SDfan
May 12th, 2005, 07:33 AM
By Ronald W. Powell
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 11, 2005
A proposed $1.4 billion development east of Petco Park that supporters liken to New York City's Rockefeller Center is meeting opposition from the San Diego Unified Port District and waterfront interests that see it as a threat to maritime-related businesses.
The 7.1-acre development, called Ballpark Village, is proposed by Lennar Homes and JMI Realty, the development company of Padres owner John Moores. It would have five towers, with at least two rising more than 40 stories, and include 1,350 condominiums and apartments, plus offices, retail stores and a hotel.
A committee of the Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment agency, is scheduled to vote today on the proposal, with the agency's full board likely to vote on it later this month.
The City Council could vote on the project by July and, if approved, construction could start this year.
Port District President Bruce Hollingsworth said he is concerned that the proposal calls for developing residential towers on the land closest to the port's 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.
Over time, he said, the residents living in what will be expensive condominiums and apartments probably will tire of the traffic, noise and view of the industrial activities and begin agitating for closure of the terminal.
Hollingsworth said residential development has sprouted alongside ports or industrial property in other parts of the country, and he does not want to see that happen here.
"We're not trying to stop JMI from developing the property," Hollingsworth said. "We just want them to consider building the 40-story towers further back in the development and away from Harbor Drive."
The condominiums may range from below $200,000 to more than $2 million, a project spokesman said.
Hollingsworth said, "When you have 1,500 or so people in an area across the street from railroad or industrial uses, there will come a time when they won't want to look at those uses. In the long run, they'll say, 'Get out of here. We don't want you around anymore.' "
The Port District, the Navy and several of the largest waterfront businesses, including National Steel and Shipbuilding Co., have sent protest letters to the downtown redevelopment agency, which has negotiated the development terms for Ballpark Village. They want the agency to conduct a new environmental report on the proposed development instead of amending an old report, as is planned.
Some of the business people are worried because Moores has said the 10th Avenue terminal does not do enough business to justify its existence, and he advocates the Chargers' using the site for a football stadium, an idea the team has rejected.
Moores also has hired as a consultant former state Sen. Steve Peace, who downsized the Port District when he was in the Legislature.
1999 report
Peter Hall, president of the Centre City Development Corp., said Ballpark Village and its effect on the area were taken into account in an environmental report prepared in 1999 and that a new one is not needed.
Port officials commented on the 1999 environmental report and did not raise objections to residential development, Hall said.
He also pointed out that the port has approved construction of a 1,200-room Hilton hotel to serve the San Diego Convention Center next door to the 10th Avenue terminal.
"What they're doing is whooping and hollering now," Hall said. "I think this is more political than anything else."
Charles Black, JMI's executive vice president, said the worries are misguided.
"They're good people and important to San Diego's economy," Black said. "But what you're seeing is hysteria and paranoia on the part of the port and its tenants. This project does not pose a threat to them."
The clash of government agencies is over two pieces of property near San Diego Bay where the development would be built.
The larger portion is a 3.9-acre triangle bounded by Park Boulevard on the west, 12th Avenue on the east and Imperial Avenue on the south. The remaining 3.2 acres is a rectangle south of Imperial Avenue on Park Boulevard.
The master plan proposes 3.2 million square feet of development. When completed, it would generate an estimated $20 million a year in property, sales and hotel room taxes, according to the redevelopment agency.
John Kratzer, president of JMI Realty, said Ballpark Village is part of the commercial development that was planned in the East Village around Petco Park, which opened last year.
Building heights would range from about 10 stories on the northern edge of the development to 42 or 43 stories on the southernmost part of the property closest to the marine terminal. Five towers are planned, and the design requires that no two look alike.
The project would have 2.2 million square feet of housing, at least 300,000 square feet of office space, 150,000 square feet of retail space, including a grocery store, and a hotel of at least 150 rooms.
A portion of the housing would be set aside for affordable residences, but a specific amount hasn't been decided.
"It's going to be a world-class project," Kratzer said.
To make the development distinctive, JMI held a design competition last year that attracted 44 architectural and design teams across the country. At the conclusion of the 10-week contest, the Los Angeles firm of Johnson Fain was selected.
"The reality is we're looking to create a destination like Rockefeller Center in New York," Kratzer said.
Conflicts seen
But waterfront businesses say homes in the area won't make for good neighbors.
"I think the encroachment of residential on a major industrial area is the beginning of the end of industrial," said Patti Krebs, executive director of the Industrial Environmental Association. "It is sure to cause conflicts."
The public policy association, which promotes reasonable and cost-effective environmental laws and regulations, is privately funded by 50 manufacturers in San Diego County, many of them on the waterfront.
She said homeowners will not like the 24-hour operations of a working port – the lights, the noise, the traffic.
"It might deter day-to-day industrial operations and prevent future expansion," Krebs said. "We see the waterfront as vibrant and growing."
Krebs sent a letter last week to the Centre City Development Corp. requesting that it conduct a new environmental study on the project.
The Port of San Diego Ship Repair Association and the San Diego Bay's Working Waterfront Group, which includes NASSCO, the U.S. Navy and the Port District, sent letters making the same request.
Krebs said waterfront groups would prefer the project's office and commercial uses, rather than residences, be built nearest the port's terminal. The offices and commercial enterprises would serve as a buffer between residents and the industrial areas, she said.
"I think a transition area makes sense," Krebs said.
George Palermo, chairman of the Port Tenants Association, said there is concern among the more than 200-member group about Moores' project, in part because the Padres owner has hired Peace.
Peace sponsored legislation that led to the January 2003 separation of Lindbergh Field from the Port District, and they fear he may try to shut down the 10th Avenue terminal, Palermo and others said.
Peace said he is working on several "eclectic" projects for Moores, including tasks involving the University of California Board of Regents, on which Moores is a trustee. None of his work involves the 10th Avenue terminal, he said.
"That's just paranoia," Peace said.
Oh Please be Built! That area is flat and needs big, BIG buildings.
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 11, 2005
A proposed $1.4 billion development east of Petco Park that supporters liken to New York City's Rockefeller Center is meeting opposition from the San Diego Unified Port District and waterfront interests that see it as a threat to maritime-related businesses.
The 7.1-acre development, called Ballpark Village, is proposed by Lennar Homes and JMI Realty, the development company of Padres owner John Moores. It would have five towers, with at least two rising more than 40 stories, and include 1,350 condominiums and apartments, plus offices, retail stores and a hotel.
A committee of the Centre City Development Corp., the city's downtown redevelopment agency, is scheduled to vote today on the proposal, with the agency's full board likely to vote on it later this month.
The City Council could vote on the project by July and, if approved, construction could start this year.
Port District President Bruce Hollingsworth said he is concerned that the proposal calls for developing residential towers on the land closest to the port's 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.
Over time, he said, the residents living in what will be expensive condominiums and apartments probably will tire of the traffic, noise and view of the industrial activities and begin agitating for closure of the terminal.
Hollingsworth said residential development has sprouted alongside ports or industrial property in other parts of the country, and he does not want to see that happen here.
"We're not trying to stop JMI from developing the property," Hollingsworth said. "We just want them to consider building the 40-story towers further back in the development and away from Harbor Drive."
The condominiums may range from below $200,000 to more than $2 million, a project spokesman said.
Hollingsworth said, "When you have 1,500 or so people in an area across the street from railroad or industrial uses, there will come a time when they won't want to look at those uses. In the long run, they'll say, 'Get out of here. We don't want you around anymore.' "
The Port District, the Navy and several of the largest waterfront businesses, including National Steel and Shipbuilding Co., have sent protest letters to the downtown redevelopment agency, which has negotiated the development terms for Ballpark Village. They want the agency to conduct a new environmental report on the proposed development instead of amending an old report, as is planned.
Some of the business people are worried because Moores has said the 10th Avenue terminal does not do enough business to justify its existence, and he advocates the Chargers' using the site for a football stadium, an idea the team has rejected.
Moores also has hired as a consultant former state Sen. Steve Peace, who downsized the Port District when he was in the Legislature.
1999 report
Peter Hall, president of the Centre City Development Corp., said Ballpark Village and its effect on the area were taken into account in an environmental report prepared in 1999 and that a new one is not needed.
Port officials commented on the 1999 environmental report and did not raise objections to residential development, Hall said.
He also pointed out that the port has approved construction of a 1,200-room Hilton hotel to serve the San Diego Convention Center next door to the 10th Avenue terminal.
"What they're doing is whooping and hollering now," Hall said. "I think this is more political than anything else."
Charles Black, JMI's executive vice president, said the worries are misguided.
"They're good people and important to San Diego's economy," Black said. "But what you're seeing is hysteria and paranoia on the part of the port and its tenants. This project does not pose a threat to them."
The clash of government agencies is over two pieces of property near San Diego Bay where the development would be built.
The larger portion is a 3.9-acre triangle bounded by Park Boulevard on the west, 12th Avenue on the east and Imperial Avenue on the south. The remaining 3.2 acres is a rectangle south of Imperial Avenue on Park Boulevard.
The master plan proposes 3.2 million square feet of development. When completed, it would generate an estimated $20 million a year in property, sales and hotel room taxes, according to the redevelopment agency.
John Kratzer, president of JMI Realty, said Ballpark Village is part of the commercial development that was planned in the East Village around Petco Park, which opened last year.
Building heights would range from about 10 stories on the northern edge of the development to 42 or 43 stories on the southernmost part of the property closest to the marine terminal. Five towers are planned, and the design requires that no two look alike.
The project would have 2.2 million square feet of housing, at least 300,000 square feet of office space, 150,000 square feet of retail space, including a grocery store, and a hotel of at least 150 rooms.
A portion of the housing would be set aside for affordable residences, but a specific amount hasn't been decided.
"It's going to be a world-class project," Kratzer said.
To make the development distinctive, JMI held a design competition last year that attracted 44 architectural and design teams across the country. At the conclusion of the 10-week contest, the Los Angeles firm of Johnson Fain was selected.
"The reality is we're looking to create a destination like Rockefeller Center in New York," Kratzer said.
Conflicts seen
But waterfront businesses say homes in the area won't make for good neighbors.
"I think the encroachment of residential on a major industrial area is the beginning of the end of industrial," said Patti Krebs, executive director of the Industrial Environmental Association. "It is sure to cause conflicts."
The public policy association, which promotes reasonable and cost-effective environmental laws and regulations, is privately funded by 50 manufacturers in San Diego County, many of them on the waterfront.
She said homeowners will not like the 24-hour operations of a working port – the lights, the noise, the traffic.
"It might deter day-to-day industrial operations and prevent future expansion," Krebs said. "We see the waterfront as vibrant and growing."
Krebs sent a letter last week to the Centre City Development Corp. requesting that it conduct a new environmental study on the project.
The Port of San Diego Ship Repair Association and the San Diego Bay's Working Waterfront Group, which includes NASSCO, the U.S. Navy and the Port District, sent letters making the same request.
Krebs said waterfront groups would prefer the project's office and commercial uses, rather than residences, be built nearest the port's terminal. The offices and commercial enterprises would serve as a buffer between residents and the industrial areas, she said.
"I think a transition area makes sense," Krebs said.
George Palermo, chairman of the Port Tenants Association, said there is concern among the more than 200-member group about Moores' project, in part because the Padres owner has hired Peace.
Peace sponsored legislation that led to the January 2003 separation of Lindbergh Field from the Port District, and they fear he may try to shut down the 10th Avenue terminal, Palermo and others said.
Peace said he is working on several "eclectic" projects for Moores, including tasks involving the University of California Board of Regents, on which Moores is a trustee. None of his work involves the 10th Avenue terminal, he said.
"That's just paranoia," Peace said.
Oh Please be Built! That area is flat and needs big, BIG buildings.