Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - March 13, 2006 - CCAGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AZUSA LIGHT AND WATER 729 NORTH AZUSA AVENUE A. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS • Call to Order • Roll Call MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006 6:00 P.M. B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Please note that public comments are Welcomed by recognition of the Mayor. C. CLOSED SESSION CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov. Code Sec 54957 6) Agency Negotiators: City Manager Delach and Assistant City Manager Person Organizations/Employee: ACEA, APMA, AMMA, CAPP, IBEW LABORERS, EXECUTIVE. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Gov. Sec 54957) Title: City Manager REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (Gov. Code Sec 54956.8) Address: 100 W. Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, CA 91702 Negotiating Parties: Ms. Mercy Moreno Agency Negotiators: City Manager Delach and Assistant City Manager Person Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment D. AGENDA ITEM 1. REVIEW OF DOWNTOWN NORTH DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. E• ADJOURNMENT 1. Adjourn "7n compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ifyou need special assistance to participate in a city meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 626-812-5229. Notification three (3) working days prior to the meeting or time when special services are needed will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can he made to provide access to the meeting " AGENCY INFORMATIONAL ITEM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD MEMBERS p FROM: BRUCE COLEMAN, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ROBERT PERSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER VIA: F.M; DELACH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: MARCH 6, 2006 SUBJECT: DEVELOPER PROPOSALS FOR DOWNTOWN NORTH PROJECT BACKGROUND On February 23, 2006, the Azusa Redevelopment Agency Board authorized staff to seek proposals from Lowe Enterprises, Lucia Development, Urban Partners, and Watt Commercial Properties for the preparation of a Strategic Development Plan and development proposals for the Downtown North area of Azusa. The Agency Board indicated that proposals were due on March 1 st. On March 1 st, staff received attached proposals from Lowe Enterprises, Urban Partners and Watt Commercial Properties. The next step in the process will be for the Agency to conduct a study session at 6 P on March 13th to hear presentations from the three (3) developers. The proposed schedule then calls for the Agency Board to select the preferred developer for Downtown North on March 27th. I . Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Thank you. V-119 Chapter V — Finance and Economic Development $ 5 4 '15(C) (b) Developer Reimbursement. Accordingly, if the agency has entered into an agreement with an owner -participant (or developer) and pursuant to that agreement the owner- participant/developer acquires property for redevelopment, the agency will be required to provide relocation benefits. In such cases, it is advisable for the agency to require the owner- participant/developer to reimburse the agency for the relocation payments. Practice Trips: It is common for an agency to acquire property using the developer's money. Typically; the developer posts a letter of credit with the agency upon which the ageneymay draw as needed. The agreement providing for the posting of the letter of credit should also govern the disposition and development of the site (either an "owner participation agreement" or a "disposition and development agreement," see discussion at § 5.4.15(C) of this handbook). In this way, the agency does not acquire property before it has a developer ready to redevelop it. In order to avoid successful challenges to the agency's "right to take" in any eminent domain proceedings, the agency must clearly retain its discretion regarding the adoption of resolutions of necessity or should adopt the requisite resolutions of necessity concurrently with the approval of the development agreement. Redevelopment Agency ofthe City of Huntington Park v. Norm 's Slauson, 173 Cal. App. 3d 1121, 219 Cal. Rptr. 365 (1985). (C) Disposition and Participation Agreements. (1) Distinction Between Disposition and Development Agreements (DDA) and Owner Participation Agreements (OPA). (a) Function. Disposition and development agreements and owner participation agreements govern the terms and conditions of the redevelopment of a specific site within a redevelopment project area. (b) DDA. The term "disposition and development agreement" (DDA) is used when the agreement is between the agency and an outside developer, i.e. not an owner -participant. (c) OPA. If the agreement is between the agency and an owner -participant, the agreement is called an "owner participation agreement" (OPA). The agreement is an OPA even if the agreement covers property other than or in addition to property currently owned by the owner - participant. The agency should be careful to comply with all requirements for the disposition of property even when approving an OPA if the OPA provides for the agency to convey property. (2) Disposition and Development Agreements (DDA). (a) Selecting a Developer. Although the CRL does not require a bidding or other competitive process, developers are usually chosen through a request for proposal (RFP) or request for qualifications (RFQ) process. The agency may tailor this process to its particular needs as there are no "rules" (other than compliance with the owner participation and preference requirements), by which the agency must abide. League of California Cities The California Municipal Law Handbook, 2005 Edition r § 5.4.15tC) Chapter V — Finance and Economic Development _V-1 2n 1. , Contents of RFP or RFQ. The RFP orRFQ should include, at a minimum, the scope of acceptable development on the site (e.g., the agency is seeking proposals for a hotel or a mixed-use development with some affordable housing), the parameters of acceptable business terms (e.g., the. developer must be willing to advance the acquisition costs or accept a ground lease of the site) and a requirement the developer submit evidence of its financial ability and development qualifications. 'If desired, the RFP or RFQ may attach the form of the "exclusive negotiation agreement" that the developers must execute and return to the agency together with an appropriate good faith deposit. 2. Distribution of RFP or RFQ. The RFP or RFQ should be distributed broadly and special care should be taken to distribute it to owner -participants and others who have expressed an in in participating in the redevelopment of the project area. 3. Preferential Treatment. The agency has broad discretion in selecting a developer, but that discretion should be exercised -in the context of the RFP or RFQ. For example, if the responses; are due by a certain date, the agency should not extend that date for one developer unless it extends the date for all developers. (b) Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. After selecting a developer, the agency and the developer usually enter into an "exclusive negotiation agreement" (ENA). The ENA usually sets a definite period of time in which the agency agrees to negotiate exclusively and in good faith with the developer regarding the disposition and development of the site. " 1. Deposit. The ENA also typically requires the deposit of an appropriate good faith deposit" from the developer to secure the developer's obligation to negotiate in good faith with the agency. This good faith deposit is returned to the developer upon the execution of a DDA/OPA (or transformed into the good faith deposit under the DDA/OPA) or upon the conclusion of unsuccessful, but good faith negotiations. Ifthe good faith deposit is to be retained by the agency, it will be the agency's burden of proof to show the developer failed to negotiate in good faith. Prudence dictates the good faith deposit language should be drawn as a liquidated damages clause and not as a penalty. 2. Scope of Development. The ENA should also contain the proposed scope of the development and the parameters of the business terms of the transaction as derived from the RFP/RFQ and the developer's response. The agency must reserve its discretion under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seg., to approve the final scope of the project and it must also reserve its discretion to approve the sale after the required public hearings, Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 33431, 33433 (as applicable), and to approve any resolutions of necessity that may be required. So long as the agency so reserves its discretion in the ENA, approval of the ENA will not require CEQA compliance. 3. Approval. While the ENA should be formally approved by the agency, no public hearing is.required. The California Municipal Law Handbook, 2005 Edition League of California Cities