Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/85 MINUTES RA MINUTES BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING -- NOVEMBER 13, 1985 The regular meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Agency Member James J. Barton on Wednesday, November 13, 1985 at 5:05pm in the City Hall Council Chambers. The Secretary called the roll as follows: MEMBERS PRESENT: James Barton James Childs J.M. Christensen Mark Dickerson Rollie Moore MINUTES: October MEMBERS ABSENT: Donald Ratty Art Rockoff Upon a motion made by Agency Member Barton, the minutes of 23, 1985 were approved as presented. SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS Mr. Phil Bently, representing A.B. Dick, 1200-18th Street, Mr. Marvin Lipco, representing Allen's Kern Jewelry, 1209-19th Street, and Mr. Kenny Reed, representing Guthries, 1524 Wall Street made sta- tements regarding God's House of Prayer and Facilities and the prob- lems that may arise if this facility is approved in Downtown. They indicated opposition to the project as proposed. Mr. Robin Ablin, representing Ablin-Kalssen Co., 2021 Westwind Drive and Mr. Ronald L. Scheidt, Chairman of the Board, Community First Bank, 1810 Chester Avenue made statements regarding Center City Office Commercial Development. Mr. Ben Benton made a public statement regarding City plans and development. He indicated the inaction of the Agency was causing the further deterioration of Downtown. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was received by Councilman Rollie Moore, dated October 30, 1985 from Mr. Peter P. Mosesian, regarding County of Kern Administrative Building and Public Services Building at 1000 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A motion was made by Agency Member Moore to receive and refer to staff for response motion was approved. A petition was received from downtown business owners and employees reflecting seventy-five signatures regarding their opposi- tion to the God's House of Prayer and Facilities. A motion was made by Agency Member Moore to receive and file. The motion was approved. REPORTS 1. Commercial Rehabilitation in the Downtown David Lyman, Associate Planner, Economic Development Department gave an update on the Commercial Rehabilitation Activities in the Central City. Mr. Lyman indicated that the Facade Improvement Program is a joint effort between the City of Bakersfield and the Downtown Business Association, and is now in its second year. During that time 20 store fronts in the downtown area have been improved. NEW BUSINESS 1. Amendment to Redevelopment Agency Approved Budget A motion was made by Agency Member Dickerson to defer item F.1 to the next Redevelopment Agency meeting. The motion was defeated by the following vote: Ayes: Dickerson, Christensen Noes: Moore, Childs, Barton Absent: Ratty and Rockoff Upon a motion made by Agency Member Childs, a motion to approve item F.1 on the agenda was approved. 2. Development Standards For God's House of Prayer A motion made by Agency Member Dickerson to defer action on this application and refer it back to the Design Review Board was approved. A motion made by Agency Member Childs for a five minute recess was approved unanimously at 5:56 p.m. The meeting was again called to order at 6:00 p.m. -2- 3. Center City Office Commercial Development Deputy City Manager Mary Strenn gave a report on the back- ground of this project. Ms. Strenn informed the Agency that in August 1985, a Request for Proposals was mailed to various local developers. Of all the responses into consideration. Project A is square feet of office space, with received, three proposals were taken basically a project of 160,000 retail/commercial on the ground parking spaces. K & L Streets. ject. floor. It is about one-half block oriented to 18th Street between K & L Streets. It includes a parking structure with retail on the first floor of that parking structure. The retail is located on the 19th Street frontage. That parking structure would have about 545 That project is basically located on 19th between The proposal would amount to about a $15,000,000 pro- The project that is listed as Project B is basically an office project of 134,000 square feet in the first phase and 68,000 square feet in the second phase. Of that, there is a total of about 24,000 feet of retail in the first phase. The parking structure is located on the block bounded by K & L, 19th and 18th Streets. It includes a full block of parking with two levels of parking amounting to around 600 parking spaces. Both phases of this project is approx- imately $25,000,000. Project C that was considered, is an office project of approx- imately 130,000 square feet. It consist of an eleven story office building on the corner of 17th & L Streets. There are about 250 park- ing spaces on site. That would be accomplished by 170 spaces being underground and 80 on the surface. An additional 70 parking spaces must be provided on some other site. The developer had anticipated that the City will develop a parking deck across the street. A com- mercial bank is proposed for the first floor of this project. The projects were evaluated on the basis of three things. One was a quantitative analysis; basically how much its going to cost, not only the City, but how much it is going to cost the developer. Is it feasible and bankable? Financial Consultant. This analysis was done by the Agency's -3- The second criteria that was used was to look at the project relative to what it was going to do for the surrounding area, since there was Agency money in it, and since the City was going into a most difficult area, the whole purpose was to have some secondary impact to take place. That is one of the reasons that the City is stressing the 19th Street Corridor. It was looked at from the point of view of other buildings being constructed next to the development. Is it something that is going to cause some kind of activity? Is it going to be something that provides parking facilities to the surrounding buildings that are in relatively good shape but are in need of parking? The third criteria that was used was experience of the deve- loper. Experience in a variety of things, but also experience with doing this type of project. Based on this criteria, staff is recommending the Coleman Company project, which is identified as Project A. The recommendation is made because it is the greatest dollar gain to the Agency, it is in the correct place, the one that was closest to our request for propos- als thus reflecting what the City was looking for. The Coleman Company is the most experienced firm with a strong financial backing. Ms. Strenn also commented that total support for the project should occur because it is very important that the process and the project be a success. Agency Member Moore asked what input was received or exchanged with the property owners, specifically from Community First and the Haberfelde Building. Economic Development Director Dave Kennon responded that the City contacted a number of the major property owners, including the owner of the Kress Building and several of the other property owners adjacent to the property site. Agency Member Moore asked if any of the contacts were going to be tenants or in any way a part in this project. Dave Kennon replied that there was no indication from any of the business owners contacted that they have intentions of becoming tenants in the new development. -4- Agency Member Childs asked of Ms. Strenn what she meant by indicating that when a developer is selected they should get the com- plete support of the Redevelopment Agency. Deputy City Manager Mary Strenn explained that when the City sends out Request for Proposals there is much energy and time devoted on the part of the developers to submit projects that they hope are going to be feasible. Mr. Childs indicated that he understood Ms. Strenn's state- ment to mean that the Redevelopment Agency would automatically approve staff made a recommendation. the developer after Ms. Strenn Mr. Childs indicated indicated Agency agrees on a developer, that is not what she meant. that he is in complete support when the that the Agency, as partners with that developer, will do everything possible to expedite the completion of a project. He wants the developer to understand that once staff makes a recommendation that nothing is finalized until the Agency adopts the recommendation. He just wants the developer to be assured that there are no wrong signals or messages received. He asked if the a repre- sentative from the Coleman Company was here and if the Coleman Company was of the impression that their project has already been selected. Ms. Strenn stressed that is not what was stated and that is not what was brought to the Coleman Company. Mr. Childs asked when information is released to the news media? City Manager George Caravalho responded to this question by stating that the material is public as soon as the Agenda Packet is released. Agency Member Dickerson pointed to a mathematical error on the proposal for Project C, which is $100,000 less than reflected on the Staff Report Analysis. Agency Member Dickerson also asked about the $1.6 million dollar piece of property being valued at half. Mr. Kennon explained that the function of the Agency in this particular proposal is to acquire the site and make that site available -5- for development. That site is worth approximately $1.6 million dollars. The developer, in order to do the project cannot afford that amount for the site and have an economic project. (And that is true of all the proposals.) City Manager George Caravalho said that the theory of rede- velopment and tax increment financing is such that without some kind of infusion of monies from the Agency, these projects will not materialize. In order for a project to move ahead in most cases, the Agency goes in and assembles the property and provides the land for that project in order for it to economically competitive with other projects outside of redevelopment areas. Without the infusion of pub- lic monies, whether its in participation in parking, or other kinds of improvements, these projects will not work economically, and the bot- tom line being that he has to come up with a dollar per square foot lease that is competitive in the market. That's how it will work. It's a very complicated, technical process and maybe what would help some of the members of the Council would be to spend a few hours in a workshop and go through this entire process so that the Council Members will feel more comfortable in making a decision. Mr. Dickerson then asked how many parking spaces are required for each project. Asked what formula is being used to determine the need for parking. Mr. Kennon replied that the formula used is three (3) spaces per thousand and all developers indicated in their proposals that they would provide this. Mr. Dickerson asked how the outstanding bond on the American National Bank building will be paid off. Mr. Kennon replied that it is included in the $1.6 million dollar value. The debt would be retired by the Agency. The $1.6 mil- lion includes the outstanding debt and the equity of the A.N.B. building. Mr. Dickerson indicated that he was not ready to vote on this project until he has further review. Three reasons: One is the one- half million dollars, because plugging this into the figures, Project "C" seems to be $575,000 net gain to the Agency and $408,000 for the -6- Coleman Project. Second consideration is parking space in downtown is not adequate. concerned that if we are going to eradicate 19th Street, or area that is blighted, rather than build parking structures, to build these buildings and level the land around them and that three per thousand Third consideration, he is any other we ought use it for parking. It will be more expensive in the beginning, but we will be able to take advantage of clearing a larger segment of land than building these individual projects and plugging the parking into them. He feels, especially now that he found an error in the arithmetic in Proposal "C", and the discussion on the $500,000. Mr. Christensen asked about the Ablin-Klassen Company and the Mosesian Company relative the one-half million dollar offer. Mr. Kennon replied that the Ablin-Klassen proposal is in effect asking for a $2.8 million dollar land write-down and the Proposal "C" is asking to pay nothing for the land. In this proposal they are asking to be granted a long term ground lease that would amount to $1,000.00 a month payment for the land. The Coleman Company proposal, is making a $500,000.00 land payment is by far the most gen- in this regard. Christensen also asked why they must act on this, this erous offer, Mr. evening? Mr. some details about Mr. Moore meeting next week. Caravalho replied to this question by saying that this was not an urgent recommendation. Staff did as requested by the Agency by sending Requests for Proposals to developers for a project, the proposals were received by the City, and being presented to the Agency and now it's up to the Agency to act and make a decision. Mr. Christensen made a motion that this item be postponed for one week so that the Agency Members will have an opportunity to learn this. indicated that the Agency is not scheduled for a Mr. Christensen amended his motion to consider this item dur- ing the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Moore followed-up on Mr. Caravalho's comments to offer to the Agency the philosophy that we used in the Land Banking process -7- to assemble some property in the area that we had a concern about, primarily the blighted area of 19th Street, and as part of that, it wasn't that it would be unnecessarily a profit making venture for the City, but it was to enable and enhance that we could start to have something happen in an area that we were so concerned about and that is the philosophy of land banking and why we have proceeded where we are today. He feels very encouraged and thinks that each one of these companies, Ablin-Klassen, Mosesian and Coleman all should be commended for coming forward to do something in the downtown area, and espe- cially on the eastside of Chester. Time is important, staff has spent a lot of time, and in his mind he feels staff had done an admirable job of their review and they have selected, what to him is the best project, and with that he offers as a substitute motion that we direct staff to begin negotiations of the selected developer for the purpose of completing the preliminary conceptual plans for the project and draft a DDA outlining the project item. Mr. Childs expressed that he is in favor of the motion, but the City Manager has indicated that there is no urgency in approving this tonight. Is there any why we can call a special meeting for next week. He supports a delay in the meeting until next week. Will we be willing to defer any action until next week? Mr. Moore replied, as maker of the substitute motion, agreed to delay until the following week. Mr. Dickerson indicated support of a special meeting for the following week, and does not support the substitute motion. Mr. Caravalho indicated that there is no scheduled meeting for the following week and suggested that this meeting be continued to a specific time. Mr. Childs asked the maker of the motion if this meeting could be continued to Wednesday, November 20th at 5:00pm. The substitute motion made by Mr. Moore was defeated by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Agency Members Barton and Moore Agency Members Childs, Christensen and Dickerson Agency Member Ratty -8- The original motion, that we direct staff to begin negotia- tions of the selected developer for the purpose of completing the pre- liminary conceptual plans for the project and draft a DDA outlining the project item was amended by the maker to continue this meeting on November 20, 1985, at 5:00 P.M. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Dickerson made a motion to adjourn this meeting to 5:00pm next Wednesday, November 20, 1985. Mr. Childs made a substitute motion to defer Item 3 to the end of the Agenda. This motion was approved to defer Item 3, Center City 4. Office Commercial Development to Wednesday, November 20th. Selection of Financial Consultants for Proposed Convention Center Hotel Financing Mr. Childs made a motion to approve the retention of of Stone & Youngberg as Bond Financial Consultants. This motion was unanimously carried. H. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Childs made a motion to adopt items 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Consent Calendar. This motion was unanimously approved. I. ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion made by Agency Member Childs to recess the Redevelopment Agency meeting to 5:00pm on Wednesday, November 20, 1985, the motion was unanimously approved and recessed at 6:00pm. the /~Bar~O~~, Secretary ker~fl'e~' Redevelopment Agency Chairman Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency -9-