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-