On October 11, 2007 the Chula Vista
Redevelopment Corporation (CVRC) held a five hour workshop at the Chula Vista
Public Works building. We made a video record of the meeting. During that
workshop the question of what the role of the CVRC in the development of the
Bayfront was came up. The city manager expressed the opinion that the CVRC
should be involved in the process and would be. 
Issue
Two, September 20,2007
Ralph Hicks &Leslie Nishihira from Port with Deni Stone from CV city at Crossroads II meeting
Chula Vista Bayfront Report
By thacerro@yahoo.com, President of SWCVCA http://www/swcvca.org
On September 20 at 6:45 PM Ralph
Hicks, the land use planner for the Port of San Diego gave a presentation at
the Civic Center Library in Chula Vista about the Chula Vista Bayfront
Master Plan. Early in the process the bayfront was divided into three
sections in order to facilitate discussion about placement of various suggested
uses: Sweetwater District to the North (adjacent to the National Wildlife
Refuge and the Nature Center), Harbor District in the middle (where marina now
is) and Otay District to the south (where Power Plant now is). This discussion
developed because the Environmental
Health Coalition helped the community to organize to defeat an
inappropriate high rise residential plan adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge called
“Bayfront Commons.” The Port and
the city decided it was necessary to swap this sensitive land for already
developed port land and plan the entire bayfront together.
Ralph started out by telling everyone what he believed was
essential for a successful plan: Timing, Dynamic and Powerful Leadership,
Collective Conscious of the Community, Money and 
Regulatory Elements. In his opinion the Chula Vista Bayfront
now has all these elements.
Ralph started by describing the Harbor Plan, which was the
plan developed at the 15 Citizen
Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings, 7 Power Plant Working Group Meetings, 8
Public Workshops, over 30 community presentations, 3 newsletters, a website
comment form, and several joint Port and Chula Vista City Council meetings in
Phase I from 6/02-5/04 and 16 more CAC
meetings (including two “charrette” workshops), 5 meetings on economics, a
bayfront tour, 7 more board and council meetings, a public meeting in December,
and 15 more community presentations. The Harbor Plan included a large Signature
Park with an amphitheater and cultural buildings on the bayfront. Many
disparate groups came to consensus on this plan during Phase II from 5/04 to
8/05. Ralph went through the plan piece by piece telling why it has been
scraped.
In my opinion there are feasible options for dealing with
these “problems” with the plan CAC adopted. Many of us believe the actual
reason all the public input was thrown out was that Gaylord appeared and said
they wanted the Signature Park site and would not consider the site the CAC
wanted for a Resort-Conference Center, but Ralph chose to explain it by
explaining how the port works. The Port District is not a tax-supported agency.
It receives no tax funds. All of its income must come from leases and fees. The
cities where the Port’s property is receive the property, sales and TOT taxes. He next explained the Sweetwater Park
site that was adopted in order to accommodate Gaylord. This site divides the park up
into two pieces-a piece near the Sweetwater National
Wildlife Refuge, which will have to be pastoral without the usual urban
park amenities due to the sensitivity of the surroundings, and a smaller piece
where Bayside Park is now located. Ralph spent some time explaining the
over 200 acres of green space that will be part of the Chula Vista Bayfront Master
Plan. He explained that this open space, roads, and other infrastructure would
require a $178 million dollar bond to be issued. All the expenses of this bond
will be paid for by the TOT (room tax), Sales Tax, Tax Increment, and rent that
Gaylord will pay for the next 20 years or so. This will mean that the port and
city will not make any money off of this project for the
life of the bond. (On September 27, 2007 this item was on the agenda of the
CVRC(Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation): A joint planning effort between the
City/Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and the San Diego Unified Port District (Port) created the
Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan (CVBMP) that envisions developing a
world-class waterfront using sound planning and economics. The CVBMP
project area encompasses a total of approximately 550 acres that includes
approximately 490 acres of land area and 60 acres of water area that lie within
the Bayfront Redevelopment Project Area. Over the next several
years, the City anticipates the CVBMP's new development and redevelopment
projects will require between $178 million and $510 million in capital and infrastructure requirements.) Ralph talked about the difficulty of getting rid of the power plant
because of the must run status it has. The
Port and the city both want to get the power plant off the Bayfront but
something has to be found to replace the power it generates. He also explained that it is unlikely
the South Bay Boat Yard can be moved
from its current location, since there does not appear to be a feasible
alternative site for it. By state law maritime uses must be given preference. Ralph believes that there will be some tension concerning
the park in the Sweetwater District. He is probably correct, and the
environmental document must clearly describe exactly what can and cannot take
place in this park or it will surely be considered inadequate again. A complete
and thorough project description is a primary
requirement of an EIR. Ralph briefly
mentioned the residential, which cannot be built on port property. Residential
is not an allowed use according to Tidelands
Trust law. This is why there must be a land
swap of the port land where the residential is planned and the parcel
adjoining the Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge, which the
Pacifica Company has an option to buy. Laura Hunter and Georgette Gomez from the
Environmental Health Coalition came to a meeting of the Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association in
July and explained the Community Benefits Agreement the
Bay Coalition was able to get Pacifica
Company to agree to. Some of the agreements mentioned by Ralph were that only
1500 residences would be built and no residences would be built on the Otay
portion of bayfront. (The original plan called for up to 2,500 residences on
the Harbor and the Otay portions of the bayfront.) This agreement will only be
signed if all the mitigations deemed necessary for impacts identified by the
Environmental Impact Report are guaranteed. The original draft EIR (Environmental
Impact Report) 8/05-12/08 found that energy, water and traffic resulting
from the bayfront projects would cause severe negative environmental effects.
The conditions of this agreement with Pacifica would make sure that Pacifica’s
buildings were constructed to exceptionally high environmental standards,
conserving as much energy and water as possible. The CCR’s of the project would
enforce many of the environmental mitigations being asked for by environmental
groups to protect the environment-such as control of pets. Another part of the agreement included
funding of a South Bay Natural Resources, Environmental Justice, and Community Benefits Foundation. This might be managed by the San Diego Foundation and grant grants
to western Chula Vista residents and/or groups to help mitigate the significant
negative effects of all the planned construction on the bayfront upon the
residents of western Chula Vista. Gridlocked traffic on I-5 and many nearby
ramps and roads is just one of the negative effects. The idea is that every
development on the bayfront will pay into this fund to meet the goal of $20 million
dollars, which would provide a million dollars per year in grants. This is a
piddling amount compared to the impacts. Gaylord was asked to pay into this
and/or help provide affordable housing for its predicted 3,000 workers. Their
vice president said, “That is the city’s responsibility, not Gaylord’s.” Hotel
and retail jobs tend to be some of the very lowest paying jobs. People with
these jobs cannot afford housing in Chula Vista without help. At least one person in the audience found it very
troubling that Gaylord would be getting a $130 million public subsidy for its
convention center (in addition to the $178 million bond for public
infrastructure). It is only reasonable that with a $308 million dollar public
subsidy Gaylord should be required to provide community benefits such as
helping to provide affordable housing for its workers, an ongoing contribution
to a Community Foundation, exceptionally sustainable building practices and a
living wage with benefits for all its employees. Otherwise it is questionable
whether the revenue (after the bond is paid off in 20 or more years) will be
enough to compensate the hospitals for increased use by the uninsured and the
city for increased need for affordable housing and other benefits required by
3-5,000 more low-wage workers, not to mention fire and police and maintenance
of the infrastructure. Many of us believe part of the reason Gaylord made its
dramatic exit from the scene was to get increased subsidies.
The Port and city insist there will not be an additional bond, but no
one has said Gaylord will not be given a break on the lease amount nor that the
city and port will not agree to pay the costs of the considerable mitigation
Gaylord’s development in the site they insist upon will require nor that
Gaylord will not simply be given some of the tax increment money it will
generate. There is also no mention of the ordinary and customary fees
developers normally pay in Chula Vista. Will the Port and/or city simply absorb
these costs? Can the
city afford Gaylord? The article “Downtown for
Everyone?” by the Center for Policy Initiatives does an excellent job of
discussing the problems caused by the kind of development contemplated for the Chula
Vista Bayfront upon the economy of San Diego. Chula Vista is already on the
point of economic meltdown. Can it really afford more low wage jobs and ongoing
maintenance bills? This brings us to the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) that Gaylord’s original
negotiator agreed to
sign in January, but after a threat to sue from the Builders and
Contractors Association Gaylord refused to sign and their negotiator quit.
Ralph answered a question about the “demonization of unions” by referring to
PETCO Park. PETCO Park has a Community
Benefits Agreement. This was the first agreement in San Diego. Community Benefits Agreements (CBA's) as well as
Project Labor Agreements include guarantees that projects will not be a
financial drain upon cities and their existing residents as well as help assure
that necessary mitigations actually occur. It is possible to litigate an
Environmental Impact Report within 30 days of approval, but actually once it is
approved only resource agencies have the authority to make sure the mitigations
required actually happen. A CBA adds a legal obligation that citizens can
enforce. Ralph stated, “We will not solve the south I-5
problems.” Two court cases have made it clear that agencies must contribute
their “fair share” to mitigating regional problems exasperated by developments
they permit to occur. Both CALTRANS and SANDAG made it clear to Chula Vista
that the 144,000 additional vehicles on I-5 their Urban Core Specific Plan was
predicted to create was indeed the responsibility of the city. The added
traffic from the Bayfront Master Plan will also cause a huge amount of
additional traffic. The two cases sited in link below make it clear that the
city and Port will be responsible for paying for the needed upgrades to I-5 to
accommodate the added traffic the proposed projects will cause. Both the Port
and the city think they can delay paying for several years by meeting regularly
with CALTRANS and SANDAG. It is doubtful whether legally these mitigations can
be deferred, since normally mitigations are required to be prior to or
concurrent with development causing the problem. A legal
opinion on these cases states that at the very least all the financing for
these improvements must be worked out before the CEQUA document is issued.
It remains to be seen whether the city and Port will be able to do this. The
original EIR generated over 1200 comments and was pathetically inadequate. The
Port is working on a new EIR, which is due out in spring of 2008. The port
hopes to certify it in fall of 2008. This timeline seems unlikely to me for several
reasons. The first is that the port refuses to discuss the contents of the
document with anyone. The second is that there is no insistence upon a Community
Benefits Agreement by the Port and the City (saying “tell these people to
get along” just doesn’t help). Third there is no labor
agreement, which many believe is critical to insuring a living wage to
workers and providing work to the many construction and other workers who live
in San Diego County. The San Diego Convention Center and PETCO Park have Project
Labor Agreements. Gaylord should too. Fourth when asked about the Natural
Resources Protection Plan Ralph said a different part of port was working on
that, and it would not be done before the EIR. The Natural
Resources Protection Plan is needed to ensure that mitigations are actually
carried out and the environment
is protected. Ralph was also very vague about the clean up of the ground
water, which is contaminated with numerous toxic chemicals and must be cleaned
before any construction takes place. Fifth Ralph believes that there will be
some tension concerning the park in the Sweetwater District. He is probably correct, and the
environmental document must clearly describe exactly what can and cannot take
place in this park or it will surely be considered inadequate again. A complete
and thorough project description is a primary requirement of an EIR. The parks
are projects too, so there must be a thorough and complete description of them
in the document as well or the document will be inadequate. His comments
indicate a lack of intention to provide this description, which is troubling.
These are not good signs that the new EIR will address the numerous inadequacies of the previous one. Once the
EIR is certified the State Lands Commission
and the Coastal Commission must
approve of the plan as well. These
bodies do not look favorably upon projects with labor and environmental
problems. 
