HomeMy WebLinkAboutAG RPTS 1996 1204 RDA REG oPMEN,.40
ESTABLISHED
* MARCH 18.19$? * Resolution No. 96-50
MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
4 qaI�O�I 4et� REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
CM' OF µ WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1996
7:00 P.M.
Moorpark Community Center 799 Moorpark Avenue
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
3. PUBLIC COMMENT:
4. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ROLL CALL VOTE)
A. Consider Approval of Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Moorpark
Redevelopment Agency of November 6, 1996.
Consider Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Moorpark
Redevelopment Agency of November 6, 1996.
Staff Recommendation: Approve the minutes as processed.
5. PRESENTATIONS/ACTION/DISCUSSION:
A. Consider Proposals for Development of Gisler Field Housing Project.
Staff Recommendation: That Alternate No. 6 be accepted and that the
staff be authorized to proceed with a negotiated project for the
development of Gisler Field with the developers listed above.
B. Consider 1) Granting/Accepting Property for Poindexter Park and for a
Street Along the Westerly Boundary of Said Park; and 2) Gravel Road
Maintenance for Poindexter Park. Staff Recommendation: Approve granting
to the City of Moorpark certain property known as Poindexter Park and
the future street to be constructed adjacent thereto.
6. ADJOURNMENT:
Any member of the public may address the Agency during the Public Comments portion
of the Agenda, unless it is a Public Hearing or Presentations/Action/Discussion item.
Speakers who wish to address the Agency concerning a Public Hearing or Presentations/
Action/ Discussion item must do so during the Public Hearing or Presentations/
Action/Discussion portion of the Agenda for that item. Speaker cards must be
received by the Secretary for Public Comment prior to the beginning of the Public
Comments portion of the meeting and for Presentations/Action/Discussion items prior
to the beginning of the first item of the Presentations/ Action/Discussion portion
of the Agenda. Speaker Cards for a Public Hearing must be received prior to the
beginning of the Public Hearing. A limitation of three minutes shall be imposed upon
each Public Comment and Presentations/Action/Discussion item speaker. 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 Secretary/529-6864.
CITY OF MOORPARK
COUNTY OF VENTURA ) ss
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
I, Dorothy J. Vandaveer, duly appointed Deputy City Clerk of
the City of Moorpark, County of Ventura, State of
California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that
I posted a copy of the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency agenda
on November 27, 1996 for the regular meeting of December 4,
1996 at the following location:
Moorpark Community Center
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, California 93021
Said notice remained in place so that it was available for
public review for at least 72 hours prior to the meeting
pursuant to Section 54954 et. seq. of the California
Government Code .
:7
Dorothy Vandaveer, Deputy City Clerk
Dated: December 30, 1996
,6 4 •
MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Chairman and Members of the Moorpark Redevelopment
Agency
FROM: Steven Hayes, Economic Development /Redevelopment
Manager
DATE: November 14, 1996 (Mtg. 11/20/96)
SUBJECT: Consider Proposals for Development of Gisler Field
Housing Project
On April 17, 1996, the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (the Agency)
rejected the bids for the Gisler Field Housing Project submitted by
Group Meeker and West Venture Companies as being non - responsive to
the Request for Bids. This project was referred to the Economic
Development /Affordable Housing Committee, Councilmembers Bernardo
Perez and Eloise Brown, (the Committee) for further review and
recommendation. On June 26, 1996, the Committee met to review the
proposals and report by staff. The Committee made no
recommendation and suggested that the staff report be presented to
the Agency for consideration.
On July 2, 1996, the Agency received the staff report and
recommended that an RFP be released and that the proposals provide
that the Agency receive 8 of the 50 lots for development and that
there be no minimum bid requirement. (See attached report dated
June 26, 1996.)
On October 18, 1996, the Agency received 2 bids for the development
of Gisler Field housing project. The bids were submitted by
Braemar Urban Ventures and Catellus Residential Group. The
following is an analysis of the bids received:
BRAEMAR
1. Total no. of units: 50
2. No. of restricted units: 8
3. No. of market rate units: 42
1
UOUS
I
4.
Unit size Price
ranU
2.
1,250 sq. ft.
$155,000
3.
1,500 sq. ft.
167,000
4.
1,750 Sq. ft.
180,000
5.
Purchase Price of land:
825,000
6.
Fees for 8 Agency units:
(184,000)
7.
Cost to construct 8 units:
(479,040)
8.
10% administrative fees:
(47,904)
9.
Agency cost for construction
of 8 units, less land revenue:
114,056
(Line 5 less lines 6, 7, and 8)
(1,873,885)
10.
Five units for low income
@ $100,000 per unit:
500,000
11.
Three units for very
low income @ $85,000 per unit:
255,000
12.
Total income to Agency
when units are sold:
869,056
(Lines 9 + 10 + 11)
CATELLUS
1.
Total no. of units:
50
2.
No. of restricted units:
8
3.
No. of market rate units:
42
4.
Unit „gigg Price
range
1,400 sq. ft. $
170,000
1,550 sq. ft.
180,000
1,700 Sq. ft.
190,000
5.
Purchase Price of land:
700,000
6.
Cost to construct 8 Agency
units plus fees and
administration:
(1,873,885)
7.
Agency cost for construction
of 8 units, less land revenue:
(1,173,885)
(Line 5 less line 6)
2
VW010
8. Five units for low income
@ $100,000 per unit: 500,000
9. Three units for very low
income @ $85,000 per unit: 255,000
10. Total income to Agency after
units are sold: (418,885)
(Lines 7 + 8 + 9)
10.x!. - �- • . •
1. Land revenue with finished
lots only: $500,000
2. Purchase of 8 pads: (714,800)
3. Net to Agency: (214,800)
If the Braemar proposal is selected, the Agency would receive
approximately $869,056 after the 8 restricted units are sold. The
Catellus proposal would cost the Agency an additional $418,885 with
completed restricted units.
In comparison, West Venture Companies previously submitted a bid
with and without Habitat for Humanity (H.H.). The bid without H.H.
participation provided about the same profit to the Agency.
This previous bid provides the Agency with $950,000 profit when
$80,000 is considered for H.H. fees. It is estimated that the fees
for H.H. portion would be about $16,000 per unit. H.H. indicated
that they would consider up to $6,000 per unit in fees with free
improved lots.
•
1. The subject property is zoned RPD -15, which would allow
up to 123 units to be constructed. This site is being
restricted to low density (50 units only).
2. Concerns over the impacts on residences in Moorpark
Estates have shaped the design and scope of this project
to include but not limited to the following: single
family, single story along west wall, masonry wall to
3
�0OW 1
match the commercial wall along the west property line,
masonry walls along all exterior lot lines, range of
1,100 to 16,000 square feet with 2 car garage (400 sq.
ft.), 1 to 2 -1/2 baths, minimum of 3 bedrooms and front
yard landscaped with irrigation.
3. The market value of the land may be less than $1,500,000.
4. There is a high cost to remove and recompact the soils on
site.
5. There are high costs involved in the subsidy required to
qualify low and very low income families ($72,000 to
$75,000 per unit).
6. There are significant fees to be paid ($23,000 ± per
lot) .
There are several alternatives to this project which are:
1. Increase the density which may include senior housing or
some other combination of residential land uses, such as
town homes, duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes.
2. Accept the Braemar proposal with a net to the Agency of
$869,056 with 5 Low and 3 Very Low income units.
3. Accept less than $1,500,000 for sale of the property.
It's the opinion of staff that if this or any other
option is allowed, the Council /Agency should develop a
formal policy on implementation of MRA law requiring 15%
of the project for low and moderate housing. The policy
should consider a lesser Low and Very Low requirement
based on the number of units sold at or below the county
median income level. For example, if ten (10 ) units sold
at or below the median income level but above the Low
level, the developer would get credit for one (1) Low or
Very Low unit.
4. Provide fewer or no Very Low income or Low income housing
units.
4
OW1014
5, Leave the land vacant until other options are developed
or an unsolicited adequate proposal is made for its
development.
6. Allow selected developers to conduct negotiations with
staff to determine the scope of development that would
yield the maximum return to the Agency. Developers
recommended for the negotiation of this project are;
Braemar, Colmer Development, West Ventures, Cabrillo
Economic Development Corporation. These developers
submitted prior proposals that were generally responsive
but not acceptable.
If this approach is determined to be appropriate, staff
recommends allowing the negotiated project to be limited
only by the approved density (15 per acre) and require 15
percent of the units to be Low or Moderate (L &M) income
units with 40 percent of the 15 percent of the L &M for
Very Low income units.
Staff recommends that alternate no. 6 above be accepted and that
staff be authorized to proceed with a negotiated project for the
development of Gisler field with the developers listed above.
Ct \M \SGISLER \SGIMIS- 06/24/96- MOvember 26, 1996
5
woola
= N C OM E L= M= T S
B Y
PERSCJNS =N IFAM=LY
CC7UNTY OF VENTURA
Table applicable for Fiscal Year 1996/1997
5GH-IACOlII,Il1-1- /24/94
MOORPARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Chairman and Members of the Moorpark Redevelopment
Agency
FROM: Steven Hayes, Redevelopment Manager
DATE: June 26, 1996 (Mtg. 07/02/96)
SUBJECT: Consider Proposals for Development of Gisler Field
Housing Project
yi ; •
On April 17, 1996, the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency (the Agency)
rejected the bids for the Gisler Field Housing Project submitted by
Group Meeker and West Venture Companies as being non responsive to
the Request for Bids. This project was referred back to the
Economic Development /Affordable Housing Committee, Councilmembers
Bernardo Perez and Eloise Brown, (the Committee) for further review
and recommendation. On June 26, 1996, the Committee met to review
the proposals and report by staff. The Committee made no
recommendation and suggested that the staff report be presented to
the Agency for consideration.
DISCUSSION
Attached is a spreadsheet showing a comparison of development
proposals submitted by three developers. The bids by Cabrillo
Economic Development Corporation (CEDC) and West Venture Companies
(W.V.) are outlined as follows:
1. The CEDC provides for thirty -six (36) low and very low
units with a land value of $1,000,000. The Agency would
be required to provide $1,080,000 financing in the form
of seconds for the low and very low units at an average
of $30,000 per unit. The seconds would be in place until
the units changed title. If the developer were to find
HOME or other additional funding the cost to the Agency
would be reduced.
1
2. The West Venture Companies submitted a bid with and
without Habitat for Humanity (H.H.). The bid without
H.H. participation provided about the same profit to the
Agency.
This bid provides the Agency with $950,000 profit when
$80,000 is considered for H.H. fees. It is estimated
that the fees for H.H. portion would be about $16,000.
H.H. indicated that they would consider up to $6,000 in
fees with free improved lots.
The Braemar proposal was for $125,000 less and would leave the
development of the restricted units to the Agency.
An alternate to that which has been proposed by the developers at
this time is for Agency to put out a request for proposals with no
minimum bid at the 50 unit level with 42 at market rate and 8
finished lots given to the Agency for development. The Request for
Proposal could also contain bid specifications for the development
of the 8 lots owned by the Agency as an individual line item.
Staff recommends that the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency authorize
staff to proceed with a Request for Proposal for the purchase of
Gisler Field with no minimum bid requirements at the 50 unit level
with 42 at market rate and 8 finished lots given to the Agency for
development. Furthermore, staff recommends that the proposals also
contain bid specifications for the development of the 8 lots owned
by the Agency as an individual line item.
C: \H \HGI$LER \3GHHO15- 06/24/96- November 14, 1996
Gisler Field Housing Proposals
Under Braemar: (1) Agency will be paid through close of units escrow.
(2) Fees deffered to close of escrow.
(3) Agency will receive vacant lots.
(1)
CEDC
W.V.
W.V. & H.H.
BRAEMAR
Number of Units:
50
50
50
50
Very Low
3
3
8
Low
33
5
0
0
Moderate
14
42
42
42
Vacant Lot Provided
to Agency:
0
0
0
8
Land Profit
$1,000,000
$950,000
$1,029,000
$825,000
Agency Financing:*
($1,080,000)
$0
$0
$0
H.H. FEES
$0
$0
($80,000)
$0
Agency profit
($80,000)
$950,000
$949,000
$825,000
Number of Units:
50
0
0
60
Very Low
3
0
0
0
Low
47
0
0
0
Moderate
0
0
0
51
Vacant Lot Provided
to Agency:
0
0
0
9
Land Profit
$1,000,000
$0
$0
$1,000,000
Agency Financing:*
($1,500,000)
$0
$0
$0
Agency profit
($500,000)
$0
$0
$0
Number of Units:
0
0
0
70
Very Low
0
0
0
0
Low
0
0
0
0
Moderate
0
0
0
59
Vacant Lots Provided
to Agency:
0
0
0
22
Land Profit
$0
$0
$0
$1,150,000
Under Braemar: (1) Agency will be paid through close of units escrow.
(2) Fees deffered to close of escrow.
(3) Agency will receive vacant lots.
(1)
VV���,$
'The
04 Braemar
Group
30495 Canwood Street,
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
818/ 889 -4;302
FAX 8181 9-91-6728
November 25, 1996
City of Moorpark
Atm.: Mr. Steve Hayes
Economic Development/Redevelopment Manager
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
SUBJECT: AGENCY REVIEW OF THE GISLER FIELD PROPOSALS
Dear Mr. Hayes;
It is my understanding that the Moorpark Redevelopment Agency will be reviewing the
proposals submitted by developer for the Gisler Field project submitted in response to the
Agency's Request For Bids to purchase and develop the eight (8) acre site located on the
south side of Poindexter Avenue. Please find attached to this correspondence a
Compliance Criteria Checklist which will reiterate and summarize Braemar Urban
Ventures' proposal response and hopefully demonstrate how the terms of our proposal is
in direct compliance with the Agency's goals as set forth in the Request for Bids.
Ultimately, Braemar is aware that the Gisler Field property represents an opportunity to
provide both affordable and first time buyers with a new housing resource in the City of
Moorpark. Based on our experience in public /private ventures, we firmly believe that our
proposal as submitted provides for a cost efficient and financially feasible bid.
Please review the attached material and feel free to contact either myself or Anna -Lisa
Hernandez at (818)889 -6302 at extensions 117 and 134 respectively.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
/Avi Brosh
The Braemar Group
Executive Vice President
AB:Alh
c: Lew Maler
Sidney Dinow
John H. Cornish
Anna -Lisa Hernandez
GISLER FIELD
Braemar Urban Ventures Proposal
Nnvem hPr 7 5 199Fi
Criteria Description
Density: A maximum of fifty
(50) units are permitted on the
site, eight (8) of which are
required for affordable housing
Building Massing: The Agency
has specified that only one -story
units are to be constructed along
the western property line.
Poindexter Access to the Park:
A north south street is to be
provided directly west of the park
site.
Landscape Setback. A landscape
setback is to be provided along
the north project boundary and
the proposed north south street:
Block Walls: Six foot high block
walls will be required along the
north, south and west project
boundaries.
Dwelling Unit Orientation: Lots
cannot front or have access from
Poindexter Avenue and the
proposed north south street
adjacent to the park.
Development Requirements:
Proposal is to comply with
setback, 1,400 square foot
dwelling unit size, 400 square
foot garage.
Method of Compliance
BUV is proposing a maximum of
fifty units, eight (8) of which are
proposed to be built on behalf of
the Agency for very low and low
income homebuyers.
BUV is proposing a California
Bungalow architectural style for
the project site. We have
provided a streetscape which
includes one -story product
elevations in the necessary
locations.
BUV is proposing a forty foot
road to provide access to both the
adjacent park and the proposed
residential project.
BUV is proposing an enhanced
landscape setback along
Poindexter. In addition, a tree
canopy will provide a buffer
between the park activities and
the residential site.
BUV is proposing block walls
along the north, south and west
project boundaries from the
existing residential and
commercial uses.
BUV is proposing a traditional
cul -de -sac layout for the fifty lots.
None of the dwelling units are to
orient toward either street.
BUV is proposing unit sizes
with an average of 1500 square
with 400 square foot attached
garages. Setback standards and
other Development Code
requirements shall comply with
the adopted City of Moorpark
standards.
Comments
The Site Plan provided in the
proposal shows a configuration of
no more than fifty (50)
residential lots.
Achieved
See Streetscape Elevation in BUV
proposal.
Achieved
The streetscape will be further
enhanced with a canopy of trees.
Compliance Achieved
See Proposed Site Plan in BUV
submittal package.
C
Achieved
See Proposed Site Plan in BUV
submittal package.
Achieved
See Proposed Site Plan and
Streetscape Elevation in BUV
submittal package.
Achieved
GISLER FIELD
Braemar Urban Ventures Proposal
Continued
Criteria Description
Method of Compliance
Comments
Fee Requirements
Fees: Developer is expected to
BUV is proposing to pay all such
Please refer to Section 2.2. Terms
pay all City development fees:
fees, however, is proposing the
of the Proposal for additional
Quimby, Building and
deferment of such payment of
details.
Engineering, Planning, City
fees until close of escrow of the
Wide Traffic Mitigation,
homes.
Assessment District fees, etc.
Compliance Achieved
Affordable Units: The Agency
Eight (8) lots will be delivered
Please refer to Section 2.2. Terms
has specified that "at least 15
free and clear in a graded state
of the Proposal for additional
percent of all new dwelling units
for development of the affordable
details.
developed within a project area
units by the Agency. In addition,
shall be available at affordable
BUV is proposing to provide Fee
housing costs to persons and
Developer services to the Agency
families of low or moderate
in order to ensure the
income shall be available at
construction of these homes.
affordable housing costs to very
low income households."
Compliance Achieved
k rl 5's is a
iTE, 6 1 -
No Agenda Report has
been provided in the
packet for this item,,
aaaaIS