HBCA Assessed the Pros and Cons of Developer Presentations

HBCA Pros & Cons of Developer Proposals

HBCA assessed the 3 proposals for Fisherman’s Wharf by developing a list of Pros and Cons for each proposal. This assessment indicates Karls “Strawberry Village” offers the best opportunity to revitalize the harbor without long delays, maximize public access, and drive visitors to the harbor.

Overview of Pros and Cons of the 3 Proposals for Fisherman’s Wharf

Karls Strawberry Village  CONS

1. The strawberry theme should integrate some nautical theme and concepts into their design plan – for example only, Strawberry Village by-the-Sea, Strawberry Village on the Wharf, logo of strawberry with sea captain hat and cob pipe, etc
2. Since Karls is a German Company and this will be their first project in California and the USA, the company may not be familiar with the area’s building and safety code requirements and should retain a local company to work with them on design and building requirements, as well as an expert in Coastal development policies.

Mixed Use Development – Ashkar’s Pacific Heritage CONS

1. This proposed development must include residential for the “financial feasibility” of the project. This a familiar proposition to this community who said no to apartments for the past 5 years at this site.

   What is also very concerning is Pacific Heritage fails to say how many apartments their “endeavor” will require.  This is unacceptable.  The number of units should be known before any support or Exclusive Right To Negotiate (ERN) is considered for this project.

2. Because the proposal has residential as an essential element, the project will require Public Works Plan (PWP), Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and HCI Zoning Amendments.   These processes, as has been seen, will take 5-7 years before any serious work and construction could start.

   This means Fisherman’s Wharf would continue to sit empty and a deteriorating eyesore and safety liability for at least another 5-7 years.  It could take a decade before this project is completed and operating.

3. The big “benefits” of this project to the community (restaurant, entertainment, hospitality) are dependent upon an unknown “variety” of operators who will lease those facilities from the developer.

   Given the number of retail shops, bars and restaurants already at the harbor, north and south of the bridge, and those coming soon at the new Hyatt Place Hotel and the revitalized Whale’s Tail, the question is how many more restaurants, bars and shops can this area support, especially since many of the residences are second homes?  How many restaurants and shops are successful now?

4. There are questions regarding the wide appeal this project would have as a destination and driver of visitors/tourists. There are also questions of the affordability of its proposed restaurants and shops to the communities outside of the harbor area and throughout Ventura County.
5. Its mixed use plan is a conventional combination of commercial and residential nothing different from other harbor/waterfront developments to differentiate Channel islands Harbor. It is interesting to note that this proposal is very closely similar to the one Pacific Heritage submitted to Ventura Harbor in late 2016 but without residential for feasibility purposes. This shows this plan could be at any harbor and would not differentiate Channel Islands Harbor from other harbors.

Specialty Lifestyle Market Anchored Retail Center – Vallner & Litwak CONS

1. The anchor specialty market is essential to the viability of this proposal.
   There is no guarantee that the developer will attract a viable specialty market. Approving a project with an undetermined key element risks long delays and possibly the need to reissue a new RFP and start the proposal process over again – further delaying the revitalization of a deteriorated Fisherman’s Wharf.

   Adding to the risk of this project, is the concern that the mixed-use project on the vacant lot next to the Rite Aid near the intersection of Victoria/Channel Islands Boulevard, has been held up for several years as it has been unable to attract an appropriate specialty market needed for its approved project.

2. The proposal also includes the idea of a “future Opportunity” to expand their development using some of the parking lot space for additional commercial/retail facilities or residential should the community approve.This appears to be a hedge/back up plan should the initial plan fail to be viable as initially proposed. This is a plan with future proposed conditions that may not be acceptable even now.

   Once the initial phase of this project is built, this “future opportunity” puts the County and community in the difficult position of either rejecting expansion or finding other alternatives.

3. The proposed project is not a compelling destination and driver of visitors/tourists.  Plan is not exciting, offers a conventional development concept. It is also questionable as an affordable attraction with County-wide appeal.