Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 03-28 CC CDC AGENDA PKTAGENDA OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING NATIONAL CITY CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1243 NATIONAL CITY BOULEVARD NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA MARCH 28, 2006 - 6:00 P.M. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC 1. Presentation - Senior Village (Community Development Commission) 2. Presentation — Smart Growth Concept Map — SANDAG (City Council) 3. Status Update on General Fund and Community Development Commission Employee Vacancies and the Position Review Committee Efforts. A Verbal Report will be Provided by the Assistant City Manager (City Council) 4. Executive Director's Recommendations on Developer Selection Process and Asset Inventory (Community Development Commission) 5. A Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City Rescinding Resolution No. 2005-108, Pertaining to the Selection of C.Y.M.A., LLC as the Preferred Development for Two Commission — Owned Properties at 3403 Valley Road. (Community Development Commission) PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Three -Minute Time Limit) NOTE: Pursuant to State Law, items requiring Council action must be brought back on a subsequent Council agenda unless they are of a demonstrated emergency or urgent nature. ADJOURNMENT Next Regular City Council Meeting — April 4, 2006 - 6:00 p.m. - Council Chambers, Civic Center TAPE RECORDINGS OF EACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING ARE AVAILABLE FOR SALE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Upon request, this agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 336-4228 to request a disability -related modification or accommodation. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Item #1 3/28/06 PRESENTATION SENIOR VILLAGE (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION) Item #2 3/28/06 PRESENTATION SMART GROWTH CONCEPT MAP SANDAG SANDAL `" Implementing the San Diego Regional Comprehensive Plan Our future. RCP Coals • Better connecting land use and transportation plans o Using transportation and land use plans to guide other infrastructure investments o Making it happen through incentives and collaboration Urban Po-rn Transportation Housinc • Healthy Environment Economic Prosperity Publle Pc,31hties v Borders towth trends — A haavls for the R 0 t376 ? 95C 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 00 Land Us9-Trsansporatation Connsct on ir.P; din � SdNDAGy 1 Alafflit It Crr c Illustrate where smartgrovJth Es panne n the tegion through 2030 Refine the transportation sys'ern to su smart growth Guide other infrastructure nvestments o: SANDAG.s' ). x4d.., s S ra6151t (:;G3 S OH6C3al t.s2 a�i�Pnte R )1.rllUl�'. THEM Almost 200 Smart Growth Areas in Total •tt Potent0 650 SANDAL' 2 i E 2008 — 2048 (40 years, 314 billies, for ert7e r': asuro 8280 mason sei asa0 lb! ;.nagroh insert des. (average of Ti7 i r;lion -^:c,ally' iy in ;<a Cf fLinr::,, SHNOAG:" 19: Pon:- T.T d SiFSai`t Growth Areas S4No4G. �- I6 Capital Improvements: S dev✓arks p;azas streetscape enha,,cementscn::roveme;iis to tra csit stations Dreier pornm.o noti mtiatrves Planning Grants: General plan jpdatesT amendments specific plans etc. SANOAG.., t!t Region: SANf4G.:. i6 3 Review smart g c vin "d'coa beta ed .'yeGl. junsdnction pn. he nook_ we k Hops Attend a workshor; yo r s hreg'a� Use Smart Growth0c,nfept Map RC'. tad as resources when upaating ioce plans $ANQAG✓. [3t mp;em fl atr! sC?:,I s g torus JI... ^ a-c ., transpert..a��or, f. So .:Irma. Jiakrg , .rappe ;uch 4 I SANDAG-% Cone Implementing the San Diego Regional Comprehensive Plan 4 Ourfuture. ',sf o} t... it n'z 5 National City Existing/ Planned NC 1 Downtown National City along National City Boulevard NC 2 Philipino Villa a -- Plaza B Hig NC 3 Highlan Plaza Blv Street SMART GROWTH CONCEPT MAP SITE DESCRIPTIONS -- DRAFT March 15, 2006 Town Center Commun Center Mixed Use Transit Corridor In Februa based", neighborly®"' f of low, mid be residential •'' Boulevard) with approximately 4,00 ational City Boulevard Diego to the north st arterials that r There ". . nd the 24f e also severs levard. area. e city Council approved and ad the Plan emph-..zes building forms mixed -use ansit-oriented deve -riseb at would contain bot m 20-90 dwelling units an s you move away from the center of the Plan area. The Plan anticipates ling units. north -south arterial which bisects the plan area and connects to the City City of Chula Vista to the south. 8th Street and Plaza Boulevard are h the downtown area. Downtown Specific Plan. The Plan is "form- ividual land uses for achieving walkable Based on the Plan, we expect a variety ercial and residential uses. There could e at the core (8th Street and National City stations; 8t . t which is several blocks to the west of National City Boulevard n which is e65 imately 3 blocks to the west of National City Boulevard. There to Inte ate 5 which is less than of a mile to the west of National City an a dozen 7s stops along National City Boulevard which are served by both the local ransit and regional Metropolitan Transit System with transfer service to Chula Vista and San dition, there are a half a dozen bus stops along 8th Street. All of these services operate every and connect to the trolley stations. The 8th Street Trolley station is within close walking he downtown area. Opportunities exist for a higher usage of both the existing 8th Street on and bus routes with the potential residential development planned for the Downtown Vi'age is a potential Community Center. This area is located along Plaza Boulevard several blocks st and west of 1-805. This area has a strong influence of Filipino shops and restaurants. The City ha 'a eated the Filipino Village plan to ensure that new development is consistent with the Filipino traditions and history. This area is commercially zoned and has a variety of residential development as well. There is freeway access to 1-805 and bus transit service which connects to the nearby Trolley lines. The zoning in this area allows for mixed use with a density of up to 34 DU's per acre. There has been considerable development activity in this area with the approval of a senior housing project and three condominium projects totally 146 units. Highland Avenue runs north -south from 30th Street in the south to the City limits in the north and is a main arterial for the City. At this time, the City is looking towards a Corridor Study in this area to create a vibrant district with a variety of shops, restaurants and housing opportunities. The existing zoning currently allows mixed use with a density of up to 34 DU's per acre. In addition, there are a variety of multi -family residential developments adjacent to the corridor. A mixed use project with 32 housing units and 13,100 square feet of commercial space has been approved here. There are a variety of transit stops with frequent intervals along Highland. These bus lines also connect to the two nearby Trolley Stations in the City. 1 NC 4 Paradise Valley Hospital Area at Euclid and 4th Potential Community Center The area surrounding th roughly located east o addition to Paradise, Academy, vario ambitious mast constructio and is faci4 2 etwee ospital, the I office and care ,'the first phase of whi tial development in the ar efficient transit service. pital complex is a potential Community Center. This area is d 4th Street and bounded by Harbison to the east. In rgest employer, the area also contains the San Diego as well as housing. The hospital is implementing an 6 unit workforce housing project currently under wed at a density of 22.9 dwelling units per acre DRAFT SMART GROWTH CONCEPT MAP o Regional Transit ice — Corridor Transit Service High Frequency Local Service o RegionaliCorridor Station Corridor Station Use Transit Corridor slat Use Center, EROPUERTO DE TIJUANA City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: March 28, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 ITEM TITLE Status Update on General Fund and Community Development Commission Employee Vacancies and the Position Review Committee Efforts. A Verbal Report will be Provided by the Assistant City Manager PREPARED BY EXPLANATION Lin Wurbs 619-336-4240 DEPAIRTMENT Assistant City Manager This item is scheduled to provide an update to the Council regarding employee vacancies subsequent to the "freeze" that went into effect on November 9, 2005. Environmental Review Financial Statement N/A ✓ N/A Account No. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION A verbal report will be provided. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. A-200 (9/80) City of National City, California COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE March 28, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 ITEM TITLE Resolution — Approving a policy on recruitment and selection of developers \ for the development of CDC — owned land in the City. PREPARED BY Patricia Beard or Redevelopment Manager DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission EXPLANATION The proposed policy would establish standardized submittal criteria for developers responding to redevelopment Requests for Proposals/Qualifications from the Community Development Commission. It would also establish a standardized selection process for such developers. The Policy would apply to the development of CDC — owned land in the City. See attached policy proposal. Environmental Review Not Applicable Financial Statement Not Applicable Account No STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Community Development Commission adopt the resolution approving a policy on recruitment and selection of developers to complete projects within the City for the development of CDC — owned land. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable ATTACHMENTS 1. RFQ/P submittal requirements proposal 2. Selection Process Proposal Resolution No. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING A POLICY ON RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION OF DEVELOPERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CDC -OWNED LAND IN THE CITY WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission was established to accomplish the objectives of the National City Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission solicits developer participation to accomplish revitalization throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission desires to standardize its processes to provide best practices for recruiting and selecting quality developers to participate in projects for the development of CDC -owned land in the City; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission staff has proposed a policy consistent with the recommendations of the California Redevelopment Association for developer recruitment and selection, for the development of CDC -owned land in the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission of the City of National City hereby approves the "Policy on Recruitment and Selection of Developers for the Development of CDC -Owned land in the City". Said Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED and ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2005. Nick Inzunza, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Zapata, Executive Director POLICY ON RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION OF DEVELOPERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CDC -OWNED LAND IN THE CITY This process shall be followed in the selection of developers after a Request for Qualifications/Proposals ("RFQ/P") issued by the Community Development Commission ("CDC") for projects for the development of CDC -owned land in the City. 1) The Project Manager assigned to any CDC project shall be the point of contact for the City/CDC regarding projects, for purposes of developer submittals, follow up inquiries and status updates. In the event the Project Manager is absent from duty or is unresponsive, the Executive Director or designee shall serve as point of contact. Inquiries received by the Chair or Board members should be promptly referred to staff. 2) Submittal deadlines shall be strictly adhered to. Late submittals will be deemed incomplete and shall not be considered. 3) Upon closing of the submittal period, the Project Manager shall review all proposals for completeness. a. Incomplete proposals shall either be deemed unqualified or applicants can be contacted to complete their submittals. Either approach may be taken at the Project Manager's discretion, however if a decision is made to allow applicants to complete submittals, this privilege must be extended to all applicants of a given RFQ/P 4) A review panel shall be created to review all complete submittals. The panel composition will be recommended by the Project Manager and shall be approved by the Executive Director prior to convening for submittal review. a. The panel may include any of the following: staff from the CDC and City departments, staff from outside agencies having experience relevant to the proposed project, and CDC or City consultants with special expertise relevant to the proposed project. Consultants invited to sit on a review panel must adhere to state and city conflict of interest regulations and must disclose any relationships, whether past or current, with any applicant prior to convening the panel. b. The complete submittal package shall be provided to all panel members with ample time for review prior to convening a meeting. A ranking sheet correlated to the RFQ/P criteria shall be created and used by each panel member, copies of which shall be retained in the working files of the Project Manager until the selection process is complete. c. Interviews may or may not be held with the applicants, at the discretion of the Review Panel. EXHIBIT A d. Reference checks shall be conducted by staff prior to a list of finalists being submitted to the Board/City Council. 5) The Review Panel shall short-list the range of applicants. The finalists shall make full presentations of the submittals to the Board/City Council if necessary. 6) On the Wednesday preceding the CDC Board/City Council meeting at which developer selection will be considered all Board/City Council members shall be provided the following, at a minimum: a. A copy of the original RFQ/P b. A copy of each of the original submittals of the finalists c. Any updated materials submitted during the ranking process d. A summary ranking sheet of the submittals e. A written report of reference check findings 7) The Board/City Council may select a qualified developer, or reject all applications and initiate a new RFQ/P process at its sole discretion. Request for Developer Qualifications/Proposal Outline (I) Introduction A. Summary description of desired improvements and basic acquisition B Summary description of site C. Summary of proposal contents and dates (2) Site Description A. Location B. Size C. General description -grade, adjacent lots, etc. D. Site preparation upon delivery E. Political description -jurisdiction, property assessment, etc. F. Zoning G. Maps and exhibits (3) Area Description A. Community level socio-economic data B. Economic activities C. Recent private developments D. Municipally -sponsored redevelopment and development projects E. Maps and exhibits (4) Description of Desired Development A. Scope -size, F.A.R. or density, quality, etc. B. Type -land use mix or, for residential, unit mix C. Special considerations -cultural facilities to be incorporated, aesthetics, City image creation, socially defined goals, etc. D. Maps and exhibits (5) Permitted Basis for Property Acquisition A. Lease (with general terms) B. Sale C. Other, e.g., joint venture D. If more than one method, basis for comparison, e.g., present value (6) Proposal Submittal Guidelines (Not Project Specific RFQ & RFP) A. Development Team 1. Description and capitalization of responsible entity (individual, partnership, corporation) 2. If specifically created entity, then also liability of and guarantees by participants 3. Experience of proposer in similar projects B. Financial Information 1. Capability to do project based on evidence of commitment by participants and/or lend- ers and joint venture partners 2. At least 3 references from business and credit sources 3. Financial statements — 2 years C. Disclosures 1. Any and all felony arrests/convictions of any principle during the 10 year period prior to submittal 2. Any and all litigation, whether voluntary or involuntary, related to a development or redevelopment project within 3 years prior of submittal 3. Any and all bankruptcy filings on behalf of principals in the development team 4. Statement of Economic Interest (7) Proposal Submittal Guidelines (ProjectSpecific — RFP only) A. Project Description 1. Site plans, schematics, phasing, and models (optional) 2. Building materials and layout, roadways, landscaping, parking 3. Project pro forma information: a. Development budget, cost per square foot in constant dollars; b. Pretax cash flow with line items for revenues, expenses, net operating income and debt service; c. Identified amount and source of equity & debt financing, interim and permanent, d. Public financing needed; e. Anticipated rent per square foot, sales per square foot (for retail), room rate (for ho- tel) all in constant dollars; f. Expected lease -up period, inflation rate; and g. Evidence of pre -leasing anchor tenants and hotel operators, as appropriate. B. Acquisition Method -Sale or Lease 1. Proposed price and payment terms lease 2. Proposed lease terms: a. Option payments and interim rents; b. Base rent with provisions for periodic adjustments; c. Percentage rents; d. Participation in sale or refinancing; and e. Projected rent schedule for agency (match ing pro forma set forth in A.3 above) C. Schedule of Performance 1. Anticipated negotiation period, DDA execution date, etc. 2. Deposits, option fees, holding rents, etc. prior to construction 3. Evidence of financing 4. City/Agency requirements-e.g., bonding, rezoning, infrastructure 5. Committed or contingent construction start dates D. Property Management and Organization E. Outline of Benefits to the City 1. Direct revenues generated to the City by the project 2. Tax revenue increases by type to the City 3. Other benefits-e.g., prestige, aesthetics, cultural improvement (8) Deadlines and Evaluation Criteria A. Submittal deadline B. Submission requirements C. Contact person D. Proposal review schedule E. Selection criteria -rating sheet, weighted selection items (optional) (Note: This guideline is based on the California Redevelopment Association model) City of National City, California COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE March 28, 2006 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 ITEM TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-108, PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION OF C.Y.M.A., LLC AS THE PREFERRED DEVELOPER FOR TWO COMMISSION -OWNED PROPERTIES AT 3403 VALLEY ROAD PREPARED BY George H. Eiser, I11 (14, DEPARTMENT City Attorney EXPLANATION Pursuant to Resolution No. 2005-108, adopted in November 22, 2005, the Board selected C.Y.M.A., LLC as the preferred developer for two commission -owned properties at 3403 Valley Road. This selection followed an RFP process which was originally commenced in October, 2004. The successful proposal was for the development of approximately six to ten single family homes on the site, which was favored over a competing proposal by Carolina Construction for the development of approximately 28 attached townhomes. Subsequent to the selection of C.Y.M.A., LLC as the preferred developer for the properties, there were no further commitments made by C.Y.M.A., LLC or the CDC to each other for the development of the properties. A separate item on this agenda establishes a new RFP process for selecting developers to develop CDC -owned properties. ft the CDC Board desires that this new process apply to the development of the properties at 3403 Valley Road, the proposed resolution would rescind the selection previously made, and allow the new process to be applied for this property Both developers involved in the RFP process have been informed of this proposed action. Environmental Review N/A Financial Statement N/A Account No STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adont Resolution BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Resolution Resolution No. J RESOLUTION NO. 2006- RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF NATIONAL CITY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-108, PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION OF C.Y.M.A., LLC AS THE PREFERRED DEVELOPER FOR TWO COMMISSION- OWNED PROPERTIES AT 3407 VALLEY ROAD WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2005-108, adopted on November 22, 2005, the CDC Board selected C.Y.M.A., LLC as the preferred developer for the two Commission -owned properties at 3403 Valley Road, following an RFP process which was originally commenced in October, 2004; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the selection of C.Y.M.A., LLC as the preferred developer for the properties there were no further commitments made by C.Y.M.A., LLC, or the CDC to each other in the development of the properties. WHEREAS, the Board desires that the development of three properties be subject to a newly -established RFP process for selecting developers to develop CDC -owned properties; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission Board hereby rescinds Resolution No. 2005-108, pertaining to the selection of C.Y.M.A., LLC as the preferred developer for the two Commission -owned properties at 3403 Valley Road. PASSED and ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2006. NICK INZUNZA, MAYOR ATTEST: MICHAEL R. DALLA, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: GEORGE H. EISER, III -CITY ATTORNEY