The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAG RPTS 1995 0405 RDA REG* MAIIa11� � 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995 7 :00 P.M. Moorpark Community Center CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Next Res. No. 95 -34 799 Moorpark Avenue REORDERING OF, AND ADDITIONS TO, THE AGENDA: PUBLIC COMMENT: CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Consider Acce tance of O ✓G, Iu c , ., <: v,�= +' r-„ C Moorpark. Staff Recommendation: Accept the land offered O by the City of Moorpark and authorize the City Clerk to f i e a Certif igate of Acceptance. ACTION/ I CUSSION: A. Consider Award of Con ct for d. �� <( U.'< . :Ic°�t. 1�,�,�+ Projects. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the funding tation the three projects outlined in the staff report and that 20% housing set aside funds be approved for funding. (ROLL CALL VOTE) �0 -------- - - - - -- i Any member of the public may address the Council during the Public Comments portion of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or Discussion /Action item. Speakers who wish to address the Agency concerning a Public Hearing or Discussion /Action item must do so during the Public Hearing or Discussion /Action portion of the Agenda for that item. Speaker card must be received by the Secretary for Public comment prior to the beginning of the Public Comments portion of the meeting and for Discussion /Action items prior to the beginning of the first item of the Discussion /Action Portion Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing must be received prior Ato nthe beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon each Public Comment and Discussion /Action item speaker. Redevelopment Agency Agenda April 5, 1995 Page 2 7. ACTION /DISCUSSION: (Continued) G�ernla ble you �n� rlba B. Consider the Request for Proposal for Gisler Field Housing Project. Staff Recommendation: Review the Request for Proposal and a thori its distribution 8. CLOSES E SION: A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN 511 -0- 080 -19, 511 -0- 080 -20, 511 -0- 080 -21, 511 -0- 080 -31, and portion of 511 -0- 080 -25 and 511 -0- 080 -26 (North side of Los Angeles Avenue and South Side of Poindexter Avenue contiguous to Mission Bell Plaza) Negotiating Parties: City of Moorpark and Ventura Pacific Capital Group Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN 511 -0- 080 -24, 511 -0- 080 -26 and 511 - 080 -25 Negotiating Parties: City of Moorpark and Colmer Development Company Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: APN 511 -0- 090 -23 Negotiating Parties: City of Moorpark and Egg City Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment 9. ADJOURNMENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Copies of each item of business on the agenda are on file in the office of the Secretary and are available for public review. Any questions concerning any agenda item may be directed to the City Clerk /529 -6864. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: DISCUSSION• AGENDA REPORT MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Honorable Chairman and Members Redevelopment Agenev A-A- ITEM a, Mann ACMW .r Steven G. Hayes, Redevelopment Manager March 7, 1995 (Mtq 03/15/95) Accept Offer of Land by the City of Moorpark As part of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency's responsibility under the Disposition and Development Agreement by and between the Agency and Ventura Pacific Properties I, Inc., the Agency is to make an effort to obtain the street right -of -way that exists in the Gisler Field Project Area. The City vacated property obtained by the Agency will be sold to Mission Bell Partnership, a California Partnership. Staff is requesting authorization to file a Certificate of Acceptance (see attached) when the property is received by the Agency. RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency accept the land offered by the City of Moorpark and authorize staff to file a Certificate of Acceptance Attachment: Certificate of Acceptance SGH240- 03/07/95 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY given by the City of Moorpark in the County of Ventura, State of California, as follows: 1. That on the day of , the from was accepted by the City of Moorpark. 2. That the name of the political subdivision accepting said Grant Deed is the CITY OF MOORPARK, in the County of Ventura, State of California, whose address is 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021. 3. That the City Clerk of the City of Moorpark is authorized to accept and consent to the recordation of any deed or grant conveying any interest in or easement upon real property to said City which the City Council has approved pursuant to Resolution No. 85 -163 which was duly recorded with the County Recorder of Ventura County. City of Moorpark Lillian E. Hare, City Clerk ITEWWW MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: Chairman and Members of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency FROM: Steven G. Hayes, Economic Development Manager DATE: February 16, 1995 (Mtq 04/05/95) SUBJECT: Award Contracts for Housing Rehabilitation Projects BACKGROUND: At the November 3, 1994 Economic Development /Affordable Housing Committee (Councilmembers Bernardo Perez and Patrick Hunter - ED /AHC) reviewed the Needs Assessment Report for the Housing Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program as presented to the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency at their meeting of October 24, 1994. The ED /AHC agreed with the direction of the Agency that staff should proceed with the implementation of the program by proceeding with the three Agency projects as presented and also contact the 25 units that were identified in the presentation. The Agency has approved funds for grants (up to $5,000) and low interest and deferred loans (up to $10,000) for a maximum of $15,000 for owner occupied residential rehabilitation projects. The Agency has accumulated $551,110 in tax increment revenues to date. In the next five years (FY 1995/1996 through FY 1999/2000) the Agency is estimated to have accumulated an additional $1,249,950 in tax increment revenues. This amount of revenues is after operational cost and bond debt service (see Table I attached). At a future date the Agency may wish to consider additional projects such as land acquisition for senior citizens housing, or other housing projects. If this is the case, the Agency may wish to put a cap on the amount of funds to be made available for the housing rehabilitation program. DISCUSSION• Agency staff solicited and received bids for the rehabilitation for the three residential units. Three bids were received for each unit. The results are shown in Exhibits A, B, and C (attached), During the time that the three units were being inspected by the various contractors and the bids were being prepared, staff drafted General Conditions and Guidelines for Contractors and Homeowners. These Guidelines establish the criteria that all contractors shall comply with when participating in this program and has been included in the overall Program Guidelines. The three projects staff is recommending for funding at this time are as follows: I• 411 Esther A. Work to be performed shown on Exhibit B. Amount of Funding: $13,824.00 C. Income (Gross): $12,504.00 Gross D. Income Level: Single - Very Low E. Type of Funding:. 1. Grant: $ 5,000.00 2. Deferred Loan: $ 8,824.00 3. Term: Loan to be paid upon sale or transfer of title of property. F. Recommended Contractor: Archway Builders (Lowest Competitive Bid) II. 112 Harry Street A. Work to be performed shown on Exhibit "B ". B. Amount of Funding: $ 8,385.00 C. Income (Gross): $35,708.00 D. Income Level: Family of 4 - Low IN E. Type of Funding: 1. Grant: $ 4,000.00 2. 3% Loan: $ 4,385.00 3. Term: 1C years. F. Recommended Contractor - Home Improvement Specialist (Lowest competitive Bid). III. 213 East Los Angeles Avenue A. Work to be performed shown on Exhibit "C". B. Amount of Fundinq: $ 4,390.00 C. Income (Gross): $ 5,737.20 D. Income Level: Single - Very Low E. Type of Funding: 1. Grant: $ 10 4 2. Loan: $ �g ; pp g�l1 t57 /7`-- c� 3 . Term: CD years F. Recommended Contractor - Home Improvement Specialist (Lowest Competitive Bid). Note: Upon inspection it was in found that the roof was in need of repair. It is estimated that the cost of repair would not exceed $2,500. In consideration of the income level it is suggested that the Agency offer a grant not to exceed the amount of $6,890.00 to cover the added cost of the roof repair. The roof was not requested by the owner but is in need of repair. FUNDING• Funding for these projects will be from the 20% tax increment revenue housing set aside funds which are projected to be at 3 $551,110 at the end of Fiscal Year 1994/1995 (see Table I attached). If approved these three project will cost $29,099.00. RECOMMENDATION• (Roll Call Vote) Staff recommends that the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency authorize the funding of the three projects listed above and that 20% housing set aside funds be approved for funding. SGH209- 03/03/95 4 EXHIBIT "A" 411 ESTHER CONTRACTOR: HOME IMPROVEMENT SPECIALISTS REPAIRS COSTS REMOVE AND REPLACE ROOF AND MINOR WOOL) REPAIR $ 3,250.00 REMOVE AND REPAIR GARAGE DOOR $ 650.00 PREP, REPAIR AND PAINT ALL EXTERIOR TRIM $ 1,700.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXTERIOR SIDE DOOR $ 320.00 RE -GLAZE ALL WINDOWS $ 650.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE DRIVEWAY $ 2,980.00 ROTOTILL FRONT YARD ADD SOIL AMENDMENT, INSTALL $ 1,880.00 SPRINKLER SYSTEM WITH TIMER, RESEED YARD REMOVE AND REPLACE KITCHEN FAUCET, PATCH DRYWALL $ 240.00 REWIRE GARBAGE DISPOSAL $ 150.00 ADD EARTHQUAKE STRAP TO WATER HEATER * $ 75.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE TUB SURROUND AND DOORS, $ 680.00 INCLUDES NEW BATH AND SHOWER FAUCETS UPGRADE ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO 1.00 AMP * $ 950.00 PATCH AND PAINT STUCCO $ 1,850.00 TOTAL: $15,375.00 5 EXHIBIT "A" 411 ESTHER CONTRACTOR: REPAIRS ARCHWAY BUILDERS COSTS REMOVE AND REPLACE ROOF AND MINOR WOOL) REPAIR $ 3,750.00 REPAIR GARAGE DOOR $ 240.00 PREP, REPAIR AND PAINT ALL EXTERIOR TRIM $ 1,650.00 AND SIDE DOOR RE -GLAZE ALL WINDOWS $ 350.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE DRIVEWAY $ 1,800.00 ROTOTILL APPROX. 250 SQ. FT. OF FRONT YARD, $ 800.00 PREP SOIL, IRRIGATE, SEED, INSTALL TIME CLOCK REMOVE AND REPLACE KITCHEN FAUCET, PATCH DRYWALL $ 230.00 UPGRADE ELECTRICAL AND REWIRE GARBAGE DISPOSAL $ 825.00 ADD EARTHQUAKE STRAP TO WATER HEATER * $ 75.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE TUB SURROUND $ 525.00 STUCCO AND PAINT $ 1,200.00 TOTAL $13,824.00 6 EXHIBIT "A" 411 ESTHER CONTRACTOR: REPAIRS J & M ENTERPRISES COSTS REMOVE AND REPLACE ROOF $ 4,200.00 REPAIR GARAGE DOOR $ 225.00 PAINT HOUSE AND TRIM $ 4,850.00 RE -GLAZE ALL WINDOWS $ 1,000.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE DRIVEWAY $ 1,876.00 REPAIR KITCHEN FAUCET AND REPAIR DRYWALL $ 95.00 BATH TUB ENCLOSURE REPLACE $ 1,250.00 REPLACE SIDE EXTERIOR DOOR $ 185.00 UPGRADE ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO 100 AMP * $ 1,150.00 TOTAL $16,181.00 _, EXHIBIT "B" 112 HARRY STREET CONTRACTOR: REPAIRS REMOVE AND REPLACE ROOF REMOVE AND REPAIR FACIA AT PATIO REPAIR AND REFURBISH HALL BA'T'H CONTRACTOR: REPAIRS REMOVE AND REPLACE ROOF REMOVE AC AND REPAIR ROOF REPAIR AND REFURBISH HALL BATH CONTRACTOR: REPAIRS REPAIR AND REFURBISH HALL BATH HOME IMPROVEMENT SPECIALISTS COSTS TOTAL: $ 3,500.00 $ 150.00 $ 4,735.00 $ 8,385.00 J & M ENTERPRISES COSTS TOTAL: $ 5,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 4,200.00 $11,200.00 SUN OAKS CONSTRUCTION COSTS TOTAL: $ 4,230.00 EXHIBIT "B" 112 HARRY STREET CONTRACTOR: W. E. HEATHCOTE CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS COSTS REPAIR AND REFURBISH HALL BATH TOTAL: $ 4,825.00 CONTRACTOR: SUNDANCE ROOFING REPAIRS COSTS REROOF STRUCTURE TOTAL: $ 3,515.00 9 EXHIBIT "C" 213 EAST LOS ANGELES AVENUE CONTRACTOR: REPAIRS PREP AND PAINT EXTERIOR OF STRUCTURE RE -GLAZE ALL WINDOWS REPLACE TWO EXTERIOR DOORS CONTRACTOR: REPAIRS PREP AND PAINT EXTERIOR OF STRUCTURE REPLACE TWO EXTERIOR DOORS UP GRADE ELECTRICAL SERVICE CONTRACTOR: REPAIRS PREP AND PAINT EXTERIOR OF STRUCTURE REPLACE TWO EXTERIOR DOORS RE -GLAZE ALL WINDOWS 10 HOME IMPROVEMENT COSTS TOTAL $3,100.00 $ 580.00 $ 710.00 $4,390.00 If & M ENTERPRISES HOME COSTS $3,800.00 $ 370.00 $1,150.00 TOTAL $5,320.00 ARCHWAY BUILDERS COSTS TOTAL: $3,460.00 $1,400.00 $ 350.00 $6,252,00 TABLE I HOUS20B 20 PERCENT HOUSING SET ASIDE FUNDS 03/20/95 BASE YEAR 1988/1989 TO 1999/2000 INCREASE IN INCREASE ASSESSED TAX INCREMENT TAX INCREMENT 20 PERCENT 20% ANNUAL HOUSING FUNDS FISCAL IN ASSESSED VALUATION REVENUE REVENUE LESS .25o HOUSING HOUSING BOND DEBT FUNDS REMAINING YEAR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YEAR VALUATION OVER BASE YR. AT 1% COLLECTION FEES SET ASIDE 0 AND M SERVICE REMAINING CUMULATIVE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 1988 \ 1989 $260,645,252 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 1989 \ 1990 ( *) $295,844,170 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 1990 \ 1991 $325,020,649 $64,375,397 $157,805 $157,410 $31,482 $0 $0 $31,482 $31,482 3 1991 \ 1992 $365,839,369 $105,194,117 $256,431 $255,889 $51,178 $0 $0 $51,178 $82,660 4 1992 \ 1993 $386,703,674 $126,058,422 $1,311,826 $1,276,681 $255,336 $0 $0 $255,336 $337,996 5 1993 \ 1994 $379,419,965 $118,774,713 $1,237,523 $1,214,230 $242,846 $0 $39,004 $203,842 $541,838 6 1994 \ 1995 $407,080,412 $146,435,160 $1,464,352 $1,460,691 $292,138 $125,515 $157,351 $9,272 $551,110 7 1995 \ 1996 $427,434,433 $166,789,181 $1,667,892 $1,663,722 $332,744 $128,026 $158,046 $46,673 $597,782 8 1996 \ 1997 $448,806,154 $188,160,902 $1,881,609 $1,876,905 $375,381 $130,586 $157,309 $87,486 $685,268 1997 \ 1998 $471,246,462 $210,601,210 $2,106,012 $2,100,747 $420,149 $133,198 $157,418 $129,534 $814,802 10 1998 \ 1999 $494,808,785 $234,163,533 $2,341,635 $2,335,781 $467,156 $135,862 $158,356 $172,939 $987,741 1999 2000 $519,549,224 $258,903,972 $2,589,040 $2,582,567 $516,51, 5138,579 $158,001 $219,934 X1,207,674 12 2000 \ 2001 $545,526,686 $284,881,434 $2,848,814 $2,848,814 $569,763 $141,351 $157,446 $270,966 $1,478,640 15 1001 \ 2002 $572,803,020 $312,157,768 $3,121,578 $3,121,578 $624,316 $144,178 $157,718 $322,420 $1,801,060 14 2002 \ 2003 $601,443,171 $340,797,919 $3,407,979 $3,407,979 $681,596 $147,061 $157,749 $376,786 $2,177,846 it 2003 `, 2004 $631,515,329 $370,870,077 $3,708,701 x3,708,701 $741,740 $150,002 $157,528 $434,210 $2,612,056 16 2004 \ 2005 $663,091,096 $402,445,844 $4,024,458 $4,024,458 $804,892 $153,002 $158,055 $493,834 $3,105,890 17 2005 \ 2006 $696,245,651 $435,600,399 $4,356,004 $4,356,004 $871,201 $156,063 $157,246 $557,892 $3,663,783 18 2006 \ 2007 $731,057,933 $470,412,681 $4,704,127 $4,704,127 $940,825 $159,184 $157,234 $624,408 $4,288,190 19 2007 \ 2008 $767,610,830 $506,965,578 $5,069,656 $5,069,656 $1,013,931 $162,367 $156,911 $694,653 $4,982,843 20 2008 \ 2009 $805,991,371 $545,346,119 $5,453,461 $5,453,461 $1,090,692 $165,615 $157,355 $767,723 $5,750,566 21 2009 \ 2010 $846,290,940 $585,645,688 $5,856,457 $5,856,457 $1,171,291 $168,927 $157,394 $844,970 $6,595,536 22 2010 \ 2011 $888,605,487 $627,960,235 $6,279,602 $6,279,602 $1,255,920 $172,306 $157,124 $926,491 $7,522,027 INCREASE IN INCDD&3O 838DSSOD TAX I0CDQNQ0T TAX INCREMENT 20 PERCENT &00U&6 HOUSING FUNDS FISCAL IN ASSESSED VALUATION REVENUE REVENUE LESS .25% HOUSING HOUSING BOND DEBT FUNDS REMAINING YEAR ==~~================================================================================ YEAR VALUATION OVER BASE YR. AT l% COLLECTION FEES SET ASIDE 0 AND N SERVICE REMAINING CUMULATIVE 23 201 \ 2012 $932,035,761 $672,390,509 $6,723,906 $6,723,905 $1,244,781 $175,752 $157,554 $1,011,478 S8,533,502 24 2012 \ 2012 $979,687,549 $719,042,297 $7,190,423 $7,190,423 $1,438,089 S179,267 $157,613 $1,101,205 $9,634,707 25 3013 \ 2014 $1,028,671,927 $768,026,675 $7,680,267 $7,680,267 $1,536,053 $182,852 S157,302 S1,199,899 $10,830,606 26 2014 \ 2015 S1,080,105,523 $810,460,271 $8,194,603 S8,194,602 $1,638,921 $186,509 S157,628 $1,294,783 $12,126,389 27 2015 \ 2016 $1,134,110,799 &873,465,547 $8,724,655 $8,734,655 $1,746,931 V190,239 $157,922 $1,390,169 C13,524,559 28 2016 \ 2017 $1,190,816,339 $920,171,087 $9,301,711 $9,301,711 $1,860,342 $194,044 $157,993 S1,508,305 $15,032,864 29 2017 \ 2018 $1,250,357,156 S909,711,904 $9,807,119 $9,897,119 X1,979,424 S197,925 $158,977 $1,622,522 $16,655,386 30 2018 \ 2019 $1,212,875,014 S1,052,229,762 $10,522,298 $10,522,298 $2,104,460 $201,884 $158,397 $1,744,179 $18,399,564 21 2019 \ 2020 &1,378,518,765 $1,117,873,513 $11,178,735 S11,178,735 $2,235,747 $205,921 $O $2,029,826 $20,429,390 32 2020 \ 2021 $1,447,444,703 S1,186,799,451 $11,867,995 $11,867,995 $2,373,699 $810,040 $0 $2,163,559 $22,592,949 22 2021 \ 2022 $1,519,816,938 S1,259,171,686 $12,591,717 Al2,591,717 $2,510,343 $210,240 $U $2,04,103 $24,897,052 24 2022 \ 2023 $1,595,807,785 $1,335,162,533 S13,351,625 $13,352,625 $2,670,325 $218,525 $0 $2,461,800 827,348,852 35 2023 \ 2024 $1,675,598,174 $1,414,952,922 $14,149,529 $14,149,529 S2,829,906 $222,896 qC $2,607,010 $29,955,862 36 2024 \ 2025 $1,759,378,083 $1,498,732,831 $14,087,228 $14,987,328 $2,997,466 $227,354 $0 $2,770,112 $32,725,974 2025 2026 S1,847,346,987 �1,586,701,735 S15,867,01/ '�15,867,017 5},172,403 �231,901 �O 52.941,503 $35,667,477 �D 2026 \ 2027 51,039,714,336 $1,679,069,084 S16,700,691 $16,790,691 S3,358,138 5236,529 $0 $3,121,599 $28,789,077 i& 2027 \ 2028 $2,036,700,053 $1,776,054,801 )17,760,548 $17,760,548 $3,552,110 $241,269 $U $3,310,840 S42,099,917 40 2028 \ 2029 $2,138,525,056 $1,877,889,804 $18,778,898 S18,778,898 33,755,780 $246,095 $D $3,509,685 $45,609,601 PLAN ADOPTION FY 1989/1990 BASED ON 21.88196525� RATIO OF MOO8P8O8 YDT86 ASSESSED VALUE OF $1,352,000,000 � 1990/1991 T0 1994/1995 S80MB ACTUAL FUNDS RECEIVED FROM COUNTY J. 1995/1996 T0 2028/2029 ARE PROJECTED FUNDS YD DO RECEIVED AT 5'00% CD0&T8 4. 0 AND & INCDD&3O BY 2% ANNUALLY. TAX &LLO*CDTIO0 BOND HOUSING FUNDS: ------------ $1^800,000 TAX I000D0D0T HOUSING FUNDS AVAILABLE: --------------------- $551,110 SUB TOTAL FY l994/l995:------------------ $2,351,110 PROJECTED TAX I0CDOQQ0T HOUSING FUNDS: --------------------- $641991,925 TOTAL HOUSING FUNDS T0 DO RECEIVED BY AGENCY FY l999/200-- ======= $57,343,034 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: AGENDA REPORT MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Chairman and Members of the Moorpark Agency ITEM o S. Moo�rwrc, "Mm M�1Nr OF . C/ Steven G. Hayes, Redevelopment Manager' -- April 4, 1995 (Mtg. 04/05/95) Consider the Request for Proposal for Gisler Field Housing Project The Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency "), at the Meeting of March 22, 1995, rejected two offers to purchase the property owned by the Agency that is proposed for the site of the Gisler Field Housing Project (Poindexter Park Estates). At that meeting staff was directed to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for general distribution to developers. DISCUSSION• Attached is a draft RFP for Agency review and comment. Following approval, staff will distribute the RFP. In the past several months numerous contractors /developers have contacted the Agency requesting to be notified of the issuance of an RFP. A contact list has been composed, and an RFP will be sent to these persons on the list or to any one requesting a copy. The following are key points contained in the RFP: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A soils report is available, which indicates a need for up to eight feet of removal and compaction. No more than 50 units are to be built on the site. The developer will be responsible for the cost of construction of the north south street abutting Poindexter Park to the east. There will be a minimum r, ft . high block wall on the west property line. The Agency will consider placing a cap on fees. 6. Developer will be responsible for Assessment District Fees in the approximate amount of $195,000 7. Agency is willing to assist with up to $1,600,000 in subsidy in order to get as many units for low and very low income range. 8. Homes to have three or more floor plans. Agency will allow for zero lot line except along westerly property line. �.i �ciG -'GGl- c 7 Z�il�ltit - RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommendation: Agency review the Request for Proposal and authorize its distribution. SGH260- 03/30/95 1Ei-C31R. PRU PO SAL S IP-WI]Rll< Mc),Lj-<:3TMC3 MCDO(DIRCIPA-IRIK , I IE -'S Ez; 1LJ IE n BY rrl-IIE MOORPARK IZIE:E)IEX71F-T--.(DIPM1EMFIp AC; IE M C! -Y A1z,Izz-31 I, , 1 995 I. II. RE QU E S T FOR PROPOSAL S PO = N D E XT ER FARK E S TAT E S RE S =DENT = AL OWN E R S H I P PROS E C T Site The Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") is soliciting statements of qualifications and proposals for a residential development on an approximate 6.5 acre site located south of Poindexter Avenue, west of Chaparral School, north of Lassen Avenue, and east of Moorpark Estates (see attached map labeled Exhibit "A"). The Agency wishes to attract a development of a high quality, ownership residential project at a low density containing up to 50 units. The Agency currently owns the property and has $1,500,000 of Agency Housing Funds invested in the land. The land is zoned Residential Planned Development -15U (RPD -15U). Although the zoning would permit a higher density for this site, the Agency has planned for a project that will not exceed 50 units. Since this site is vacant there will be no relocation costs or re -entry to be considered. The response shall state when the Agency will be paid for the land and how much the Agency will receive. Utilities are in place along the full extent of Poindexter Avenue and Lassen Avenue (Lassen Avenue will be an easement for utilities purpose in a proposed commercial development to the south). The City is completing the design for a 7.5 acre planned neighborhood park (Poindexter Park) that will be constructed to the east of the project site. Site Constraints The project site is abutting an existing residential housing tract to the west. At present there are existing backyard fencing for these units that may have to be extended to the west property line of this project. A solid block wall at the west property line that will be a minimum of 6 feet on the side of the existing homes to the west, is likely to be required by the City as a condition of development. I The Agency is in possession of a soils report that will be made available to the developers upon request after the Agency has held a meeting with developers. The report indicates that there is a need for earth removal and recompaction. There is a twenty foot Southern California Edison easement along the western property line ten feet of which is on this site. All utilities for this project shall be under grounded. The Agency has prepared a conceptual site plan showing a development of 50 lots. The average lot is 38 feet by 100 feet (3,800 sq. ft.). Proposers may utilize their own design subject to City approval process. III. Scope of Development The developer is responsible for purchasing the property from the Agency and constructing up to 50 single family residential housing units and all infrastructure including a full street laying north to south abutting the proposed Poindexter Park to the east. The Agency is willing to financially support this project if the developer can produce sufficient numbers of low and very low housing units. The Agency desires that as many of the units as possible be for persons and families within these income ranges. The proposal submitted shall contain the following scenarios: 1. A development with 15 Low, 15 very low, and 20 moderate income units. 2. A development with 20 low, 20 very low, and 10 moderate income units. 3. A development with 50 low, and very low income units (developer to determine mix).. 4. The developer may provide other income variations for the mix of unit. 5. Developer shall show the Agency the number of units and cost of construction and amount of subsidy per unit for each of the options proposed for 1 through 4 above. The amount of subsidy is not to exceed $1,600,000. F, 6. All low and very low units will be required to remain at these levels for the life of the Redevelopment Plan (FY 2028/2029). The proposer should indicate what restrictions would be placed on the moderate and /or market units. The Agency is willing to establish a processing time frame with the City for processing the required plans and applications. If your proposal is contingent on a certain processing time you must state such and what the processing time is for each component of your proposal. The Agency is looking for the following criteria to be included in the construction of the units: 1. Homes to range from'9&q to 1,600 square feet. 2. 1 to 2 -1/2 baths. 4. One and two stories, minimum of 3 bedrooms. 5. Units can be constructed with zero lot line except those abutting western property line. 6. Homes to be built to FHA - VA or better Standards and to all City of Moorpark Codes and Standards. 7. Homes designed with three or more floor plans and elevations with one or more designs for disabled. 8. Front yard landscaping with irrigation. 9. Complete yard fencing with block wall on all exterior perimeter lots including west and south side of property, along Poindexter Avenue and on interior corner lots. Interior lots can use (a) wood fencing with galvanized steel post and cross members or (b) block wall or concrete pre- fabricated fencing. State what your proposed design is to tie 3 10. Homes to have asphalt shingle thick butt roofing (minimum 30 year guarantee), range /oven /garbage disposal, washer and dryer (gas only) hookup, and forced air heater. 11. Project will include north south full width street abutting park to be constructed on the east side of the site. A full or 1/2 street may be required to be constructed prior to the commencement of the housing project. If so, the developer will be responsible for the street. 12. Approximately 20 + feet of landscape along Poindexter Avenue. 13. Developer shall show the Agency other funding sources if applicable. 14. The Developer will be expected to pay the following fees based on 50 lots: a. Quimby fees $182,000 b. Building and Engineering Fees $82,000 + $21,000 = $103,000 C. Planning fees Residential Planned Development $ 3,281.25 Tract Map $ 9,324.00 Zone Change $ 1,640.25 Cond. Comp. $ 14,245.50 Zone Clear $ 170.00 Traffic Model Maintenance $ 237.00 Initial Study $ 1,317.00 $ 30,215.00 4 d. City Wide Traffic Mitigation Fee $150,000 e. Fish and Game Fees >1,275. f. Assessment District. Fees $195,000 g. LAAAOC: $2,772 per unit * This cost is for initial study only. There may be additional costs for mitigated negative declaration or EIR. The Agency is willing to establish a cap for City fees. If there are to be negotiations for limitations for costs for environmental studies and /or fees (see attached fee schedule) , the proposer should state these caps in their proposal. The Agency will hold a meeting with prospective developers on April 20, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall. Council Chambers, City of Moorpark, California. The purpose of the meeting is to provide developers an opportunity to ask questions. Developers will be given four weeks to prepare formal proposals after the meeting. Six sealed copies of the proposal will need to be received no later than 5:30 p.m., Friday, May 19, 1995. The Agency will evaluate the proposals and may select one (1) or more for interviews with the Economic Development /Affordable Housing Committee. The Agency reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and to negotiate on any item with one or more proposals. The Agency also reserves the right to issue addendums during the process. If selected the developer will be required to enter into an Disposition and Development Agreement with the Agency. The Agency will be looking for the best product to be constructed and the development that will have the financing to provide for highest number of single family, Low and very low income family homes. If you need additional information please contact Steven G. Hayes, at (805) 529 -6864, extension 225. SGH239- 03/13/95 � Q5 L= n N n :2 g' �J y M� �'f Pti S�� h b 2 ' I'�•4l' el T 1.57Ac. 647 67 SHASTA AVE. IZZ 12) Q Q DIABLO AVE. 'p °i POINDEXTER AVE. 382 16 N 223Ac_ 09 b 2'1 P M 3 5 h PALOMAR AVE. .. 67Ac. LASSEN VE O 'y Par 3 N 9' o a 5 U c. I EAST 13 N 21PJN35 1100 a �� U LA LASSEN + 3 5 5 cr- O N� 123 6 g �Q. 3 W Q Q ° SEE DETAIL Z cr 0 4.7C!AC. 21PM35 69.17 r ►�- W to o PL. N a 0 m rn 38 PM 58 3 69119 - ,n Par 3 SIERRA AVE. g - 20 L98 J = 35PM20 4z. �- I � � 180 � � �-6 -fie. I� 470.67�l %� 42 N I4 AC. O 4.D�AG� ..w 699.19 - r' EV sr �Calc... "N4�4c. "arr G I S W COR• `8 .4 7 LOT P 880115140 470.98' EAST Par. 1 t23p� i 7A 4 LOS 72 0. 6 ,q,^/GELES HWY. 118) K (Bk.5os1 NOTE: ASSESSOR PARCELS SHOWN Or 1 Hi; PAGt DO tW NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE LEGAL LOTS CHECK WITH COUNTY SURVEYORS OFFir'F 00 14 08. 2 158.49 fy of Moorpark - Development Fegs - 20- Apr -93 IArea of Contribution a. Los Angeles Avenue b. Spring/Tierra Rejada Roads c. Gabbert /Casey Roads Art in Public Places - per square foot Cdleguas Water District - Primary Supplier - Capital i Construction Fee i Golf Courses - Double pubic rate. $3,604 per acre Greenbelt - $1,802 per acre Car Wash - $ 1.34 per gallons per day plus $3,353 1acre City Services - - a. F7anning - Resolution No. 92 -833 b. City Attomey - $125.00 1hour (July 1993 - $135.00) e. City Engineer - Resolution No. 92 -865 d. Pudic Works - Resolution No. 92 -865 e. Police - Resolution No. 92 -668 Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fund - Driven by land use traffc generation rates. Fire Protection Facilities Fee - Sheriff & Fire Protection Ustrict Fadlities Ordinance, County of Ventura Division of Buildng & Safety. (by Qty of Moorpark Resolution No 92 -894) & Garne - $875forEIR &$1275forNe ativeDeclaratioo _ 17ood Control - Land Development Fee (perunit - can vary dependn g upon location.) Guarantees - Required for impro vemen ts. Landscape $.O5 persq.ft. of gross floor area. (by City - rafnonce ,No. 102 and Resolution No. 88 -524) ..- y.••..•y °rust Year Developer Expense. Future years -- Assessment LYstrict Park Fees a. Residential (Quimby) Park Fee - 5acres /1,0X persons or an in -lieu fee Ordnance No. 6 b. Commercial & Industrial Park Fee - Per dwelling unit or sq.ft. of gross Poor area. Sewer Page 1 of 2 74e Family Dwellin a a. $2,772 b. $3,553 c. $1,560 $ 940 Multi- Family Mob7ehome Commercial Industrial Dwellinq Dwelling Use Use a. $2,772 a. $2,772 b. $3,553 b. $3,553 c. $1,560 1 c. $1,560 $ 595 I $ 595 or $940 Dependng on size of lot, $595 if less than 6, 000 sq. ft. a. $15,519 1acre a. $15,519 1acre b. $19,892 1acre b. $19,892 1acre c. $4,940 1acre c. $4,940 1acre 1$.101sq.ft. $ . f 0 /sq.)?. $ 3,353 1acre $ 3,353 /acre Addtionaf fees for additional stoles and subterranean floors. Per dwelling unit. I Per dwelling unit 1 Per dwelling unit. I Based on use. $232.51 1dwelling I' $170.95 /dwelling 1$139.07/dwelling $265 1sq.ft. gross $875 - $1,275 _ -Y i j $ $875 - $1,275 1 $556.75 per 1 $556.75 per 1 $556.75 per a. See Resolution a. See Resolution a. See Resolution Ia. See Resolution a. See Resolution b. See Resolution b. See Resolution ee Resolution b. See Resolution b. See Resolution c. See Resolution c. See Resolution ee Resolution c. See Resolution c. See Resolution d. See Resolution d. See Resolution Lc' ee Resolution d. See Resolution d. See Resolution e. See Resolution e. See Resolution ee Resolution e. See Resolution e. See Resolution Per dwelling unit. I Per dwelling unit 1 Per dwelling unit. I Based on use. $232.51 1dwelling I' $170.95 /dwelling 1$139.07/dwelling $265 1sq.ft. gross $875 - $1,275 _ -Y 1 $875 - $1,275 j $ $875 - $1,275 1 $556.75 per 1 $556.75 per 1 $556.75 per dwelling I dwelling I dwelling $ .051s q. R. j NA I NA NA Flstyr. developer lstyr. developer lstyr, developer I 1 expense. exoense. .- a. Based on current market. $2.65 1sq.ft. gross Poor area. $2,500 / oW el/in g a. Based on current market $2.65 16q.tt. gross Poor area. $2, 000 / otvellin g Sheriffs Facilities Fee __ Shenff & Fire Protection District Facilities Ordinance, County of Ventura Division of Buildng & Safety. (by O'ty of Moorpark Resolution No. 92 -894J _ $83.58 / dwelling $54.16 1dwelli Traffic System Management - Based upon Air Quality impacts & need for mitigation. WaterworkSlistrictNo. 1 (Secondary Supplier) $635 /dwellin $635 /dwellin b If you have any questions please call the Community Development Department at 805/529 -6864 extension 228. J l V $ 411 / sq. ft. of gross floor area. $875 - $1,275 $2227 /acre $.05 1sq.fi. gross floor area. lstyr. developer expense. Based on use. $.11 /sq.tt. of gross floor are taza - ti o74 $.05 /sq.R. gross floor area. Istyr. developer expense. a. Based on current market. I b. $ .25/sq. ft. I gross floor area. b. $ .251s q. ft. gross floor area. $265 1sq.ft. gross $.27 1sq.R. gross $.27 1sq.R. gross toor area. Poor area. foot area. $2,000 /dwelling Basedon prumting Basedon plumting fixtures. fixtures. $ .051s q. R. $ .05 /sq. R. $55.54 1dwelling gross floor area. gross floor area. $635 / dwellin =NCOME i�IM =I:TS Imo= P ER S ON S I N F'AM = L Y COUNTY O F V E NTURA INCOME PERCENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 VERY LOW 50% 20250 23150 26050 28950 31250 33600 35900 38200 LOWER 80% 28150 32150 36200 40200 43400 46650 49850 53050 MEDIAN 100% 40550 46300 52100 57900 62550 67150 71800 76450 MODERATE 120$ 48650 55600 62550 69500 75050 80600 86200 91750 Table applicable for Fiscal Year 1995/1996 5GH- INCOMLIM -1- /24/94 G= S L ER F I E L D S DEVELOPERS /BUILDER S L = S T • T- i ' Lq _ s__ • I • :rl 1. West Ventura 6345 Balboa Boulevard Suite 225 Encino, California 91316 Contact Person(s): Gram Allchorn Sandy Sigal Matthew J. Breiner Director of Forward Planning Phone No. (818) 344 -2000 FAX (818) 757 -2217 2. Foothil Thrift and Loan P.O. Box 3001 30343 Canwood Street Suite 100 Agoura Hills, California 91301 Contact Person(s): Donna Mortimer Administrative Assistant Phone No. (818) 865 -3300 3. Colmer Development Company 23875 Ventura Boulevard Suite 201 Calabasas, CA 91302 Contact Person(s): Wayne Colmer Phone No. (818) 222 -5666 1 HOUSING DEVELOPERS /BUILDERS 4. Braemar 30495 Canwood Street Suite 200 Agoura Hills, California 91301 Contact Person(s): Avi Brosh Phone No. (818) 889 -6302 FAX (818) 991 -6728 5. Pacific Inland Investments 674 Via De La Valle Suite 216 Solana Beach, California 920 "71-) Contact Person(s): Mark Matthess, Principal Phone No. (619) 793 -9494 FAX (619) 793 -4650 6. Harwood Homes 14044 Ventura Boulevard Suite 206 Sherman Oaks, California 9142.3 Contact Person(s): Herbert Hirsh, MIRM President Phone No. (818) 981 -7085 FAX (818) 981 -7969 7. Urban Strategies 2509 E. Thousand Oaks Boulevard Thousand Oaks, California 91362 Contact Person(s): Elaine L. Freeman Phone No. (805) 494 -1336 2 8. Southland Consultants 2990 E. Colorado Blvd. Suite C -105 Pasidena, CA 91107 Contact Person(s) Michale Keeler (818) 568 -8000 9. Cabrillo Economic Development, Corporation 11011 Azahar Street Saticoy, CA 93004 Contact Person(s): Karen Flock (805) 659 -3791 10. Plaza Development Dick Broadway 1303 Avacado Ave. Suite 225 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 721 -1080 11. Mercy Charity 1028 A Howard San Francisco, David Latina, (415) 487 -6837 Housing Street CA 94103 Housing Devision 12. Mark Huebsch Suite 1600 660 Newport Beach Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 13. Sterling Development Corporation. 505 N. Tustin Avenue Suite 282 Santa Ana, California 92705 Contact Person(s); Jeffrey C. Rasak, President Phone No. (714) 479 -1037 FAX (714) 972 -8321 14. Lee and Associates 701 South Parker Street Suite 1000 Orange, California 92668 Contact Person(s): Randy Verdieck, Vice President Phone No. (714) 647 -9100 FAX (714) 543 -5285 15. Champion Real Estate Services 11845 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 775 Los Angeles, California 90064 Contact Person(s): Robert D. Champion Phone No. (310) 312 -8200 FAX (310) 312 -8208 16. Ken Jones Company 790 E. Santa Clara St. Suite 103 Ventura, California 93001 Contact Person(s): James D. Worden, Project Manager Phone No. (805) 643 -2296 (805) 656 -3113 4 17. Raul Watters Properties 2101 West Broadway Columbia MO Contact Person(s): Terry D. Gibson, Vice President Phone No. (314) 445 -8606 18. Spencer Development 2098 Peak Place Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Contact Person(s): Ray Spencer 19. Concordia Homes, Inc. 68 Pistachio Ave. Ventura, CA 93004 Contact Person(s): Dave Hubby 20. Koiren Moss P.O. Box 6455 Ventura, California 93006 Contact Person(s): Kioren Moss Phone No. (805) 652 -0115 FAX (805) 652 -0959 5 21 CB Commercial Ventura Business Campus P.O. Box 6906 5280 Valentine Road Suite 105 Ventura, California 93003 - 7338 Contact Person(s): Pamela A Scott Senior Associate Phone No. (805) 654 -6242 Represting: Edwin F. (Ted) Moore E.F. Moore and Company 305 E. Matilija Street Suite 201 P.O. Box 1768 Ojai, California 93023 22. Oro Vista 5146 Douglas Fir Road Suite 204 Calabasas, California 91302 Contact Person(s): Patti Felker, Broker Phone No. (818) 223 -8101 FAX (818) 223 -8611 DEVLIST 0 �xCabrillo Economic Development Cor�or ion 11011 Azahar Street. Saticoy, California 93004 (805) 659 -3791 Fax (805) 659 -3195 MEMO BOARD OF DIRECTORS To: Moorpark City Coun c i Memb ERNIE MORALES From: Rodney Fernandez, CEDC 15 Former Farmer MayAr of the Subject: Comparative Cost Effectiveness Analysis of City of Fillmore Subsidized For S�,._.e Fami. '_y Vs. Rental Units R. MERIDETH Date: April 5, 1995 Moderate income fc - ::_ hom -s 120% V ice Pre Soares, Sandall, POLLY BEE Community Representative 50 Units Tc t a t Sernacchi & Petrovich subsidy is involved. Thelef:)re, the developer would AL ZAPANTA Atlantic R�cnfield offset the cost of suh.:s -_ i,. zi:zg tae :T.inimum number of DAVID J.SABEDRA The purpose of this memo is to highlight for the City Vice President Channel Council the alternative - cos-:, effectiveness of the City Islands National Bank subsidizing for sale single family homes on the Gisler OSCAR C.GONZALEZ Field site, in contrast 'alt.,-. subsl'�ilzing very low- income Treasurer England. Whitfield, rental units on an alternat.' -- .:1. t:Ea Schroeder & Tredway . BARBARA A.JOURNET Community Representative I. Assumed Mix on the Gisle_. Field Site Oxnard JOHN J. VACCA Secretary Product Mix Taraetin • $53,333 per unit average subs -_ Corporate Broker Attorney 15 Very low- income for ".le homes 50% AMI BENJEANAVENDANO 15 Low - income for saler...ne: 80% AMI Great Western Bank 20 Moderate income fc - ::_ hom -s 120% AMI POLLY BEE Community Representative 50 Units Tc t a t Hertel Constructors subsidy is involved. Thelef:)re, the developer would RICHARD FRANCIS Attornev JUAN Low-Income C ommunity Assumes $1.6 Million In Redevelopment Subsid L Community Representative BARBARA MACRIORTIZ Secretary • 30 Units subsidized Channel Counties Legal Services • $53,333 per unit average subs -_ Association . Very low subsidy - $7E , 66( per unit assumed HECTOR REYES Villa Camoesina Low income — $30 r 00 .,! ' -'r t.:n l.t assumed Corporation— Oxnard SISTER CARMEN RODRIGUEZ II. Minimum Redevelopme�it., to ;:uos...dy Option St. Johns Community Outreach FATHER MIKE WALSH An option to the City Co'i. nc i t is to issue the RFP and St. John's Seminary to require that the sele:ted developer meet minimum ADVISORY BOARD redevelopment law very �:. �,�,- and Tow- income RON L. HERTEL requirements. This assumes no redevelopment Hertel Constructors subsidy is involved. Thelef:)re, the developer would AL ZAPANTA Atlantic R�cnfield offset the cost of suh.:s -_ i,. zi:zg tae :T.inimum number of Company units on the balance ':f e rl -r} �,, --ate units. RICHARD McNISH Strathmore Homes Product Mix EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR gODNE" E. FERNANDEZ • 3 very low- income f Dr- . a .E:- -in.: i s • 5 low- income for -sale ,.n.ts • 42 market rate for - 3al' it i� s ON.- A 'Jn teo N.. ,oe- r r• Ecuai � A comrnunity economic aevei�. irnc or ,; , s , ter *.ur I _ -_ . Subsidy Costs and Offset: • 3 very low x $76,666 = $229,998 • 5 low x $30,000 = $150,000 Total subsidy offset = $179,998 Average subsidy offset 42 uni ($379,998 divided by 4_: ur, -its Projected 3 bedroom pr---::ing = cost + 10% profit of c 6. 0' offset) Projected 4 bedroom pz:.__1Lg = cost + profit of $li,C'0 - _., -s at $9,047 per unit $185,000 ($160,000 $9,000 subsidy $196,000 ($170,000 000 subsidy offset) III. Marginal Gain /Cost of rui Subsidy Option Since the City Counci_ can obtain units at no cost to the Agency, in chooses to use its redevelopment subsidy, i-- is actually only gaining the difference in _ni bsttaesn the fully subsidized option and -he- r� subsidy option. This results in the fol i ow, c-: Product Mix: • 15 very low- income un_ El - 3 very low units = 12 units • 15 low units - 5 low :i.ts = 10 units Total marcinal gain = 22 units Therefore, the Agency ,icuid ce earmarking $1.6 million for an effect -,e net of 22 units. The per unit subsidy then 1oec .neE $7: , 727 per unit. IV. Alternative Very Low- ;ncome '-%ption The CEDC is proposing de %,,- -lop with the Agency at least 50 units of vez_ -,,,w- income rental housing. The average per unit -)F,, :f '-oval subsidy would be $32,000 -er unit. In closing, there is a jre -ater neec, in the community for very low- income rental not: -inq. -he CEDC recommends that the Agency not sink L -s __:imit:ed redevelopment subsidies into for sale pr-ducts. The cost effectiveness of a future e '_' lc��j- income rental unit is greater by over 100% over ~he mazjinal cost of a for - sale unit ($3,.,000 per ur 7 per unit).