The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - January 09, 2006 - CCAGENDA ADJOURNED/SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AZUSA LIGHT AND WATER MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2006 729 NORTH AZUSA AVENUE 6:30 P.M. A. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS • Call to Order • Roll Call B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Please note that public comments are welcomed by recognition of the Mayor. C. AGENDA ITEM 1. CONTINUE WORKSHOP/STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION REGARDING BLOCK 36 - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AZUSA AVENUE S FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. 2. SELECTION OF DEVELOPER FOR BLOCK 36 - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AZUSA AVENUE & FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Select one of the following two options: Option 1: Select from Lowe Enterprises, Watt Commercial Properties, and Lucia Development as finalists for the Block 36 project; and consider appointing an ad hoc Agency Members subcommittee to further review the qualifications of the finalists for the purpose of making a recommendation on developer selection to the full Agency Board. Option 2: Select Lowe Enterprises as the single developer for Block 36 and authorize staff and the City Attorney to prepare an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Lowe Enterprises for consideration by the Agency Board at a subsequent meeting. D. CLOSED SESSION REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (Gov. Code Sec. 54956.8) Address: 850 West Tenth Street, Azusa, CA 91702 Agency Negotiators: City Manager Delach and Assistant City Manager Person Negotiating Parties: Mr. Jack Kirkland of Sunstate Equipment Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 2. REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (Gov. Code Sec. 54956.8) Property Address: Block 36 (Foothill Blvd., Azusa Ave., 6"' St., Alameda Ave.) Agency Negotiators: City Manager Delach and Assistant City Manager Person Negotiating Parties: Mr. Wayne Fletcher/Wimpey's Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of payment E. ADIOURNMENT 1. Adjourn "in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in a city meeting please contact the City Clerk at 626-812-5229. Notification three (3) working days prior !o the meeting or time when special services are needed oil/ assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide access to the meeting." 2 AGENCY AGENDA ITEM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND AGENCY BOARD FROM: BRUCE COLEMAN, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC & COM. DEVELOPMENT ROBERT PERSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER VIA: FRAN DELACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR )Vo DATE: JANUARY 9, 2006 SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION REGARDING BLOCK 36- SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AZUSA AVENUE & FOOTHILL BOULEVARD RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board select one of the following two options: Option 1: Select from Lowe Enterprises, Watt Commercial Properties, and Lucia Development as finalists for the Block 36 project; and consider appointing an ad hoc Agency Members subcommittee to further review the qualifications of the finalists for the purpose of making a recommendation on developer selection to the full Agency Board. Option 2: Select Lowe Enterprises as the single developer for Block 36 and authorize staff and the City Attorney to prepare an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Lowe Enterprises for consideration by the Agency Board at a subsequent meeting BACKGROUND One of the goals established by the Agency Members was for the City to select a qualified developer for the redevelopment of Block 36. As a result, during October and November, City staff contacted a number of developers who specialize in retail r Honorable Chairperson &Agency Board January 9, 2006 Study Session Re: Block 36 Page 2 of 4 and mixed-use development projects in order to make them aware of this opportunity. This led to 13 developers who expressed an interest in Block 36. Staff then selected the 10 most qualified developers for further consideration. On November 21't, the Agency Properties. This was followed by developers: • HDS- Hagop Sargisian; • Lowe Enterprises; • Urban Partners; and • Watt Commercial Properties Members heard a presentation by Niemann presentations on November 28", by 4 other At the Agency Board Study Session on December 12th, the Agency Members completed this process by hearing presentations from the following 5 developers: • Adler Realty Investments; • Amidi Group • Genesis/Goldrich & Kest Industries; • Lucia Development; and • Olson Company Prior to each presentation, staff advised the interested developers that the City was seeking development of a mixed use project which would consist of a minimum of 40,000 square feet of national, regional or known area retailers and ownership housing. The next step in the process is for the Agency Members to either: (1) To select the finalists for the redevelopment of Block 36 OR (2) To select a single developer for the site and direct staff to prepare an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with that developer for Agency Board consideration. In order to assist with this process, staff has reviewed each of the developer's proposals, focusing on the following major criteria: • Specific and substantial experience in attracting national and regional retailers and successfully developing retail projects, including responsiveness to the City's request for a retail -focused mixed use project. This criteria recognizes that the backbone for the renaissance of downtown Azusa is the developer's ability to attract and retain quality retail development. • Relevant experience in planning and developing mixed use projects. 0 Financial capabilities and strength. Honorable Chairperson & Agency Board January 9, 2006 Study Session Re: Block 36 Page 3 of 4 • Experience and proven ability to complete complex urban development/redevelopment projects. As a result of the review, staff is recommending that the Agency Members select the finalists from the following three developers for further consideration: • Lowe Enterprises • Watt Commercial Properties • Lucia Development These three were selected for the following reasons: Lowe Enterprises: Staff rated Lowe Enterprises as the leading finalist for this project in that they successfully bridged a strong proven track record of similar development with a detailed site-specific concept plan in a more comprehensive manner than either Lucia or Watt. Watt Commercial Properties: Watt was probably by far the most qualified developer as it pertains to a proven track record of building similar or larger developments. However, Watt did not submit any conceptual site-specific plans for the project. Lucia Development: Although the smallest of the three developers with less of a track record in successfully attracting national retail, Lucia Development impressed staff with the detailed level of work performed on site-specific alternatives. In staff's opinion both Lowe and Watt were by far the most qualified developers for this type of project based on financial strength and proven track record. Staff further recommends that the Agency Members consider establishing an ad hoc subcommittee for the purpose of further reviewing the qualifications of the finalists and to recommend to the full Agency Board the selection of a single firm for the Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA). It should be noted that all 3 developers meet the major selection criteria specified above. In addition both Lowe Enterprises and Watt Commercial, in particular, have also proposed to staff an expanded Downtown development project scope that could link Block 36 to the Metro Gold Line Station area for a larger Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project, thereby affording an opportunity to better coordinate overall Downtown development. As an alternative, staff is recommending that the Agency Members select Lowe Enterprises as the single finalist for the Block 36 project and direct staff and the City Attorney to prepare an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Lowe Enterprises regarding Block 36 for Agency Board consideration at a subsequent meeting. This recommendation is based on the fact that Lowe Enterprises meets all of the major Honorable Chairperson & Agency Board January 9, 2006 Study Session Re: Block 36 Page 4 of 4 criteria specified in the staff report and because Lowe has prepared a specific proposed site concept for the redevelopment of Block 36. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action. The actual project fiscal impact will be identified at the time that the Disposition and Development Agreement is negotiated.