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