October 22, 1991. The proposed thrift store operation at 741 Broadway would occupy approximately 9,400 square feet of lease area, and would include the sale of used clothing, appliances, furniture, etc. The original application was approved by the Zoning Administrator subject to conditions primarily related to parking. Due to the lack of adequate on-site parking for a retail store coupled with a change of use, one of these conditions included the limiting of clothing sales to 1,000 square feet of floor area. The applicant is hereby requesting that this condition be modified to permit a minimum of 7,000 square feet be used for clothing display and sales. The proposal is exempt from environmental review. B. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to deny the request to modify PCC-92-13. C. DISCUSSION Adjacent zoninq and land use: North - CT Waterbed Sales South - CT Auto Sales West - CT Auto Sales East - R2 Residential Existinq site characteristics The lease site is 14,940 square feet (.34 acres), and is located on the east side of Broadway, midway between J and K Streets. The 9,450 square foot retail space on this site was last occupied by an appliance store, and is currently vacant. A 20 foot asphalt driveway at the south side of the store leads to the dead-end parking area at the rear of the lot; this parking area measures 95' x 40' (see attached site plan), which can accommodate ten standard parking spaces with a AGENDA SPECIAL BUSINESS MEETING City Planning Commission Chula Vista, California Wednesday, December 18, 1991 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Meeting of October 9, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Planning Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but not an item on today's agenda. Each speaker's presentation may not exceed five minutes. 1. Consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report EIR-91-04, Chula Vista Mall Expansion 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Request for modification to Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-13 for thrift store at 741 Broadway - Skill Centers of America 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-92-09: Consideration of conceptual development plan for Mid-Bayfront DIRECTOR'S REPORT COMMISSION COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT AT p.m. to the Regular Business Meeting of January 8, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers city Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 18, 1991 Page 2 slightly substandard (21 foot) backup area, and no turnaround area. Proposed use In September of this year, Skill Centers of America applied for a Conditional Use Permit, as required for secondhand clothing sales, for the site at 741 Broadway. The permit was approved, but clothing sales was limited to a 1,000 square foot area due to limited on-site parking, with the remaining area to be used for appliance and furniture sales and employee work activities such as sorting and preparing the donated goods for sale. Other conditions of this decision also dealt with parking and circulation, as well as required city permit approvals. The applicant has stated that the majority of the floor area is needed for clothing sales in order to make this a viable business, and is therefore requesting that condition No. 2 contained in the Zoning Administrator's letter approving Conditional Use Permit PCC-92-13, (see attached letter dated October 22, 1991) be modified to permit 7,000 square feet rather than 1,000 square feet of clothing display area. D. ANALYSIS The applicant has agreed with all of the conditions of approval of PCC-92-13 with the exception of the limitation on clothing sales area. As this condition was imposed because of the lack of adequate parking on-site, the sole item in question is that of acceptable parking. The zoning code requires that retail uses such as clothing sales provide one off-street parking space per 200 square feet of floor area, while retail uses such as appliance and furniture stores require only one off-street space for every 600 square feet of floor area. As mentioned previously in this report, only nine parking spaces are available on-site. The Zoning Ordinance requires the City's current parking standards to be met whenever a use is established (CVMC 19.62.010). Since many of the older commercial sites along Broadway have little, if any, on-site parking, it has been the policy of the Department to allow changes of use as long as the new use creates no more demand for parking than the previous use (regardless of how much parking is provided). This is based on the approach that a change of use should at least not exacerbate an existing parking deficiency. City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 18, 1991 Page 3 In this instance, the building was previously occupied by an appliance store. Because of generally lower parking demand for this type of use as opposed to most other retail uses, appliance stores (as well as furniture stores) are required to provide only 1 parking space for every 600 square feet of floor area. Other retail uses, such as clothing sales, however, generally create a much greater demand for parking and are therefore required to provide 1 parking space for every 200 square feet of floor area. At this site, a parking ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet for retail clothing sales would require 47 parking spaces, versus the 16 spaces that would be required by a ratio of one space per 600 square feet for appliance and furniture sales. Furthermore, it has been our experience that thrift stores generally have very high activity levels and create more of a demand for parking than many other retail uses. Therefore, the change from appliance store to thrift store with clothing sales would exacerbate the parking deficiency (although the available parking is inadequate to serve either use per code). Rather than deny the request, the Zoning Administrator applied the reasoning that an allocation of 1,000 square feet for retail clothing sales could be justified on the basis that thrift stores usually need to devote a significant amount of floor area to "receiving and sorting" that would normally not be required of other uses and which generates no demand for parking. Regardless of the merits of this approach, it was not an unreasonable manner in which to accommodate a worthy use which, without the limitation, could not be approved by staff at this location. Therefore, the thrift store, with only 1,000 square feet of clothing sales, would equate to appliance sales considering the unique "receiving and sorting" component. In support of the requested modification, the applicant points out that on-street parking exists on both sides of Broadway between J and K Streets, and that such parking has proven adequate for larger thrift stores run by Skill Centers of America in other areas of the county. Additionally, three nearby businesses - Fuller Ford, Vista Palms Car Wash, and T & D Truck Tops West -~ have written letters stating their support of the applicant's use of on-street parking (please see attached for applicant's statement and related letters). E. CONCLUSION The existing on-site parking is inadequate per code to serve either appliance sales or thrift store with clothing sales. The allowance of greater than 1,000 square feet for clothing City Planning Commission Agenda Item for Meeting of December 18, 1991 Page 4 sales, however, would likely exacerbate the parking problem and thereby force more parking onto the street to the detriment of adjacent uses and businesses which might also utilize this resource to supplement on-site parking. For these reasons, staff cannot support the request. E. FINDINGS In order to approve the original application for PCC-92-13, the following findings were made by the Zoning Administrator: 1. That the proposed use provides a desirable service to the community by providing products to residents at prices lower than those of new goods. Additionally, the applicant is a non-profit organization and proceeds from sales are used to provide training for the physically and economically disadvantaged. 2. That the majority of the floor space would be utilized for furniture and appliance sales, which have been conducted at this site in the past. Conditions have been placed upon the approval which would mitigate potential concerns regarding the parking area; therefore, the use would not be detrimental to the welfare of persons residing or working in the area. 3. That the use would comply with all applicable codes, regulations, and conditions prior to and during business operation. 4. The granting of this permit would not have any adverse affects upon the General Plan. The second finding was based upon the limitation of clothing sales area. Considering the severe shortage of on-site parking for this use (nine spaces available where forty-eight are required) and the possibility that on-street parking will be impacted, staff cannot make the finding that this use would not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. , ~!.. ~,:, , I L__ ---1 i ...... ~ I i ., ,-r * *",--: - -S". ..... ,. ~ ~: []i~ iiii ...... ~ i I - > &AL~ ~ $F ~PROJE~Z = = $1ERR~ WAY SIERRA WAY ~ LOCATOR ~ ~Operate Thrift Shop W 0 i CI'[Y OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT October 22, 1991 Keith Davis Skill Centers of America 4160 Cartagena Drive San Diego, CA 92115 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit application for a thrift store at 741 Broadway. Dear Mr. Davis: The Zoning Administrator has considered your request for a Conditional Use permit to operate a thrift store, including the sale of used clothing, furniture, and appliances, at 741 Broadway. The proposal is exempt from environmental review. After reviewing your proposal, including submitted site and floor plans, as well as the public comments received, the Zoning Administrator has been able to make the requird findings to grant your request which is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. 1,000 square feet of floor area within the rear area of the store shall be set aside for the sorting and processing of goods for sale. 2. A maximum of 1,000 square feet shall be allowed for the display and sale of clothing. 3. A revised floor plan shall be submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a business license. This floor plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building & Housing Department (contact Alex Saucedo @ 691-5007) and the Fire Department (contact Mike Horsfall @ 691-3305) as well es the Planning Department prior to issuance of a business license. 4. The parking area shall be re-striped according to the attached sketch; this will allow for standard parking spaces according to city standards. Additionally, one space will be designated as a ~no parking~ space to allow for cars to turn around should the parking area be full. 276 FOURTH AVE/CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 91910/(619) 691-5101 Skill Centers of America Page 2 October 23. 1991 5. Deliveries and loading activities, other than customer pick- up, shall take place either before or after regular business hours. 6. A who parking! si~n ~ha11 be posted on the rear (east) elevation of the building. ?. ~No parking signs shall be posted on the south elevation of the building, along the driveway. 8. The applicant will be responsible fo~ any damage to the fence at the east property line caused by the thrift shop,s operations or customers. Such damage will be repaired by the applicant within 30 days of written request for such by the property owner. 9. Building permits are required for any structural remodeling , and any electrical work, including sign installation. Failure to comply with any condition of approval shall cause this permit to be reviwed by the City for additional conditions or revocation. Findings of fact are as follows: 1. The proposed use provides a desirable service to the community by providing products to residents at prices lower than those of new goods. Additionally, the applicant is a non-profit organization and proceeds from sales are used to provide training for the physically and economically disadvantaged. 2. The majority of the floor space will be utilized for furniture and appliance sales, which have been conducted at this site in the past. Conditions have been placed upon the approval which will mitigate potential concerns regarding the parking area; therefore, the use will not be detrimental to the welfare of persons residing or working in the area. 3. The use shall comply with all applicable codes, regulations, and conditions prior to and during business operation. 4. The granting of this permit will not have any adverse affects upon the General Plan. CITY OF CHULA VISTA Skill Centers of America Page 3 October 23. 199~ You have the right to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. A completed appeal form along with a fee of $125.00 must be received by this office within ten days of the date of this letter. Forms are available from the Planning Department. In the absence of said appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator is final. Steve Griffin, AICP Senior Planner cc: City Clerk CITY OF CHULA VISTA November 25, 1991 Planning Department City of Chula vista Dear Sirs: I have spoken with Keith Davis, President of Skill Centers of America. He has indicated to me that they have been granted a conditional use permit by the City of Chula Vista, with a restriction on retail space due to the parking limits on the property. In light of this, I know that there is a lot of curb side parking available in the vicinity of 741 Broadway. If needed, Skill Centers of America's customers can utilize the parking in front of my location at Vista Palms Car Wash. Sincerely, Rollie Smith Fuller Ford December 3, 1991 To: Chula Vista Planning Department Re: Skill Centers of America After speaking with Mr. Keith Davis regarding his new location at 741 Broadway, I can think of no reason that his operation would cause any more parking problem than any other business that might locate on that site. I understand that Mr. Davis is appealing a parking limi- tation that was imposed on his operation. I would sup- port that appeal as long as it is in accordance with existing parking guidelines on Broadway. I wish Mr. Davis and Skill Centers of America much success in their new location. Sincerely, ~7 Douglas G. Fuller President T & D TRUCK T~?S ~VEST ?20 Broadway Chula Vista, CA 91910 (6~ 9) 42O-O9OO O November 21, 1991 City of Chula Vista Planning Department Dear Planning Department Chairperson: We are sending this letter in response to a ruling on our application for a conditional use permit for a store located at 741 Broadway in Chula Vista. We are respectfully requesting a modification of that ruling, in regards to the limits placed on our retail space at said location. Skill Centers of America is a non-profit organization that provides skill training for physically handicapped and economically disadvantaged individuals. Through our Vocational College that is licensed and certified by the State Department of Education, and other divisions throughout our organization, we offer formal educational and employment opportunities to many people throughout the community. With approximately 60 people currently employed, and approximately 35 students per term for the last two terms, Skill Centers' impact on the communities of San Diego County is far and wide, and continually growing. We do not solicit any government funds, and depend solely on the private sector to help support the educational programs we offer to the community. We know that by obtaining this site, we will not only help the economy by employing approximately 20 to 25 more individuals, both on and off the site, but we will also be able to help generate the revenue to provide educational grants and scholarships to help an additional 30 to 40 physically handicapped and disadvantaged people year in and year out. As to your ruling that our retail space must be limited to 1000 square feet due to a lack of adequate parking, it has been our experience with our other stores located in San Diego County, as well as our research of the surrounding properties and businesses, that the parking is not only adequate, but including the available on-street parking, there is more parking than we would ever need. We operate a store at 6195 University Avenue, which has approximately 20,000 square feet, and approximately eight parking spaces available on the property. With the use of on-street parking, and after over five years of business at this location, we have had no complaints from nearby businesses or customers. 4160 Ca~ena Ddve, ~n Dido, CA 92115 · F~ (61~ 286-3973 · (61~ 286-6001 Page Two At the proposed Chula Vista location, one of the things that will insure a continued flow of traffic is the fact that you have two- hour limited street parking, so if the street parking is utilized, in addition to the off-street parking at the rear of the building, customers could not monopolize the parking spaces for any long period of time. Our research also concludes that, south of our store on the same side of the street at 795 Broadway, there are approximately seven curbside parking spaces not being utilized by the Vista Palms Car Wash. Attached you will find a letter from the owner stating this, and that he sees no problem in others using these spaces. In addition, across the street is the Rodeway Inn, and the Moana Motel, neither having need for the curbside parking spaces. Between these two establishments, there are approximately five parking spaces available. You will also find a letter attached from Fuller Ford, located adjacent to our building, and Palms Home Auto Sales located next to it, both having available curbside parking spaces. All these businesses' combined curbside parking spaces total approximately 33 parking spaces, including the five spaces in front of our building. In light of this information, and the fact that Skill Centers of America, established in 1986, uses revenue from the sale of merchandise to help us to continue providing educational opportunities to hundreds of physically handicapped and economically disadvantaged residents year after year, we request that the Commission grant us at least 7000 square feet of retail space in our store located at 741 Broadway. This being the only modification we deem necessary in the conditional use permit, we will adhere to all other requests of the planning commission. However, it would be difficult to operate restricted by the retail aspect of the business, which is a primarily significant component, on which the success of our organization relies. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Founder/CEO RECEIVED CHULA ¥I TA PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNIN~ October 2, 1991 The Chula Vista Planning Department has received an application for a conditional uss permit filed by Skill Centers of America, a non- profit organization, requesting permission to operate a thrift store at 741 Broadway. The proposed operation will include the sales o~' donated merchandise, l.uAuu~i~ ~*~=~..o,l,,3/,=.nJ. ........... furniture, appliances, and miscellaneous household items. A plot plan and legal description of the property are on file at the Planning Department. This application will be considered by the Zoning Administrator on October 22, 1991. Any comments you have pertaining to this matter must be rec~by this office no later than noon on October 21, Senior Planner Case No: PCC-92.-] 3 SG:ps df76FOU AVE/CHULAVISTA CALIFORNIA91910/(619}691-510~ 77,~ //..q/z /gP/f- · CITY OF CHULA VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership interests, payments, or campaign contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the application, bid, contract, or proposal. Keith Davis, Founder/CEO If real property is involved, list the names of all persons having any ownership interest. 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation- or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. Keith Davis~ Founder/CEO 4. Have you or any person named in (1) above had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes No × If yes, please indicate person(s) 5. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes No X If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Person is defined as: "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, socia-]- club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city, municipality, district or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessap~yj Date: S~g~ture ot--contrak~-or/applicant WPC 0701P Keith Davis A-llO Print or type name of contractor/applicant Staff Report for City Planning Commission Agenda Item for December 18, 1991 Item No. 3 PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Conceptual Development Plan for Midbayfront I. BACKGROUND In 1972 the City of Chula Vista hired Scdway-Cooke, a San Francisco planning firm, to evaluate options and prepare a master plan for the Bayfront. In 1972 Proposition 20, the Coastal Initiative, was passed by the voters of California. Proposition 20 mandated the preparation of the California Coastal Plan, which was issued in 1975. The California Coastal Plan and subsequent legislation established a stringent review process for proposed projects in the California Coastal Zone. In 1974, the City established the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area, which encompassed the majority of the land in the Chula Vista Coastal Zone. In 1976 the City of Chula Vista requested consideration of its plan by the California Coastal Commission. However, the plan was subjected to a new series of environmental and coastal review processes because of the timing of the submittal. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and financial and engineering feasibility studies were completed. During the period required for further review, Santa Fe Railroad, the primary owner of the undeveloped portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront, initiated legal proceedings against the City based on their objections to plan provisions requiring marsh preservation. This litigation was dropped in 1981. In 1978 the City formally submitted its Bayfront plan for consideration by the Coastal Commission. In June 1979 the Regional Coastal Commission in San Diego approved the City's plan. The only modification imposed by the regional commission was to reduce the size of the hotel on Gunpowder Point from 700 to 350 rooms, with an option to go to the full 700 rooms as proposed after certain specific environmental concerns were addressed. In September 1979 the State Coastal Commission voted to reject the City's plan. The Coastal Commission staff had recommended denial of the plan based on concerns regarding impacts of development on Gunpowder Point and D Street Fill and construction of the roadways to serve those areas. After its plan was rejected by the Commission in 1979, the City obtained the services of the Pacific Legal Foundation to review the procedures of the Coastal Commission in acting on the City's proposal. The Coastal Commission subsequently reheard and denied the plan in 1981. City Planning Commission Page 2, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date 12/18/91 In March 1984 Chula Vista's Bayfront Land Use Plan, revised to reflect new environmental information, received Coastal Commission approval. The implementing ordinances were certified by the Coastal Commission in June 1985. Following certification of the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP), which is comprised of the Land Use Plan and the implementing ordinances, the Sierra Club filed suit against the Coastal Commission for improper certification. (The Sierra Club dropped this suit following the 1988 settlement agreement [described below]). Federal permits were needed by the City to implement its certified LCP. The Section 404 Permit Applications were filed but concerns were raised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that implementation of the City's LCP would adversely impact endangered species habitat. This habitat was required to be set aside for preservation and recreation purposes as mitigation for the freeway/flood control project that adjoins the northern portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront. In 1986 the Sierra Club filed ~l lawsuit against the Secretary of the Army (Marsh) because the property that was required to be dedicated to the federal government as mitigation for the freeway/flood control project had never been transferred to a public agency. In August 1986 the FWS formally requested the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to re-initiate the endangered species (Section 7) consultation on the freeway/flood control project. In July 1987 following a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 1987 enjoining the federal project, the Corps formally re-initiated consultation with the FWS. That consultation resulted in a settlement agreement that was entered into in April 1988 among Santa Fe Land Improvement Company, the County of San Diego, the Corps, the FWS, the Federal Highway Administration, and CalTrans. That settlement agreement required that Gunpowder Point, D Street Fill, and the entire Paradise Creek and Sweetwater Marsh complex (including the F-G Street Marsh) be deeded to the FWS as a National Wildlife Refuge. In August 1988 the Midbayfront, the principal remaining undeveloped portion of the Chula Vista Bayfront, was sold to Chula Vista Investors (CVI). The new property owner began preparing a plan to propose modifications to the certified LCP to allow a mixed-use development. CVI's plan included a resubmittal of the LCP, along with a conceptual development plan consistent with the proposed changes to the LCP. The City required that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed plan resubmittal. The EIR process began in June 1989 with a Notice of Preparation. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment (July 1991) was certified by the City Council on August 20, 1991. The FEIR contains the CEQA compliance record for the proposed planAevel action that had been processed beginning with the Notice of Preparation in June 1989 to the completion of the FEIR in June 1991. City Planning Commission Page 3, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date 12/18/91 The FEIR analyzed the applicant's original project, his revised (Alternative 8) project, and seven other alternatives developed by staff, and/or required by CEQA. The Alternative 8 Revised Development Plan, was similar to the applicant's original proposed project in types of land uses proposed. It differed from the original proposal by reducing the density of the project from 4.18 million square feet to the revised project of 3.9 million square feet. No modifications to the originally proposed LCP Resubmittal document were made as part of the Alternative 8 Revised Development Plan. The Alternative 8 Revised Development Plan was heard by the City Planning Commission on July 24, 1991 and the City Council on August 20, 1991. The recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the resolution adopted by the City Council directed staff to work with the applicant and the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee to resolve key issues associated with the project including: · Determination of appropriate land use intensity. · Siting of buildings exceeding two stories away from the perimeter of the site where they conflict with public open space uses and uses of the adjacent National Wildlife Refuge. · Preservation of public views to the bay from "E" and "F" Streets and elimination of buildings west of Marina Parkway to ensure public views to the bay and wetlands from Marina Parkway. · Evaluation of the potential for inclusion of a cultural arts facility in the plan. · Exploration of alternative phasing and financing programs to increase the financial feasibility of the plan. · Resolution of unmitigated impacts in the areas of' traffic, land use, visual quality, parks/recreation/open space and schools. Bayfront Planning Subcommittee Process The Bayfront Planning Subcommittee was established by the City Council in May 1991, in an effort by the Council to increase public participation in the Bayfront Planning process. In addition to a nine member appointed Subcommittee, Mayor Nader and Councilwoman Grasser Horton serve on the Subcommittee. Councilman Jerry Rindone served as a member of the Subcommittee prior to Councilwoman Grasser Horton's appointment. The following list includes the name and the appointing commission/councilmember for each member of the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee: City Planning Commission Page 4, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date 12/18/91 Subcommittee Member Appointing Commission/Councilmember Pat Ables Cultural Arts Commission John Ray Resource Conservation Commission William Tuchscher Economic Development Commission Joe Casillas Planning Commission Larry Dumlao Mayor Nader Russ Bullen Councilman Moore John Moot Councilman Malcolm William Virchis Councilman Rindone Glen Goerke Councilwoman Grasser Horton Will Hyde (ex-officio) Bayfront Planning Subcommittee William Barkett (ex-officio) Bayfront Planning Subcommittee John Wehbring~ (ex-officio) San Diego Unified Port District The Bayfront Planning Subcommittee has been meeting regularly with staff and the applicant. These meetings have included informal presentations by both staff and the applicant, as requested by the Subcommittee members. Subjects discussed include: the history of the Bayfront; the subcommittee's vision for development of the Bayfront; the Environmental Impact Report; traffic/circulation; economics; water access; land use mix, density/intensity/bulk and building height; location, configuration, and amount of parkland; public access; critical edge conditions; open space/development interface; schools; view corridors; shade/shadow impacts; and, conceptual plan criteria. Through consideration of these several issues, a consensus was reached by a majority of the Subcommittee members regarding the basic parameters of a recommended conceptual development plan. A Subcommittee meeting is set for December 11, 1991. Any significant issues on positions decided at the meeting will be verbally reported to the Planning Commission. Conceptual Development Plan The Conceptual Development Plans (Subcommittee/Applicant's Plan, and Staff's Plan) under consideration are intended to provide a bridge between the Goals and Objectives for the Midbayfront Planning Program, previously adopted by the Agency, and the required, but significantly more detailed, LCP Re-submittal and General Plan Amendment submittal. The differences between the Subcommittee/Applicant Plan and StaffPlan are shown on Table 1. The LCP Resubmittal document, to be prepared upon approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, will be a lengthy document, which will include the detailed regulations and implementation programs necessary to design and regulate a project of this size and complexity. The adoption of a Conceptual Development Plan will resolve many of the basic issues which have been raised by the applicant's proposal. Resolving these basic issues through adoption of a Conceptual I Recently appointed. City Planning Commission Page 5, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date. 12/18/91 Development Plan will allow future review to focus on the design and implementation details because the basic project concept will have been fixed. It should be noted that the previous alternatives considered by the Commission and City Council included the Rohr campus south of Lagoon Drive CF" Street). This portion of the Midbayfront site is now being considered as a separate application and has, therefore, been deleted from the exhibits and statistics of this Conceptual Development Plan. It accounted for approximately 560,000 square feet of office development in the statistics of the previous alternatives. H. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution: A. Approving the Conceptual Development Plan - Staff Alternative, with the following clarifying text which specifies certain items to be specifically addressed in the LCP Re-submittal, the General Plan Amendment submittal, or an agreement between the applicant and the City or Redevelopment Agency: 1) Schools: Residential development shall be restricted until assurance that facilities for students generated by the project will be available when needed; 2) Phasing: Project phasing shall be programmed to ensure fiscal benefits to the City, and early implementation of public parks. Updated and objective market, economic, and fiscal analyses shall be provided prior to the commencement of any phase of development. The first phase shall include development of the core area comprising the lagoon, core hotels, retail/commercial with residential above, and sports complex. Residential development in the northern area (north of Marina Parkway) may be included to a maximum of 25 percent of the total number of units. 3) Public Lagoon: The lagoon west of Marina Parkway shall include an area of approximately one acre for public swimming/wading. The provision of all three lagoons is a required component of the Conceptual Development Plan; 4) Cultural Arts Facility: The area at the northeast corner of the intersection of Lagoon Drive and Marina Parkway shall be reserved for the Cultural Arts Facility until the Candidate Site west of Marina Parkway has been accepted by the City as adequate for the intended purpose, or determined by the City not to proceed with a cultural arts facility; City Planning Commission Page 6, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date 12/18/91 5) Community Purpose Facilities: The project shall designate and reserve an area(s) for Community Purpose Facilities in the amount required within the PC Zone by City Ordinance; 6) Density: Notwithstanding the maximum residential densities indicated on the Conceptual Development Plan, the policies of the General Plan and applicable City ordinances shall be applied in the review of project applications. The residential maximum is 1000 du's, with a maximum square footage of 940,000, and 25 percent of the units in the northern area to be three bedroom. A maximum of 700 du's will be contained in the residential area north of Marina Parkway. The maximum number of hotel units is 1200; 7) Building Heights: -- Residential: Residential structures adjacent to the Park along the western and northern edge of the residential parcel shall be limited to two stories. Two residential high rise structures are required and may be no higher than 17 stories nor less than 10 stories. Residential uses in the Resort area shall not be permitted on the first level, but shall be mixed with and above other retail uses; -- Hotels: A minimum of 2 high rise hotels are required and shall be no higher than 229 feet (approximately 20 stories) nor less than 10 stories; 8) Parking: A minimum of 75 percent of the required parking for the Resort and Residential uses shall be provided in subterranean or concealed parking structures; 9) Bike/Hiking Trails: An integrated trail system to maximize trail and visual access to the bayfront shall be provided and shall provide linkage to the Chula Vista Greenbelt (as described in the General Plan); 10) Water Access: A location for future direct access to the Bay shall be identified on the final plan in the event that future Federal, State, and Port District approvals would permit such access; 11) Traffic: A traffic monitoring program shall be established as an implementation and phasing requirement; 12) Conversion of Hotels: Hotels may not be converted for residential use; City Planning Commission Page 7, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date 12/18/91 13) Family and Luxury Housing: A minimum of 25 percent of the dwelling units in the northern residential neighborhood shall be 3-bedroom units (700 du X 25% = 175 du); 14) Affordable Housing: The project shall address the City's policy and practice of meeting a 10 percent Affordable Housing goal (per City's Housing Element); 15) Air Quality: An Air Quality Improvement Plan (as defined in the Growth Management Ordinance) shall be required for approval concurrently with the project submittal (SPA Plan); 16) Water Conservation: A Water Conservation Plan (as defined in the Growth Management Ordinance) shall be required for approval concurrently with the project submittal (SPA Plan); and 17) Nature Interpretive Center Assessment District: The properties enjoying the benefits of the Nature Interpretative Center (including the Midbayfront) will be included within a yet to be established Assessment District which will contribute funds toward Center programs). B. Direct staff to continue to work with the applicant on a priority basis in processing the General Plan Amendment and LCP Re-submittal, and provide a monthly report to the City Council on the processing status of this project. 2. Should the Planning Commission wish to support the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee/Applicant Alternative Plan, the adopted resolution would be modified as follows: A. Approve the Conceptual Development Plan of the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee/Applicant Alternative, with the following clarifying text which specifies certain items to be specifically addressed in the LCP Resubmittal, the General Plan Amendment submittal, or an agreement between the applicant and the City or Redevelopment Agency: 1) Public Lagoon: The lagoon west of Marina Parkway shall be investigated for the possibility of swimming/wading; 2) Cultural Arts Facility: The area west of Marina Parkway shall be the preferred location for a facility. If this location is proven to be infeasible, then a location somewhere in the core area will be used for the facility. Development of limited recreation/commercial uses could be allowed adjacent to this facility (within parameters of certified FEIR); City Planning Commission Page 8, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date 12/18/91 3) Density: The residential maximum is 1000 du's comprising a maximum square footage of 1.355 million. A maximum of 700 du's will be contained in the residential area north of Marina Parkway. The maximum number of hotel units is 1610; 4) Building Heights: -- Residential: Residential structures adjacent to the Park along the western and northern edge of the residential parcel shall be limited to two stories. Two residential high rise structures are required and may be no higher than 22 stories. Residential uses in the Resort area shall not be permitted on the first level, but shall be mixed with and above other retail uses; -- Hotels: A minimum of 2 high rise hotels are required and shall be no higher than 22 stories (229 feet); III. DISCUSSION In conjunction with the Bayfront Planning Subcommittee process, a series of Issue Papers were developed to address key issues under consideration. These have been included for reference with this staff report. The discussion below will address and summarize some of those issues, as well as outline the issues involved in the differences between the two Conceptual Development Plans being presented. Environmental Issues 1. EIR The FEIR certified by the City Council on August 20, 1991 addressed the impacts of alternatives that will have similar impacts as those associated with either of the Conceptual Development Plans presented. In fact, the Conceptual Development Plans have attempted to reduce impacts identified in the previously considered "Alternative 8" plan. Thus the impact analysis and mitigation program identified in the FEIR will be valid for either Conceptual Development Plan. 2. Traffic During the Subcommittee planning process, it was learned that improvements included by CalTrans in their current construction program will allow either of the Conceptual City Planning Commission Page 9, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date 12/18/91 Development Plans, or the previously considered Alternative 8 Plan to operate at acceptable levels of service. 3. Schools According to the Chula Vista Elementary School District, Feaster and Vista Square Elementary Schools are currently experiencing severe overcrowding. Chula Vista Junior High and Chula Vista High School are at 125 percent and 135 percent of permanent capacity, respectively. Residential development on a Citywide basis generates 0.3 elementary school students and 0.29 junior and high school students per dwelling unit. Based on the 1,000 dwelling units proposed, the following students would be generated: Elementary School - 300 students Jr. and Sr. High School - 290 students In addition to the clear need for added school facilities associated with the project, the I-5 freeway forms a barrier between the Midbayfront area and any school. This precludes the possibility of students walking to school, thereby creating increased transportation costs along with facility impacts. The applicant and Chula Vista Elementary School District have indicated that the problem can be solved with adequate economic funding, but no specific proposal has been made. A clearly defined program will be required of the applicant. Development Issues 1. Building Heights Some high rise development in the Midbayfront has been considered as preferable to a monotonous pattern of 4-5 story development. In fact, a variety of building heights, with a high rise building serving as a focal point has been identified as the desirable urban form. The previous plans by the applicant indicated high rise residential structures in close proximity to the open space adjacent to the National Wildlife Refuge. In the Conceptual Development Plans, these towers have been reduced to two structures which are located in the eastern portion of the residential neighborhood (away from the Refuge, close to the core). The high rise structures are an important element of the urban form created for the Midbayfront and the lack of such structures would be inconsistent with the Conceptual Development Plans being considered. The staff recommendation therefor includes a minimum and maximum height for these structures, to insure their inclusion at an City Planning Commission Page 10, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date 12/18/91 appropriate size. The maximum height is dependent on satisfaction of planning and design considerations at the project level; it is not a given. Of equal importance is reduced building height along the public park areas. The applicant has proposed, and staff agrees, that these buildings will be limited to two stories. 2. Land Use The recommendations of the Subcommittee/applicant and the staff are consistent with respect to land use with the exception, of one parcel. This is the City-owned parcel adjacent to the "E" Street off-ramp from southbound 1-5 and east of the SDG&E easement. The City staff believes that this site would be ideally suited for use as a moderately priced inn. The applicant has indicated this site for office uses. The Subcommittee seemed to favor the applicant's proposal, but took no formal vote on the matter. 3. Residential Intensity and Building Bulk There is consistency between the recommendation of the Subcommittee/applicant and the staff on the maximum number of dwelling units. The Subcommittee however approved an allowable square footage for residential buildings equal to that of Alternative 8. The staff recommendation reduces the total square footage of residential buildings permitted proportionately to the reduction in total dwelling units. The bulk of buildings required to achieve the square footage of Alternative 8 is considered by staff to be excessive. The Illustrative Plan provided by the applicant indicates that numerous 4 story buildings would have to be sited within 40-60 feet of each other to achieve this intensity. 4. Hotel Intensity The Conceptual Development Plans recommended by staff and the subcommittee indicate different intensities for hotel rooms within the Resort Core. The reduced level in the Staff Alternative reflects a concern related to both intensity and marketability. Early analysis indicated that the number of hotel rooms proposed by the applicant was inconsistent with the number which the hotel market could accommodate in the foreseeable future. Staff believes it is preferable to have fewer hotel rooms at a higher occupancy rate than an over built or vacant site. No objective market analysis has been provided by the applicant which demonstrates that the proposed number of high end hotel rooms can be supported in San Diego's competitive market. A second issue with respect to hotel rooms is the bulk of buildings within the Resort Core. The staff believes a reduction in the total square footage of the hotel buildings will create an improved level of building intensity and urban form. The staff's recommendation allows the applicant the option of creating two or three high rise hotels. City Planning Conunission Page 11, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date _ 12/18/91 5. Economics The economic performance of the two Conceptual Development Plans has been analyzed by the City's economic consultant. The phasing and marketability assumptions were provided by the applicant. A supplement to this staff report summarizes the conclusions of this analysis. 6. Parks There are two aspects of the planning for public parkland which must be understood. The first is the minimum amount of parkland required for dedication at the time of subdivision based on the City's park code for residential subdivisions. The project has always included an adequate amount of parkland to satisfy that requirement. The second aspect is the amount of parkland that is appropriate for the area given the project's location and building intensity. This is more than the minimum required by the dedication ordinance. The two Conceptual Development Plans are consistent with respect to the amount of parkland and related buffer areas. The dedication and full improvement of these areas by the applicant is not intended to merely satisfy the park code requirements; it will also provide an offset to the unusual urban intensity being proposed. The issue of "park credit" or credit for lagoons is not an issue unless the applicant does not intend to improve and dedicate all the parkland and buffers indicated on the plan(s). No such intention has been indicated by the applicant at any time. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS As stated earlier, the certified FEIR is considered adequate for either of the two Conceptual Development Plans. Upon approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, the Planning Commission and City Council will then, in accordance with CEQA, adopt Findings, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Findings are required by CEQA whenever a significant impact is identified, mitigated or not. The Mitigation Monitoring Program outlines actions and schedules that must occur to achieve mitigation implementation, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations is required when a project would result in significant and unmitigated impacts. The FEIR identified a number of significant and unmitigated impacts, including those not mitigated at the plan level. Since the FEIR is considered adequate for either of the Conceptual Development Plans, its conclusions would remain the same. [C:\WP51 \BAYFRONTXPLNG COM.RA4] City Planning Commission Page 12, Item No. 3 Agenda Item Meeting Date 12/18/91 Table 1 SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF LAND USE RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION Residential · Maximum 1000 du. · Maximum 1000 du. · Maximum 1.355 million square · Maximum 940,000 square feet. feet. · 700 du in northern area, 300 du · 700 du in northern area and 300 in core. du in core. · Minimum 25 percent units in northern area 3 bedroom. Hotel · Maximum 1610 hotel units in · Maximum 1200 hotel units in four hotels (no recommendation four hotels (one of hotels [Inn] for City-owned property), on City-owned property). Cultural Arts Facility · Location recommended to be · Location to be determined upon west of Marina Parkway (if that completion of proposed site location infeasible, then would be environmental/planning analysis, located somewhere in core), and upon completion of cultural · Development of limited arts facility analysis. recreation/commercial uses could be allowed adjacent to this facility. Retail Commercial · Maximum 150,000 square feet. · Maximum 150,000 square feet. Office/Professional · Maximum 140,000 square feet. · Maximum 60,000 square feet. [C:\WP51 \BAYFRONT\COMPARE.TB L] MSMORANDUM I~xmnbcr ~, 1991 TO;. Lyman (3tristoph~r. ~ of Financ,¢ Chris S.lomonc, Cornmunit712~'vel~nt Dirogtor City of' Chuia Vista I~OM: .,~m¢ Simpson, Associag . Wtlltams-Kaebelbeek & Assogiatc& Re: PRI~LIMINARY FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR STAFF AND SUBCOMMrITEE ALTERNATIVES . CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PRO~ECT The purpos~ of this memorandum is to briefly a~mma~ze thc assumptions and findings of the financial fe~'iMiity analysis coaducted for two new alternatives for the Chttla Vista Bayf'mnt Projtct: a subcommittee alternative and a staff alternative. The subcommittee alternative was analyzed based upon two diffe~ont phasing scenarios (WK&A's phasing assumptions and thc developer's phasing assumptions), while the staff alternative was evaluated using WK&A's pb~ing assumptions, yielding a ~ offltree tlcw alternatives. However, it should be sl~ssed that the re. suits oi this initial analysis should be considered prdimiuary and subject to further refinement, based on our ongoing revi~v o~ the inputs and resultant imloulafions. Development aud Phasing Assumptions The s -~n~ttee alterDative includes a total of 1.6X0 hotel rooms in four fndlitias (a 600 room auium ho~l: a 300-room extended stay hot~l, n 460-worn resort hotcll and a inn); 140,000 square feet of off'cc space; (htoluding 80,000 square fc~ on a City-owned parcel); 150,000 square feet of specialty and suplXlrt rcta[l uses, and 1,000 rcsldcnt~l units (300 center core apartments, ~45 highrise condos, and 455 low-dsc condos) averaging 1,355 square fcct each. pa~king is assumed to be ~ubtc~ for all uses, with thc cxocptlon of la~ldscaped parking along the SD/3&.E right-of-way, which is as~'llmed to serve as prhnm'ily overflow parking for events. Thc staff alternative includes a tot. al of 1,200 hotel rooms in four facilities (a 330 room atrium hotel, a 250-room exlended stay hotel, a 3.~0-mom resort hotel, and a 250-room intO; 60,000 square feet of ofiice space, 150,000 square feet of specialty and support xvtail uses and 1,000 residential units (300 center core apa~hnents, l~0 highrisc condos, and 400 low-dsc condos) av~-a~ing 940 squaxe feet each. Moreover, the ~.~0-xtmm inn is assumed bo flevclopcd on the City-owned parcel (where the 80,000 scluaro feet of office space is Iocau:d in thc Subcommiucc. Alteroalive). paridllfl is assumed ~o bo 75 pewcnt subterranean, and 115 percent sm-fac~ for al) uses. (However, the landscaped parking in the SD/3&B right-of-way is still proviclcd in thi~. altematlve as overilow for events,) The resultant phasing and d~vdopment assumptions arc pn:~ented in Tables I through 3 for thc. Subcommittee Alternatives (WK3~.A's phasin§ and the developer phasing) a~t the Staff' Al~crnativc, respectively. (lxlote ~hat although the Subccv;_,.u.~ittee (Developer Phasing) Altem~ was divided into five "phases' for analysis pm~, the actual phasing is thc same. as that provided by th~ d~voloper.) Development Cost Assumptions Private. ons as ~y:~, but w~ u~a~ to ~ c~ doH~ fi~s. ~c ~ ~s w~ pw~d~ by ~e Saylor ~ Sept~ 1990 do~.) su~ ~ Tablc· Develop~nt cos~ ~$ump~o~ for public i~wvc~ts ~cvio~ ~s, wi~ ~e ex~fion of $~17~ which ~o~t ~ ~e pwpos~ Bay Bo~d ~ ~" ~e ~sul~t pub~ ~p~v~t ~ ~ ~ Income and Ex.rise ~sumptions u~ed ~ si~l~ ~yses, wi~ lhe exception of ho~l while ~e i~ hotel is no lOn~ assu~ to ~clude ~y f~ ~d ~vc~gc f~itics. ~, ~ ~ no l~g~ ~y l~ ho~l hdo~ ~ ~y of ~e ~a~.) General Methodolo~ Simil~ to p~ous ~A an~y~s, ~o financi~ conduct~ us~g a c~pu~ ~ s~lafion m~oL ~ on a di~un~ ~ flow ~ m~lo~ ~,~,~l~ ~ f~ ~ ~ of flow ~ ~ f~ on v~ll!flon ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ho~n~ as ~c~afi0n of r~nts, ~nses ~d p~y v~u~; 3 fact that a dollar prot~dsed in thc futura is wo~ less than a doHnr received tod~y. Cssh flows from tax saying.s (or taxcs paid) w~ro not included in this analysis, as the cvalualion w~ conducted on a bc/~orc-lax basle, The p/~icuiar ~tx sirdalion of thc d~velopcr (Chula Vista Investors) was not fclt ~o bc ~clcYani ~o th~ basic financial analysis of the proposal projeca Similarly, this initial analysis was conductcd on an all-c~h (unlcvexaged) basis, although subsequent analyses will cvaluatc thc financial feasibility of thc l~<,j~ct both with and without the 1ocncfits of financin§. A pur~ cash basis financial analysis provides a clcancr bawls for cvaluafing thc pure economics of a clcv¢loptuen~, without the effects of tt~ partic,~Izr deb¥cquity structure, prcfcrrccl financing ~gemcnts or any other entrepreneurial asuccts a dcvclopcr might introducc into a project. Thus, any additional returns the tlMveloper might rucciw from specific financing arrangcmont.~ w~r~ considered extraneous to the pure "project economics". In this rc.spcct, a cash basis zcco. ario was felt to provide a more equitable means of cvaluagn§ thc financial fcasibillty of thc Ftopo~l project to the dcvcloper. Evalualion of th~ alternatives was based On two evaluado~ criteria: 1) net pn:S:nt valuo (NPV) and intcrnaI rate of return (IRE). The net present value figure is exprcsscd as thc 1991 lump sum dollar value of the development projected ovcr thc period of analysis. Ali annual cash flows are discounted at a selected discount rate in order to determin~ thc 1991 lump sum dollar figuro. The discount rate used is dependent upon factors relating to ahcmativc earning opponuuitles, risk and uncertainty. The higher time risk, the high~ the disootmt rate used. Convcrsely, the lower the risk, t.~ lower thc discount rate. This analysis uscd a 15 p~cCnl discount ~t~, considered approlxiate for a projcct c~ U'ds magnitude. 4 Internal rate of rcmm is cs~cvaill~ g~ same ~ a ~t ~ h~, It is ~tl~t~ ~ h~e ~ ~ ~ ~ is u~ ~ ~ ~ d~ ~o fi~c~ ~ ~ a ~, ~S ~y~ ~ffi~ a 1~ ~ h~ ~ on a ~Iy ~ (unl~) ~is, in ~ ~ det~e ~c~ f~s~ility' At ~is l~cl ~ pl~n~g, a 15 ~t ~ is 8~ly ~n~d~ a ~o~bl~ d~t of ~ f~b~ ~d ~j~t ~on. Public Pa~pagon ~e ~ develop~nt ~v~ wc~ ~n ua~ ~o ~n~: 1) assu~8 no ~ p~i~pa6on (s~ tO pre~ous ~y~s), ~d 2) assum~g ~c ~/Agonoy p~vidcs ~sis~ u~ ~ ~m~t ~enucs g~t~ by ~ pmj~ For p~os~ ~ ~ i~6~ ~ys~, ~e A~ w~ ~s~ m apply ~ ~t of ~c t~ i~nt ~vcnues ~s · o ~st of pr~g ~c pmpos~ public ~pmwmen~ (such ~ thc lag~n~, p~, site ~nt r~enu~ ~ by ~ ~ ~v~op~ wo~d ~ ~ c~h y~ ~ hdp ~M the public ~pmv~en~ ~ ~e ~j~ In ~ se~ ~e ~n~ ~d~ by &e A~ is kept ~ ~ ~ ~e p~ Resul~a of the AaaI~sis ~e ~t ~ ~tes of ~mm by use for ~h ~t~ve ~ ~ ~ T~bl~ 8 follo~ag PROJECT INTEI~NAI~ RATF~ OF RETURN ORR'S) CHULA V]~STA ]~AYI~'RONT PRO~ Baseline Ag~ pa~pafion ~o. Partly) (50% T~ In~m~0 Development'~ter~fives Su~n~ ~ ~g 9.~% 9.26% Su~mltt~ ~a~g 9.08~ 9.35% S~f ~ Ph~ing) 8.72% 9.01% feasible as propos~ un~ ~c t~ b~l~= ~cfo~ Agency p~eipafion) altoma6v~. Agency g~cipaaon ~ses ~j~t ~t=as sli~y, but not ~ignific~y. Howler, it shoed ~ not~ ~ p~t re~s ~ght ~ ~=a~d if Agvnvy a~s~ w~ ~ ~o ~= fo~ of issu=Ce of ~ ~a~on bonds. Un~r ~a Oproach, th= A~n~ ~uld i~ue ~nds ~ ~ a polos of ~e ~t of ~e ~o~ publiv i~ im~=m~. ~= bonds ~ ~ of 1~, ~e Ag~ would l~ly be able to ~d a ~ ~ of &c pm~s~ public ~v~en~ (~us ~asing davelo~r ~t~ns) by isz~g ~=h ~ ~locafion ~nds. However, i~su~ce of ~n~ is also ~ flaky, which must ~=o b= For ~ p~s, ~e ~ul~ ~V's g~ by ~ ~oj~t (as~g a 15 ~nt discount rate ~ summ~ ~ ~e follo~ng pa~, an~ ~ ~nt~ by uso for ~ach 6 NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV%~) AT L~'o DISCOUNT RATE CHULA VI~TA ]~AYFRONT PROJECT ~aseline Ag~cy P~pafion .... (No. Pa~i~) (~0~ Tax ~t) Development ~ternafives Su~ ~ ~g ~I~ ~on) ~141.9 ~on) S~~ ~g ($1~.7 ~on) ~1~.1 ~on) S~ ~ ~s~) ~1~.7 ~on) ($119.0 ~on) ~ ~ 15 ~cnt ~o ~nt a f~ ~d ~uimblu m~ m ~o d~, ~ Ug~ of i~ inh~t level orris. A~ngly, a ~ ~V b~ on ~unt into ~ca~s ~at ~c pwj~t get.tea ~ in~ ~ of rc~ of primly 15 pcwcnt - no ~ ~d no lcd. Conv~y, a negative ~ h~ca~ ~ c~cnt doH~ shovel in ~Mo~ng ~e ~$~ ~R (burke ra~). ~c sho~ is l~cat f~ ~ ~ ~t~afiw, dn~c ~s is a l~s d~cloymcm intense: ~aflve ~ ~e 8~f ~afivc, ~nv~ly, th~ hi.or sho~all f~ tho Su~m]~ ~ ph~g Alt~w ~ a~ablc ~ i~ a~ ph~Mg ~h~u~, ~ W ~sid~ ~h a ~ute. ~ CON:~UCI'ION COSTS FOR lq~VA'I~ D~q~ [1] ~ T,L All~e ~0 ~ S. F, ~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S, F. ~lu~ ~I ~ ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ $15 ~ s. P. PARKING Subtcn*~uucau Parr, i~ $~0 S ,~Par. ki~ 11 Table 5 HARD CON$'JURUCTION COSTS FOE SPORTS FACILrrlF, S AND PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEIVl]gNTS CHULA VISTA BAY]FRONT FROYECr (In Current DoHar~) Lump Sum PrOposed,U,s,e Costs Tcnai~ Compl~x $4,905~61 8po~ ~nt~ $8.~9~14 ~ ~ Faoi~os $65~3 I~ ~ ~,~I,877 Olympic P~I $998.537 To~ Sp~ F~cs ~er~nc~ ~n~ ~.251.485 Lagoon $10,665,951 Resident~d Lake: $1,793,907 PubUc Park $7,$33,020 Si~ Improvemems $$.~70,049 Onsite - Private Roads $2.528,339 Onsite - Public Roads $7,333,635 Offsit~ $911,387 ~E' Street/Bay Blvd/I-5 Ramps $617,100 Total PubUc ][mprovcmcn~ $39.653,388 Midgatio~ Costs ~2] $2,500,000 [11 Nov~'rber 1990 estimate provgtled by Rick Engtneerntns. 121 As pr avtd, d by Per, on & Prlee, attorney~ for devet~per. Inctude~ (1) new mar~h w~. o[ Man,~ z~riway, C~ ) w. ~**~... at o .u~w~er Point. and O) vanou~ Department offish & Wildqle r~qutre~ents. Source: LeeSaylor, lnc.;Rick£ngineertng;Peter$on&Price;William~'Kuebalback & Associates, Inc. 5.e3236-03n~w 12 Table INCOME AND S~,~-~-~ ~gJMFI"IONS CIIULA VISTA. B~YERONI' P~O.IECI' $17~ A~ -~R~ $~.~ ~m~ ~ Ho~ - ~ R~ $1~.~ P~ R~m ~ Ho~l. F~ ~ ~v~c No~ ~ ~ To~ R~ ~w-~ ~ $1 tO.~ ~fiew ~ Not A~bl6 ~o B~ (~ S~ V~ So.ce: Willlaya~.Kutb~ll~&,irst~iar~,Inr., T~ble 7 OPERATING EXPIi~Nb-'~S,~F-~ EXPENSE ~SUMPTIONS CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PRO,I[ECT Source: WilIiol~.Kuel~.ll~d~ 5.e3236-0~ 14 2O ATTACHMENT B MIDBAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF CR[~-ICAL TRAIrI<IC, CIRCULATION AND ACCESS FINDINGS/ISSUES City of Chula Vista JHK & Associates 8989 Rio San Diego Dr!ye, Suite 335 San Diego, Califorma 92108 December 11, 1991 Post-lC' brand fax transmittal memo ~MIDBAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF CRrI1CAL TRAFvlC~ ~CULA~ON AND ACCESS F~D~NGS/ISS UES ~HK & ~SO~S - DECEMBER ll~ S~ARY OF TR~YIC ~A~ ANALYS~ ~D~GS FROM ~AL E~ ~e Y~ ~n~fion w~ ~ ~ ~e ~vo 8 ~c ~ to ~e pmpo~ n~wo& for ~ Ba~nt ~ Bo~ ~vc 8 ~d ~e "No ProJ~' Almmafive, ~d~ Ye~ ~ ~n~fiom d~ thc ~ ~ ho~, re~lt ~ ~1 lnte~fio~ o~afing wi~n ~e Oty of Chuln Vi~m a~d~ of o~un (~S C or ~). Howev~, ~der Al~afive 8 d~g wo~ - ~ ~on~ LOS E or wome - ~way ~ Pro_it, et lmvacts Without Mitigation - I-5 Southbound Ramp/E Street (LOS F, ICU 1.05) o I-$ Northbound Ramp/15 Street (LOS F, ICU 1.30) Broadway/E Street (LOS F, IOU 1.04) * Broadway/F Street Ct. OS D, ICL; 0.84) * Broadway/II Street (LOS E, ICL; 0.95) The remaiuh~g intcrsccOons are expected to operate at acceptable levels-of-mac/ce daring thc PM ~ hour. Because the analysis of project generated traffic assumiag anticipated geometries, resulted in unacceptable levels-of-service, addit/onal levels-of-service calculations were undertaken by adding the Planned Roadway Improvements listed below one phase at a time. Planned Roadway lm_vrovements Phase 1 Widen wcsthound E $1~.~t from thc nar~hbound I-5 on-ramp to provide a separate right-tttm lane from wcsfoound E Slrc~t to the I-5 nor/hbound on-ramp. This mparat~ right-mm lane shonld be a minimum of 250 feet in lcnglh. Phas~ 2 Widen the I-5 northbound off-zamp at ~ $~rcct te provide an exclusive left-turn lane, a shsred left- and right-tm lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. PhS~e 3 Re-stripe the E Street overpass to provide two through lanes per direction, and two let~-mrn lanes from eastbound E SIrcct to the I-5 northbound on-ramp. Phase 4 Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an ex¢lu~ve left-mm lane and two right-tttrn lanes. It is important to note that during the period when the Final EIR was being prepared Cal~rans had not approved the re-striping of the Int.!nrc- 5 ovcterossing at E Street identified as PhaSe 3 mitigation. Thc primary reason that approval had not ~ grana~l by Caltrans is that sub- standard lane widths wac included in thc proposed re-su'iping plan by thc applicant. IJa addition, the feasibility of the widening of Bay Boulevard to includ~ tltree noahbound lanes, identified under phase '~, had not been demoasU'aled. Bay Boulev~d currently provides only two northbound lanes al: thc int~r,scctlon of E 81feet, Expansion of thc Bay Boulevard rlghl:-of-way IS constrained by thc mikoad fight-of-way to the west and exi~ng developed prope~es (e.g., Anthony's and Day's Inn) to thc cas~. Since the co~plction of the Final EIR, YHK &Associatcs (JHK) and the C~ty of Chula Vista have resolved thc two roadway design issues described above. Figure 1 summarizes these resolved issues and Figures 2 and 3 provide teehniea! support for the determination of feasibility. Thus, all Planned Roadway Improvement measures are feasible and should be included as required mitigation for this project The fonowiag llst summarizes the projected levels of service at critical study are ~terscctions with thc incorporation of all four phases of Planned Roadway Improvements. Project lmnactS ~Yith Planned Roatlway Improvements (phases 1-4) I-5 Southbound RampfE Street (LOS F, ICU 1.02) I-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street (LOS C, ICU 0.74) Even assuming incorporation o£ thc Planned Roadway Improvements into the ICU analysis, the intersection of E Street and the I-5 southbound ramp r~mained at an unacceptable level of service under the Proposed Project and Alternative 8. Due to this "over saturation" at the intersection of E Street and the I-5 southbound ramp, additional traffic was rexiistribumd from the E Street interchango south to the H Street interchange for the PM pesk period. Und~ Alternative 8, the I-5 northtmtmd ramp at E Street would operate at level of sea'vice C in the PM peak hour assuming implementation of the measures identi~ed as Phases l-3. The I-5 southbound ramp at E Street will opexate at level of service D assuming implementation of the measures Identified uncl~r Phase 4 and also assuming redistribution of trips from the E Street interchange. As shown on Table 2, the levels of ~etvice at the H Streetfl-5 southbound ramp and u~ H Street/Bay Boulcvant inte~eclion are C dm'lng the PM peat hour following redisiribution of nips from ~ E $~-cct interchange. SUMMARY OF REOUIRED MITIGATION Under Alternative 8, Phases 1-4 of the Planned Roadway Improvemcnt~ must be implemented to aclcquatcly mitigate the cited impacts associated with Altomafive 8. The measures identified for all four Phases have been approved by Cahrans and the City of Chnla Vista az f~asible project mitigaiinn. Based on feasibility of key mitigation measures including rc-sttiping of the E Street overca-ossing (Pha.s~ 3), and widening Bay Boulevard to provide three northbound lanes (Plm~ 4), thy impacts at thc I-5 northbound and southbound ramps at E S~rcct arc signticant and mltig~ at thc plan Ic-val undvr Altcnamive 8. In addition, mitigation measures were also idcntLficd for the in~rs¢ction of Broadway at E, F, and Id Streets. Those meastrres arc dcailed below. 1. Broadway/E Su~et Without Mitigmion (LOS F, ICU 1.04) With Mitigation (LOS C, ICU 0.76) Wastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right- turn only lane. Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-turn and an exclusive right-turn only lane. 2. Broadway/F Street Without Mitigation (LOS D, ICU 0.84) With Mitigation (LOS C, ICU 0.79) Westbound: Re-stripIng to provide an exelasivc fight-mm only lane. Eastbound: Re-sniping to provide an exclusive right-mm only lane. 3. Broadwayfrl Street Without Mitigation (LOS E, ICU 0.95) With Mitigation (LOS C, ICU 0.74) WcsthOund: Conslruction tO provide an additional through lane,. Eastbound: Comtructlon tO provide an additional through lane and an cxclusive fight-turn only l~n¢. At the project level of environmental analysis the incremental contribution of mfft'ic generated by thc proposed project on thc in~rsections listed under 1 through 3 above will bc dctcrmlned and the applicant will be required £o fund a pro rata shaw of the identified inll0 rOVClTl¢Ilt~. SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Bazcd on the technical analysis conduc~l since thc completion of thc Final EIR, thc following conclusions have been developed assuming the full implementation of all recommended m~figafion · The level of development (38,125 daily trips) proposed in Alternative g can be aeconamodated and avceptable levels of service achieved at all critical study area intersections. and trip generataon p0tentl, al equal to or less man ~ngu,,uv= o accommodated. indicates that a total of 35.455 Oa,~y raps vau oe generateo. trips less than Alternative 8 or a reduelion in traffic activivy of approximately seven percent SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED It is anticipated that ~ will be conducting a full review of the transpo~afion impacts resulting from all future alternatives to be developed for the Midbayfront as directed by the City. This review will address all $ignticant issues shown on Figure a and confirm all necessary n~irigation measures tot the project. 4 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSES CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PROJECT SUBCOMMITTEE AND STAFF ALTERNATIVES PRELIMINARY RESULTS December 11, 1991 Prepared by: WlLLIAMS-KUEBELBECK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Real Estate Economic, Financial and Management Consultants 7 Corporate Park, Suite 260 Irvine, Califomia 92714 Telephone: (714) 474-1606 Table 1 DEVELOPMENT AND PHASING ASSUMPTIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ALTERNATIVE. WK&A PHASING [I] CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PROJECT PHASE I PHASE H PHASE ITt PHASE IV TOTAL GROSS SF BY USE (1993-1997) (1998-2000) (2001-2004) (2005-2008) (1993-2008) Office 0 00,000 0 80,000 140,000 Retail 145,000 0 5,000 0 150,000 Hotel 492,000 246,000 377,200 200,000 1,315,200 High-Rise Condos 0 0 135,500 196,475 331,975 Low-Rise Condos 135,500 237,125 149.050 94,850 616,525 Center Core Apartment~ 406,500 0 0 0 406,500 Conference Center 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 Tennis Courts 69,000 0 · 0 0 69,000 Sports Center 68,000 0 0 0 68,000 Olympic Pool 0 12,000 0 0 12,000 Ice Rink 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 Child Care 0 7,000 0 0 7,000 Total Excl. Parking 1,356.000 612,125 666,750 571,325 3,206200 Subterranean Parking 1,413,860 301,700 314,440 248,500 2,278.500 Surface Parking [2] 0 0 209,600 105,600 315,200 Total Parking S.F. 1,413,860 301,700 524,040 354.100 · 2.593,700 TOTAL GROSS S.F. 2,769,860 913,825 1,190,790 925,425 5,799,900 HOTEL ROOMS 600 300 460 250 1,610 (Atrium) (Extended Slay) (Resort) (inn) DWELLING UNITS (D.U.'s) High-Rise Condos 100 145 245 Low-Rise Condos 100 175 110 70 455 Center Core Apartmenls 300 300 TOTAL D.U.'s 400 175 210 915 1,000 [1] Years of phasing refer to years of construction by phase. Does not include projects proposed for Rohr Industries. [2] Refers to landscaped parking along SDG&E Right-of-Way (Phase 111) and surface parking for office on City-owned parcel (Phase IV). Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates. 5,e3236-01dnew 1 Table 2 DEVELOPMENT AND PHASING ASSUMPTIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ALTERNATIVE - DEVELOPER PHASING [1] CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PROJECT PHASE I PHASE H PHASE HI PHASE IV TOTAL GROSS SF BY USE (1993-1997) (1997-2000) (2000-2004) , (1993.2004) Office 60,000 0 80,OOO 0 140,000 Retail 145,000 0 5,000 0 150,000 Hotel (Atrium/Inn) 492,000 200,000 0 0 692,000 Hotel (Extended Stay) 246,000 0 0 246,000 Hotel (Resort) 377,2OO 0 0 377,200 High.Rise Condos 0 135,500 196,475 0 331,975 Low-Rise Condos 271,000 257,450 88,075 0 616,525 Center Core Aparanents 406,500 0 0 0 406,500 Conference Center 40,OO0 0 0 0 40,000 Tennis Courts 69,000 0 0 0 69,000 Sports Center 68,000 0 0 0 68,000 Olympic Pool 0 12,000 0 0 12,000 Ice Rink 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 Child Care 0 7,000 0 0 7,000 Total Excl. Parking 2,174,700 661,950 369,550 0 3,206,200 Subterranean Parking 1,830,500 301,000 147,000 0 2,278,500 Surface Parking [2] 0 0 315.2OO 0 3155200 Total Parking S.F. 1,830,5OO 301,000 462,2OO 0 2,593,700 TOTAL GROSS S.F. 4,005,200 962,950 831,750 0 5,799,900 HOTEL ROOMS 600 250 3OO 460 1,610 DWELLING UNITS (D.U.'s) High-Rise Condos loo 145 245 Low-Rise Condos 200 190 65 455 Center Core Apartmen~ 300 300 TOTAL D.U.'s 500 290 210 0 1,000 11] Years of phasing refer to years of construction by phase. Does not include projects proposed for Rohr Industries. [2] Refers to landscaped parking along SDG&E Right-of. Way and surface parking for office on City-owned parcel. Source: Williarns-Kuebelbeck & Associates. 5,e3236-01Enew 2 Table :3 DEVELOPMENT AND PHASING ASSUMPTIONS STAFF ALTERNATIVE - WK&A PHASING [1] CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PROJECT PHASE I PHASE H PHASE III PHASE IV TOTAL GROSS SF BY USE . (1993-1997) ,, (1998-2000) (2001-2004) (2005-2006) . (1993-2006) Office 0 60,000 0 0 Retail 145,000 0 5,000 0 150,000 Hotel 287,000 205,000 287,000 200,000 979,000 High-Rise Condos 0 0 112,800 169,200 282,000 Low-Rise Condos 70.500 117,500 94,000 94,000 376,000 Center Core Aparlmen~ 282,000 0 0 0 282,000 Conference Center 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 Tennis CourC~ 69,000 0 0 0 69,000 Spor~ Center 68,000 0 0 0 68,000 Olympic Pool 0 12,000 0 0 12,000 Ice Rink 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 Child Cate 0 7,000 0 0 7,000 Total Excl. Parking 961.500 451,500 498,800 463.200 2,375,000 Subterranean Parking 1,081,106 169,969 182,175 178,500 1,611,750 Surface Parking [2] 456,09~ 33,906 238,475 36,750 765.225 Total Parking S.F. 1,537.200 203,875 420,650 215,250 2,376,975 TOTAL GROSS S.F. 2,498,700 655,375 919,450 678,450 4,751,975 HOTEL ROOMS 350 250 350 250 1.200 (Awium) (Extended Stay) (Resort) (Inn) DWELLING UNITS (D.U.'s) High-Rise Condos 120 180 300 Low-Rise Condos 75 125 100 100 400 Center Core Aparunents 300 300 TOTAL D.U.'s 375 125 220 280 1,000 [1] Years of phasing refer to years of construction by phase. Does not include projects proposed for Rohr Industries. [2] Includes landscaped parking along SDG&E Right-of Way (Phase 111), as well as 25 percent surface parking for all other uses. Source: William~-Kuebelbeck & Associates. 5,e3236-01 fnew 3 Table 4 MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SUBCOMMITTEE AND STAFF ALTERNATIVES CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PROJECT SUBCOMMITTE~ STAFF RESIDENTIAL 1,000 D.U.'S @ avg 1,355 SF 1,000 D.U.'s @ avg 940 SF .300 Center core apa~hnents - 31}0 Center core apa,hnents - 245 High-Rise Condos - 300 High-Rise Condos - 455 Low-Rise Condos - 400 Low Rise Condos HOTEL 1,610 Hotel Rooms 1,200 Hotel Rooms - 600 Room Atrium - 350 Room Atrium - 300 Room Extended Stay - 250 Room Extended Stay - 460 Room Resort - 350 Room Resort -250 Room Inn ' -250 ~~ty- OFFICE 140,000' SF TOTAL 60,000 SF TOTAL - 60,000 SF in core - 60,000 SF in core - 80,000 SF on City-owned parcel PARKING - All Subterranean 25% Surface/75% Subterranean Source: City of Chula Vista; Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. 5,t3236-04 4 Table 5 DEVELOPMENT AND PHASING ASSUMPTIONS DEVELOPER PROPOSAL DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 [1] CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PROJECT PHASE I PHASE H PHASE III PHASE IV PHASE V TOTAL GROSS SF BY USE ¢1991-1995) f1999.2004) ¢2005-2009) (2009-2012) (2012-2014) (1991.20] 4) Office 0 60,000 0 80.000 0 140,000 Retail 145,000 5,000 0 0 0 150,000 Hotel 488,000 244,000 374,000 155,000 204,000 1,465,000 High.Rise Condos 251,500 0 185,800 0 121,800 559,100 Low-Rise Condos 72,500 84,000 54,200 111,000 166.200 487,900 Center Core Apartments 308,000 0 0 0 0 308,000 Conference Center 40,000 0 0 0 0 40,000 Tennis Courts 69,000 0 0 0 0 69,000 Sports Center 68,000 0 0 0 0 68,000 Olympic Pool 0 12,000 0 0 0 Ice Rink 0 50,000 0 0 0 50,000 Child Care 0 7.000 0 0 0 7,000 Total ExcL Parking 1.305,000 393,000 614,000 346,000 492,000 3,150,000 Subterranean Parking 1,663,060 61,950 145,250 132300 261,450 2,264,010 Surface Parking 67,200 128,000 220,000 105,600 0 520,800 Total Parking S.F. 1,730,260 189,950 365,250 237.900 261,450 2,784,810 TOTAL GROSS S.F. 3,035,260 454,950 759,250 478300 753.450 5,414,010 HOTEL ROOMS 600 300 460 190 250 1,800 (Atrium) (Ex. Stay) (Resort) (Luxury) 0-nn) DWI~H .ING UNITS (D.U.'s) High.Rise Condos 260 192 126 578 Low-Rise Condos 75 87 ~6 114 172 504 Centex Core Apartments 318 0 318 TOTAL D.U.'s 653 87 248 114 298 1,400 [1] Years of phasing refer to years of construction by phase. Does not includt projects propo.~ed for Rohr Ind~tries. Source: Keller EnvironmentaI Associates, Inc., ~Draft Environmenlal Impact Report dated August 1990'; Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates. 5,e3236-Olanew 5 Table 6 PROJECT INTERNAL RATES OF RETURN (IRR'S) [1] CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PROJECT Baseline Agency Participation (No Agency (50% Tax Increment. Develooment Alternative~ ~ .Pav-as-vou-~o~ [2] Subcommittee (WK&A Phasing) 9.01% 9.27% Subcommittee (Dev. Phasing) 9.20% 9.47% Staff (WK&A Phasing) 8.72% 9.01% Developer Proposal (Sept. 1990) 7.25% Not Applicable [3] Note: All income, expense and absorption assumptions are WK&A estimates. [1] This analysis assumed a 15% hurdle rate (target IRR to in&'c [2] This forrn of Agency particit~ation , ...... ) ate project feasibility. f, .... ~ ~t,uy-aa-you-go) was requested by the City. lOj lvo Agency participation was conxidered in previous analyses. · Source: Williarns-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. $,t3236-01 6 Table 7 MODIFICATIONS WHICH MIGHT IMPROVE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT PROJECT * .Re-evaluating the design and major cost elements of the proposed public Improvements * Revised phasing of the proposed public improvements * Substituting more above-grade and/or surface parking for the subterranean parking * Phasing of the parking for the central core and sports facilities * Consideration of shared parking * Consideration of tax allocation bonding as an Agency participation scenario Source: Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. 5,t3236-03 jhk asso,_.~ MIDBAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF CRITICAL TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND ACCESS FINDINGS/ISSUES City of Chula Vista JHK & Associates 8989 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite 335 San Diego, California 92108 December 11, 1991 jhk associates MIDBAYFRONT TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF CRITICAL TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND ACCESS FINDINGS/ISSUES JHK & ASSOCIATES . DECEMBER I1, 1991 SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FINDINGS FROM FINAL EIR The Year 2000 condition was analyzed with the Alternative 8 traffic added to the proposed network for the Bayfront area. Both Alternative 8 and the" ' " No ProJect Alternative, under Year 2000 conditions during the AM peak hour, result in all intersections operating within the City of Chula Vista standards of operation (LOS C or better). However, under Alternative 8 during the PM peak hour, the following intersections are expected to operate at unacceptable levels (LOS D or worse - arterial intersections, LOS E or worse - freeway ramp intersections). Project Imnacls Without Mitigation · I-5 Southbound Ramp/E Street (LOS F, ICU 1.05) · I-5 Northbound Ramp/E Street (LOS F, ICU 1.30) · Broadway/E Street (LOS F, ICU 1.04) · Broadway/F Street (LOS D, ICU 0.84) Broadway/H Street (LOS E, ICU 0.95) The remaining intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels-of-service during the PM peak hour. Because the analysis of project generated traffic assuming anticipated geometrics, resulted in unacceptable levels-of-service, additional levels-of-service calculations were undertaken by adding the Planned Roadway Improvements listed below one phase at a time. Planned Roadway Imorovements Phase 1 Widen westbound E Street from the northbound I-5 on-ramp to provide a separate right-turn lane from westbound E Street to the I-5 northbound on-ramp. This separate right-mm lane should be a minimum of 250 feet in length. Phase 2 Widen the I-5 northbound off-ramp at E Street to provide an exclusive left-turn lane, a shared left- and right-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. Phase 3 Re-stripe the E Street overpass to provide two through lanes per direction, and two left-turn lanes from eastbound E Street to the I-5 northbound on-romp. jhk a.oc,at Phase 4 Widen northbound Bay Boulevard to provide an exclusive left-turn lane and two right-turn lanes. It is important to note that during the period when the Final EIR was being prepared Caltrans had not approved the re-striping of the Interstate $ overcrossing at E Street identified as Phase 3 mitigation. The primary reason that approval had not been granted by Caltrans is that sub- standard lane widths were included in the proposed re-striping plan by the applicant. In addition, the feasibility of the widening of Bay Boulevard to include three northbound lanes, identified under phase 4, had not been demonstrated. Bay Boulevard currently provides only two northbound lanes at the intersection of E Street. Expansion of the Bay Boulevard right-of-way is constrained by the railroad right-of-way to the west and existing developed properties (e.g., Anthony's and Day's Inn) to the east. Resolved lssuqfi Since the completion of the Final EIR, JHK & Associates (JHK) and the City of Chula Vista have resolved the two roadway design issues described above. Figure 1 summarizes these resolved issues and Figures 2 and 3 provide technical support for the determination of feasibility. Thus, all Planned Roadway Improvement measures are feasible and should be included as required mitigation for this project. The following list summarizes the projected levels of service at critical study are intersections with the incorporation of all four phases of Planned Roadway Improvements. Project Impacts With Planned Roadway Improvements (Phases 1-4) · I-5 Southbound Ramp/E Street (LOS F, ICU 1.02) · I-5 Northbound Rmnp/E Street (LOS C, ICU 0.74) Even assuming incorporation of the Planned Roadway Improvements into the ICU analysis, the intersection of E Street and the 1-5 southbound ramp remained at an unacceptable level of service under the Proposed Project and Alternative 8. Due to this "over saturation" at the intersection of E Street and the I-5 southbound ramp, additional traffic was redistributed from the E Street interchange south to the H Street interchange for the PM peak period. Under Alternative 8, the I-5 northbound ramp at E Street would operate at level of service C in the PM peak hour assuming implementation of the measures identified as Phases 1-3. The 1-5 southbound ramp at E Street will operate at level of service D assuming implementation of the measures identified under Phase 4 and also assuming redistribution of trips from the E Street interchange. As shown on Table 2, the levels of service at the H Street/I-5 southbound ramp and 2 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS EB Double Left Turn WB Right Turn Lane . NB Widening (Bay Bouleva~I) jhk . s oc,atcs the H Street/Bay Boulevard intersection are C during the PM peak hour following redis~bution of trips from the E Su'eet interchange. SUMMARY OF REOUIRED MITIGATION Under Alternative 8, Phases 1-4 of the Planned Roadway Improvements must be implemented to adequately mitigate the cited impacts associated with Alternative 8. The measures identified for all four Phases have been approved by Calu'ans and the City of Chula Vista as feasible project mitigation. Based on feasibility of key mitigation measures including re-striping of the E Street overcrossing (Phase 3), and widening Bay Boulevard to provide three northbound lanes (Phase 4), the impacts at the I-5 northbound and southbound romps at E Street are signficant and mitigated at the plan level under Alternative 8. In addition, mitigation measures were also identified for the intersection of Broadway at E, F, and H Streets. Those measures are detailed below. 1. Broadway/E Street Without Mitigation (LOS F, ICU 1.04) With Mitigation (LOS C, ICU 0.76) Westbound: Construction of an additional left-turn lane and an exclusive right- tum only lane. Eastbound: Construction of an additional left-mm and an exclusive right-turn only lane. 2. Broadway/F Street Without Mitigation (LOS D, ICU 0.84) With Mitigation (LOS C, ICU 0.79) Westbound: Re-striping to provide an exclusive fight-mm only lane. Eastbound: Re-striping to provide an exclusive fight-mm only lane. 3. Broadway/H Street Without Mitigation (LOS E, ICU 0.95) With Mitigation (LOS C, ICU 0.74) Westbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane. Eastbound: Construction to provide an additional through lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane. At the project level of environmental analysis the incremental contribution of traffic generated by the proposed project on the intersections listed under 1 through 3 above will be determined and the applicant will be required to fund a pro rata share of the identified improvements. 6 SUMMARY OF CRITICAL FINDINGS Based on the technical analysis conducted since the completion of the Final EIR, the following conclusions have been developed assuming the full implementation of all recommended mitigation measures: · The level of development (38,125 daily trips) proposed in Alternative 8 can be accommodated and acceptable levels of service achieved at all critical study area intersections. · Proposed projects currently under consideration by the City with a similar mix of uses and trip generation potential equal to or less than Alternative 8 could also be accommodated. · A preliminary review of the alternative developed by Bayfront Planning Subcommittee indicates that a total of 35,455 daily trips will be generated. This value is 2,670 daily trips less than Alternative 8 or a reduction in traffic activity of approximately seven percent. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED It is anticipated that JHK will be conducting a full review of the transportation impacts resulting from all future alternatives to be developed for the Midbayfront as directed by the City. This review will address all signficant issues shown on Figure 4 and confirm all necessary mitigation measures for the project. 7 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Figure 4 Substandard Bridge Width at "F" Street/Interstate 50vercrossing Current Pavement Width - 52 Feet Required Pavement Width - 72 Feet "F" Street Between Woodlawn Avenue and Bay Boulevard Could be Reclassified as a Class II Collector (52 Feet). To Be Confirmed With Further Analysis Utilize New Count Data at "E" Stxeet/l-5 for Analyzing Project Level Impacts Re-assess Woodlawn Avenue Redevelopment Status for Each Phase of Project Level Analysis 8 PETEKSON 6~ PKICE PAUL A. PETER$ON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE EDWARD E WHITTLer LAWYER8 AKEA CODE 619 LYNNE L. HEIDEL 530 B STREET, SUITE 2300 234-0361 December 17, 1991 3848.001 RECEIVED Chairperson Susan Fuller and Members of the Planning Commission ~ ? : ~QQi CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~g~ 276 Fourth Avenue LANN ~,J~i Chula Vista, California 92010 ' Re: Mid-Bayfront Plan/Chula Vista Investors Dear Chairperson Fuller and Members of the Planning Commission: We represent Chula Vista Investors, which is the owner of the majority of the property in the Mid-Bayfront plan area. As you know, the City Council created a special planning Subcommittee to study the land use aspects of the Mid-Bayfront Plan and to see whether or not a suitable compromise could be reached between the differing positions of the developer, the Planning Department, and the Community Groups The Subcommittee has forwarded to you its recommendations, which were arrived at after more than 30 hours of meetings. Its recommendation is intended to represent its best efforts in recommending a suitable development for this area. The Planning Department has also made its own recommendations, which in some cases differ materially and importantly from the recommended Development Plan of the Subcommittee. Chairperson Susan Fuller and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF CHULA VISTA December 17, 1991 Page 2 Attached as Exhibit "A" is a Chula Vista Bayfront Program Comparison Chart. As you can see, our client has made substantial and considerable changes in this project in terms of reducing the density and intensity of development, thereby reducing the height and the mass of buildings. In addition, the amount of open space and parks and community amenities has been increased. There are two principal issues that we would like to discuss with you in this letter: 1. The number of hotel rooms that the applicant feels are needed in order to insure a viable destination resort and conference center complex. 2. The total amount of square footage for the residential in order to provide for a good, well-balanced mixed-use project. With regard to the number of the hotel rooms, our financial consultant, Price-Waterhouse, has reached the conclusion that at least 1,600 (actually 1,610 hotel rooms) should be allowed on the developer's portion of the Mid-Bayfront Plan. This permits for major bookings on a national and international basis (a block of approximately 1,200 to 1,300 rooms) to accommodate the destination conference center activity and destination resort activity. Our client and its financial consultants feel this number of rooms are essential for this project. The remaining 300 to 400 hotel rooms would be available for other visitors to Chula Vista that are not part of the National or International Conference booking. If the number of hotel rooms is further reduced, this would put the Chairperson Susan Fuller and Men,hers of the Planning Commission CITY OF CHULA VISTA December 17, 1991 Page 3 project in jeopardy, and could well create a situation where there is just another collection of local hotels, serving and competing with the regional market. Orientation toward serving only the local or regional market makes the project less feasible. We would urge you to accept the Subcommittee's recommendation and not to follow Staff's suggestion. With regard to the square footage and number of residential units, as you can see, the developer has made a substantial reduction in the number of residential units. The issue now has boiled down to whether there should be 1,000 units, with a maximum of 1,358,000 square feet, or whether there should be 1,000 units with a maximum of 940,000 square feet. If the square footage of the residential units is further reduced, then the average size of each unit drops down from 1,300 square feet to 940 square feet, thereby limiting market demand and flexibility. Our client has planned the Bayfront as a mid to high-end residential project. The units will be larger in size, and command a better price because of their views and proximity to San Diego Bay. In addition, these units, because they are a part of a significant and exciting mixed-use project, will be in high demand. If the Staff recommendation were to be accepted, and the square footages limited to only 940,000 square feet, the obvious result is that either there would be either fewer large units or more small (one and two bedroom) units. Either result (a larger number of small studio and apartment units, or a small number of large units) is not good planning. Our client strongly objects to this, as does his financial consultant, on the ground that it places the economic Chairperson Susan Fuller and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF CHULA VISTA December 17, 1991 Page 4 viability of the project in jeopardy. Probably the single most economically feasible portion of this entire project is the residential component. To a large extent, the profit for the residential units' sales is needed to off-set the tremendous infrastructure, Environmental Mitigation and Community Benefit features associated with the project. To reduce the sales potential of the residential units any further, places the project into a situation where it may not make economic sense. One final comment concerns the Williams-Kuebelbeck & Associates, Inc. (WKA) analysis of the financial feasibility of the project. We have substantial questions as to the assumptions utilized by WKA in reaching its conclusions. For your information, we are attaching a letter that we sent to them approximately a year ago in which we outlined some of the problems that we had with their approach. As far as we know, WKA did not change its assumptions or conclusions after receiving this letter. For example, it is obvious that waterfront condo units in a prime area like the Chula Vista Bayfront will be worth a lot more than $150,000. In addition, we believe the cost for constructing these units has been substantially overstated. The effects of favorable Mello-Roos and Assessment District financing have not been analyzed. These financing mechanisms, as well as public participation, will significantly change the numbers. However, we do agree with WKA that the total number of residential units and the allowed square footage will be critical to the success of the project. We feel that any further reductions Chairperson Susan Fuller and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF CHULA VISTA December 17, 1991 Page 5 will further adversely affect the feasibility of the project. Our financial consultant, Frederick W. Pierce of Price- Waterhouse, will be at the Planning Commission hearing to provide more detailed information, and to show you how different assumptions could affect the conclusions reached by the WKA report. As you know, different investors have different goals. Not every investor is driven solely by a cash on cash internal rate of return approach in determining whether or not it is going to make an investment in a particular development. In any event, while we intend to go into the financial feasibility of the project to some extent, we would hope that the Planning Commission would deal with the land use issues, as did the subcommittee, leaving the financing feasibility issues to the City Council and the City Manager in the negotiations that will follow regarding the Development Agreement. Much of the financial feasibility will depend on the resolution of a Development Agreement between the developer and the City, all of which will follow after the project itself is approved and everybody knows where they stand. The City Staff itself has repeatedly told the developer that it is premature to work on a Development Agreement until the basic land use decisions have been reached. In our view, the Development Agreement will be a key to determining financial feasibility. We believe that an appropriate step to be taken at this point would be to make a recommendation on the land use issues, and to forward the financial feasibility aspects of the project to the Chairperson Susan Fuller and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF CHULA VISTA December 17, 1991 Page 6 City Manager and the City Council. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, PETERSON & PRICE A Professional Corporation l~aul ,~. Peterson · Peter$on Enclosure Chula Vista Investors Price-Waterhouse City Manager EXHIBIT "A" CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM COMPARISON Bayfront Reduced Planning Original Density Subcommittee Staff Proposal Proposal Recommendation Recommendation Retail(sf) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 City Parcel 0 80,000 80,000 250 rms (sf) 203,000 Hotel 2,028 rms 1,800 rms 1,610 rms 950 rms (sf) 1,650,000 1,465,000 1,310,000 773,000 Conference(sf) 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Sports(sf) 206,000 206,000 206,000 206,000 Prof./Office(sf) 640,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 Residential 1,550 du 1,400 du 1,000 du 1,000 du (sf) 1,500,000 1,355,000 1,355,000 940,000 Cultural Arts Center(sf) 0 0 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 4,186,000 3,856,000 3,801,000 2,972,000 Site Area 165 acres± 165 acres± 165 acres± 165 acres± Traffic 41,958 38,125 35,455* 33,055* Generation (ADT) Public Parks 28.9 acres 33.2 acres 29.2 acres 29.2 acres Semi-Public 16± acres 16± acres 24.5 acres 24.5 acres Open Space 12± acres 12± acres 17.7± acres 17.7± acres TOTAL 56.9 acres 61.2 acres 71.4 acres 71.4 acres * Excludes ADTs for Cultural Arts Center December 17, 1991 Chula Vista Investors Febmn~ 14, 1991 276 Fom'~ Avenue ............. 4i~..overed ~tree nrens of ~onteation ~:meemu~ costs ~)f the Ba~,,,,,,;~ project Wh~tch uMmnMly 8~"l~..t t]~ C~ ~ ezample, W'Rlian~K~ says the nlgn-rt~ hotels; me suit~s, ~t~nd~d- listed at S'/8 per squ~re foot. P~ my ext~mence, .fl~..p..~. n~. nt least to twen~ percent Mo high. Fo~ ~ hotel I am currently bufld~g in ..Annn~,.m, we have the la~est Jnpene~e con~. ~ company in the world bidding $85 per squ~re foot ~.! a guar~n~ mo,varflum contm~ The..Amheim hotel would be compar~le to th~ othe~ htgh-l~,3e~ in our ]~tyfront project. As far? W'tlliafl3s-Kuebelbeck estimates on the lu~y he~l st $126 l~r square .foot, 3t is difficult to ~ that cost because we (Jo not ~ow wl~t · ~nprovements are included tn that numbe~..I-~oweve~, the Inn at $7~ L~ ~)' include~ little eoncrct~ and steel. As hr as the direct costs on the ~p~tmnents, the high-ris~ ap~uents are Hst~l ~t $88 lX=t square feet, Which ~ppe~rs to be re~ble. How~e~, ~ low-r~e and ..ce~.. court ~:qu'tments ~nge from $71 to $86 pe~ squ~¢ ~oot. Once I believe thc ~ costs would be more eomp~le to those of thc Inn, between $35 and $$0 per squnr~ foot. architectural, cn~,ineenng an,~ ~e like. The study give~ p~-development costs at ~pproximately $62 million fo~ the total cos~ of the project. I believe numbers should., be cut by nl ~ 50 peteent.. Based on our ne§oi~tions with ~rchitect~ and engineers+ the W'tlliams-K..u~beck nppc~ to be extremely high ~d again throw ~he IRR out of lin~. CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT Summary o£ Variances/n Assumptions DESCRIPTION pW WK&A DIRECT CONSTRUCTION: HOTEL $ 87 $ 93 - 94 RESIDENTIAL - LOW RISE $ 50 - 55 $ 76 RESIDENTIAL - APARTMENT $ 45 - 50 $ 88 RETAIL $ 50 $ 71 PARKING: HARD COSTS $ 20 - 25 $ 30 NUMBER OF SPACES Reduce by 1000-2000. REVENUES: RESDINTIAL - LOW RISE $ 150 $ 110 RESIDENTIAL. HI RISE $ 225 $ 125 .RETAIL $ ZOO $ 1.25 DISCOUNT RATE 13.00% 15.00% CHULA VISTA BAYFRONT Calculations of Weishted Average Coot of Capital SCENARIO 1: RATE PERCENT Commercial Debt 10.00% 50.00% 5.00% Mello-Roos 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% Tax Increment 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Tax Exempt Debt 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% Equity 20.00% 50.00% 10.00% WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST OF CAPITAL 15.00% SCENARIO 2: RATE PERCENT Commercial Debt 10.00% 70.00% 7.00% Mello-Roos 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% Tax Increment 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Tax Exempt Debt 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% Equity 20.00% 30.00% 6.00% WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST OF CAPITAL 13.00% SCENARIO 3: RATE .PERCENT Commercial Debt 10.00% 45.00% 4.50% MeLlo-Roo~ 6.00% 35.00% 2.10% Tax Increment 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Tax Exempt Debt 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% Equity 20.00% 20.00% 4.00% WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST OF CAPITAL 10.60% SCENARIO 4: Commercial Debt 10.00% 20.00% 2.00% Mello-Roo~ 6.00% 20.00% 1.20% Tax Increment 0.00% 15.00% 0.00% Tax Exempt Debt 6.00% 20.00% 1.20% Equity 20.00% 25.00% _5..00% WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST OF CAPITAL 9.40% SCENARIO 5: RATE PERCENT Commercial Debt 10.00% 25.00% 2.50% Mello-Roo~ 6.00% 30.00% 1.80% Tax Increment 0.00% 20.~ 0.00% Tax Exempt Debt 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% Equity 20.00% 25.00% 5.00% WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST OF CAPITAL .9.30% SCENARIO 6: ~ PERCENT Commercial Debt 10.00% 25.00% 2.50% Mello-Roo~ 6.00% 35.00% 2.10% Tax Increment 0.00% 20.00% 0.00% Tax Exempt Debt 6.00% 0.00% 0.00% Equity 20.00% 20.00% _4.00% WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST OF CAPITAL ,8.60% SCENAPdO 7: RA~ PERCENT Commercial Debt 10.00% 0.00% 0.00% Mello-Roos 6.00% 35.00% 2.10% Tax Increment 0.00v~ 30.00% 0.00% Tax Exempt Debt 6.00% 15.00% 0.90% Equity 20.00% 20.00% .4.00% WEIGHTED AVERAGE COST OF CAPITAL 7.00% STAFF RECOMMENDATION SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION · :IFSORT RESOR'I' PR ..... ,u:.,