HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 24, 2007 PropertyRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON
PROPERTY COMMITTEE
(COMMISSIONERS MARION ASHLEY, ROBIN LOWE,
BOB MAGEE, JOHN TAVAGLIONE, ROY WILSON)
1:00 P.M.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
CONFERENCE ROOM A
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon „Street, 3rd: Floor, Riverside, 9250.1
and
4th District, Riverside ;County (Teleconference Site)
73-7.10 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222, Palm Desert, 92260
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the
Agenda after making a ` finding that there is a need to take immediate
action on the item and that the item came to . the attention of the
Committee subsequent to the posting of the ,agenda. An action adding
an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. If there are
less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the
agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for
discussion at the end of the agenda.)
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 27, 2006.
11.36.09
Riverside County Transportation Commission
Property Committee Agenda
May 24, 2007
5. AWARD AN . EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT FOR JOINT
DEVELOPMENT AT THE RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION
TO THE ALAN MRUVKA COMPANY DBA BLUE SQUARE DEVELOPMENT
GROUP
PAGE 1
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Award Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) No 07-67-154-00
for Joint Development at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink
Station to The Alan Mruvka Company dba Blue Square
Development Group; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Commission.:
6. APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
PERRIS VALLEY PIPELINE AND THE PROVISION OF A SUBSTITUTE
EASEMENT
PAGE 10
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve a Memorandum of , Understanding : (MOU)
No. 07-33-155-00 with Metropolitan Water District for ` the,
construction of the Perris Valley Pipeline in the. San Jacinto Branch
Line Rail Right -of -Way and for Provision of a Substitute Easement;
and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel ";(Adorno, Yoss,
Alvarado, & Smith) review, to execute the MOU on behalf of the
Commission.
CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9 (a)..
• Case Nos. RSC 393352, RSC 386642 and RIC 352391
8. ADJOURNMENT
PROPERTY COMMITTEE
COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET
MAY 24, 2007
NAME
OGi
Oy VilLS ON
AGE CY
L?1
Qc s+n; y via
E MAIL ADDRESS
e,1 e-con �ier�c.�.
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PROPERTY COMMITTEE'
November 27, 2006
Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Marion Ashley called the meeting to order at 12:32 p.m., on Monday,
November 27, 2006, at the Riverside County Transportation Commission's
Office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, California 92501.
Commissioners. Present Commissioners Absent
Marion Ashley
Robin Lowe
Bob Magee
Roy Wilson .
John Tavaglione
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
3. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no additions or revisions to the agenda.
4. CLOSED SESSION
Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54956.8
Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director[ or Designee
Property Owners = See List of Property Owners
Item
APN
Owner
1
247-150-008
247-150-009
247-150:-01 1
Desai Family Limited Partnership and
Rajendra/Anand Desai
2
342-240-013
342-240-014
342-240-015
Arlene D. Griffith et. al.
There were no announcements from Closed Session items.
RCTC Property Committee Minutes
November 27, 2006
Page 2
5. ADJOURNMENT
There being : no other items to be considered,
meeting adjourned at 1:04 a.m.
the Property Committee
Respectfully submitted;
1�
Jennifer Harrnon
Clerk of the Board
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
May 24, 2007
TO:
Property Corhmittee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs 'Director
THROUGH: =.
Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director `
SUBJECT:
Award an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for Joint Development
at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station to The Alan Mruvka
Company dba Blue Square Development Group
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is 'for: the Committee to:
1) Award 'Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) No. 07-67-154-00 for
Joint Development at the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station to .
The Alan Mruvka Company dba Blue Square Development Group; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel -:review, to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
At its April 2006 meeting, the Commission authorized staff to work with the city of
Riverside to develop a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)/Request for Proposals (RFP)
for Joint Development at the Riverside-Downtown-Metrolink Station. Working- in
close coordination with the city of Riverside -Redevelopment ' and Planning, staff
developed -the RFQ and RFP..-
Selection Process
The RFQ was released on 'April 13, 2006 with a mailing to 115 interested parties.
The RFP was also posted on the agency website and public notices were
advertised in the Press -Enterprise, Orange County Register, and Los Angeles Times.
The Commission received eight Statements of Qualifications (SOO) by: the deadline
of May 12, 2006: -
• BRE Properties•
Forest City
•3 Blue Square Development. Group & RNM Design
❖ Lincoln -Property Company
+ Floyd Company
Agenda Item 5,
Dynasty Land Development
Phelps Development & Lankford & Associates
Niemann Properties, Inc & Polis Builders, LTD
Dynasty Land Development _withdrew its submission from consideration prior to
review by the Evaluation Committee. The remaining SOQs were reviewed by the
Evaluation :Committee comprised. of representatives from the city- .of Riverside-
Planning, city of Riverside -Redevelopment, the Southern California. Regional :Rail
Authority, and Commission: , staff; Chief : Financial Officer and Right=of-Way
Manager. The Evaluation Committee pre -qualified five firms out of the seven for an
invitation to propose. The five pre -qualified firms, identified ;below, wereinvited on
July 14, 2006 to submit a Joint Development proposal for the Riverside -Downtown
Metrolink Station Site.
• BRE Properties', : Inc
Forest City'Development
❖ Blue Square Development Group & RNM Design
Niemann Properties, Inc & Polis Builders, LTD '
❖ Phelps Development "& Lankford & Associates .
All teams were . represented at the. non -mandatory pre=proposalmeetin9. held
July 26, 2006. Forest City Development and Niemann Properties Inc. rad`vised that
they would not be submitting proposals prior to the deadline. The 'BRE Properties
proposal was .received, after the deadline, and thus disqualified from further
consideration, was returned to the ;development team. Two development teams,
Blue Square Development and 'Phelps Development', Submitted 1propdsals by the
2:00'p.m. deadline of°September' 14, 2006.
The financial pro-formas ofboth proposals were analyzed . by Keyser Marston and
Associates, a real estate .financial advisor for the Commission through two rounds
of extensive analysis. Interviews of both firms were held on April 20,. 2007: with a
panel consisting of representatives from the city of Riverside -Planning, . city of'.
Riverside-Redevelopment,the Southern California Regional Rail Authority,
Keyser. Marston Associates, and Commission staff, Chief .Financial Officer, and
Right -of -Way Manager.
Evaluation Committee Recommendation
The Evaluation Committee recommends the selection of The. Alan M_ruvka Company
dba Blue Square Development for the ENA at the Riverside -Downtown. Metrolink
Station contingentupon the following:
2
" C o m m i s s i o n s t a f f i s n o t p r e p a r e d t o r e c o m m e n d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n
B o a r d a j o i n t d e v e l o p m e n t p r o p o s a l f o r t h e D o w n t o w n M e t r o l i n k s i t e
t h a t r e l i e s o n a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g :
" c h a r g i n g M e t r o l i n k r i d e r s f o r p a r k i n g .
" t a x i n c r e m e n t f i n a n c i n g f r o m t h e R e d e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y o f t h e
c i t y o f R i v e r s i d e :
" o t h e r p u b l i c f i n a n c i n g m e c h a n i s m s s u c h a s S p e c i a l : A s s e s s m e n t
D i s t r i c t s , C o m m u n i t y f a c i l i t i e s D i s t r i c t s , e t c .
V' T h e . D e v e l o p e r ' s j o i n t d e v e l o p m e n t p r o p o s a l m u s t a b s o r b t h e c o s t o f
t h e 1 , 5 0 0 - s p a c e M e t r o l i n k p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e I t w i l l , b e t h e
D e v e l o p e r ' s . r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o e i t h e r : -
" m o d i f y i t s p r i v a t e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o p o s a l t o i m p r o v e i t s o v e r a l l
f i n a n c i a l f e a s i b i l i t y ; a n d / o r
" s e e k t h i r d - p a r t y f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t h r o u g h s t a t e o r f e d e r a l
p r o g r a m s ,
V' T h e C o m m i s s i o n i s w i l l i n g t o c o n s i d e r d e v e l o p m e n t p r o p o s a l s r e q u i r i n g
t h a t s o m e p o r t i o n o r a l l o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t s i t e i s c o n v e y e d t o t h e
D e v e l o p e r i n f e e .
V' T h e C o m m i s s i o n a n d t h e c i t y o f R i v e r s i d e w i l l : p r o v i d e f e e d b a c k t o t h e
D e v e l o p e r : r e g a r d i n g t h e c u r r e n t p r o j e c t d e s i g n , w h i c h m a y i n c l u d e
m a t t e r s s u c h a s :
" p a r k i n g r a t i o f o r p r i v a t e c o m p o n e n t s
" t r e a t m e n t o f t h e M e t r o l i n k g a r a g e c o m p o n e n t
" o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e c i t y o f R i v e r s i d e w i l l b e
r e q u i r i n g t h a t a c e r t a i n p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e u n i t s b e " f o r s a l e
A l s o , a l l o f t h e a p a r t m e n t s m u s t b e b u i l t p e r c o n d o m i n i u m
s t a n d a r d s .
T h e A l a n M r u v k a C o m p a n y h a s a c c e p t e d t h e _ a b o v e c o n d i t i o n s a s o u t l i n e d i n
A t t a c h m e n t 1 . .
T h e p r o p o s a l s u b m i t t e d b y B l u e S q u a r e D e v e l o p m e n t :
"
"
A g e n d a I t e m 5
I n c o r p o r a t e s a p a r k i n g s t r u c t u r e s u p p o r t i n g t h e f u t u r e p a r k i n g
e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e r a i l s t a t i o n ;
I n c o r p o r a t e s r e t a i l a n d m i x e d h o u s i n g t y p e s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c i t y o f
R i v e r s i d e z o n i n g a n d g e n e r a l p l a n a s w e l l a s a l l o w s e x p a n d e d u s e o f
a d j o i n i n g p r o p e r t i e s o w n e d b y B l u e S q u a r e ; a n d
P r o p o s e s a f i n a n c i a l r e t u r n t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n .
The ENA allows for the Commission ;to negotiate with ;Blue Square Properties. During
the term :of the 'ENA, the. Commission will not approve' any other proposals for the
Riverside -Downtown Station site. Upon execution of : the ENA, Blue Square
Development will be 'required to provide a $25,000 good, faith deposit.
Financial Information
n Fiscal Year Budget:
No
Year:
FY 2006/07
Amount:
$25,000
Source of Funds
Private
Budget Adjustment:,
Yes
GLA No:
1.06'.67-42003 P4001_
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Attachments:
1) Letter from The Alan 'Mruvka Company dated May 2, 2007
2) Excerpt from the 'RCTCStation Joint Development Guidelines
Date:
Agenda Item 5
4
5/21 /07
The. Alan Mruvka Company
May 2, 2007
Stephanie Wiggins
Regional Programs Director.
Riverside County Transportation Commission
P.O. Box 12008
Riverside, CA 92502-2208
Subject: Riverside TOD
Dear Stephanie:
We are responding to your email of April 25, 2007. We are pleased to learn that you
have selected our team's proposal for the development of the land adjacent to the
Riverside Metrolink Station. The purpose of this letter is to confirm our interest to
engage in an ENA with the, RCTC: This letter will also specifically respond to the items
discussed in your email.
The Developer' should enter into. an ENA with RCTC with the following
understandings:
(1) RCTC Staff is not prepared to recommend to the RCTC Board a joint
development proposal for the Downtown Metrolink site that relies on any of
the following:
(a)._ charging Metrolink riders for parking
As you know, the Pro forma submitted -with our proposal assumed
comiriuter parking of $40 per month. The Developer will agree to not
charge the Metrolink riders for parking. This concession will require a
redesign of the site .plan and a revision to the financial structure of the deal
'between the RCTC and the Developer. • We will provide a revised site
plan, Pro forma and deal structure as our next step in the ENA process.
(b) tax increment.; financing from the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Riverside
(c) other public financing mechanisms such as Special Assessment
Districts, Community Facilities Districts, etc.
The Developer will agree to not request grants, _subsidies, tax increments
or other funds from the City of Riverside (the "City") or the RCTC. The
Developerwill likely use some project specific public finance mechanism
to finance all or some portion of the development. However, the City or
the RCTC will not be required to be the issuing authority for any such -
public financing mechanism nor will such fmancing.be' a General
Obligation of the City or the RCTC.
10203 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90067
310..226.8800
5
The Alan Mruvka Company
(2) The Developer's joint development proposal must absorb the cost of
the 1,500-space'Metrolink parking structure. It will be the ..Developer's
responsibility to either:
(a)- modify its private development proposal to improve its overall
financial feasibility; and/or
(b) seek third -party financial assistance through State or Federal
programs.:_
The Developer intends to do both (a) and (b) above in 'order to absorb the
cost of building the Metrolink parking structure.
(3) 'RCTC is willing to consider development proposals requiring thatsome
portion or all of the development site is conveyed to the Developer in fee..
Conveyance of legal title to some or all of the site will likely be necessary in order
to obtain private sector capital to finance the project development cost.
(4) RCTC and the City of Riverside will provide feedback to the Developer
regarding the current project design, which may include matters :such: as::
(a) 'parking .ratio for private components
(b) treatment of the Metrolink garage component
(c) other considerations - Specifically, the City will be requiring that a;
certain percentage of the units be "for sale". Also, all of the
apartments must be built per condominium standards.
The Developer will agree to the above provisions.
Conclusion'
We look forward to continuing'our discussions and negotiations to create a project that is .
beneficial.tOEthe City; the RCTC, and the Developer. Our objective is to create a project
that meets the RCTC's goal to ;promoteAccess to public transit and the City's objectives
for .the_development;of.downtown Riverside that also generattes a return that is adequate
to attract private sector capital to this public/private development. We are flexible and
willing to work within the constraints articulated by the RCTC.
10203 Santa Monica Blvd. Los Angeles,
31 0.226.8800
6
ATTACHMENT 2
Excerpt from .the. ROTC. Station Joint Development Guidelines:
Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
Upon recommendation and approval of the Commission, the Executive
Director may enter :into an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA) with the
selected developer for a period of 180 days or such other . term that is
mutually acceptable to the parties.
A. Requirements of proposer/developer under the ENA:
1. Developer- shall provide the ExecutiveDirector with a "good
faith refundabledeposit," in the amount of $25,000 in the form
- of cash or .certified check or an alternative amount determined
by the Executive :Director or his designee. The =amount shall be
sufficient to cover. reasonable expenses incurred by the RCTC in
carrying out the analysis of the proposal:
2. Developer shall have 120 days to provide the Executive Director
with the following information:
a. A preliminary site plan showing building layout and
dimensions, parking, landscaping' and access:
b Project 4development schedule including milestones for
site control, financing commitments, design and
environmental clearances, entitlements, construction and
completion.
c. Cost ` estimates and : project data for the proposal in
sufficient detail,to permit adequate financial analysis.
d. Evidence of a firm commitment from key managerial
members,or tenants of the proposed -;projects:.
e. A comprehensive List of previous experience in the
specific project area and of Like projects. for both
construction and ,operation of the said . project type, as
well as disclose : full credit and litigation history under
penalty of perjury.
3. ` Evidence of a firm financial plan, including:
a. Evidence of construction financing.
b: Evidence of long-term financing.
c. Evidence of other financial sources necessary to carry out
the project.
Evidence, shall consist of a letter of commitment from a financial
institution or any reasonably acceptable party providing
development capital. The financial plan shallinclude a proforma
-statement , of project return adequate to enable the Commission
to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed project::
Developer shall provide a written offer to the RCTC for fee
purchase of land, purchase of lease rights, or other development.
rights as appropriate to the proposal:
Evidence of control of any properties not :owned by . RCTC 'but
considered essential to the ,project. Evidence shall be in the:
form of fetters of intent from . each of the owners stating
commitment of land, economic terms and costs basis as well as
a detailed action plan and schedule relating to the acquisition of
the properties
,Responsibilitiesbf the RCTC under the ENA
The RCTC shall approve no other joint development proposals
for the 'land in question during the ;period of the ENA The.-ENA
shall serve as proof of control :of land for acquiring .letters of
financial commitment by the developer,
The Executive ,Director shall place the-, good faith" deposit in: an
interest, bearingaccount, and shall have the right to dravv down
from the "account paymentfor reasonable expenses incurred by
the RCTC for such items -as - land and rdeveloprnent rights
appraisals, materials, data and other. , information . costs, and
_other administrative and consultant costs expended in the
evaluation of the proposal.
The RCTC shall provide the developer with an appraisal for the
fair -market value of the fee interest or; ,lease rights or other
development rights appropriate to: the project..„;:
The RCTC shall deliver, within 30 days' of receipt of written
request, any existing RCTC-owned information, studies,"
"reports;
site .and construction plans or other documents requested by
the developer to facilitate project design at cost to the
developer.
8
Upon completion of the 120-day period "referenced above in
Section A, the RCTC will evaluate and negotiate with the
Developer . in. closecoordination with the local jurisdiction for a
period of up :to 60 days.
lf, at the conclusion of the ENA - period, the proposal is
terminated, the Executive Director shall ;'return any remaining
balance of the "good faith- deposit," including any interest .
accrued thereon to the developer
tf, at the -conclusion of the ENA, ,a Development .Agreement is
entered. into, the remaining balance .of the "good faith deposit,"
including interest accrued thereon, shall be subtracted from the
cost of land, lease or other development rights conveyed to the
developer by the RCTC.
Extension of ENA
Either the developer' :or the Executive Director may request from the
Commission an extension of the 180-day exclusive -negotiation period. The
Commission will determine whether sufficient progress has been made
toward fulfillment of the above requirements in their consideration of
extension.
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
May 24, 2007
TO:
Property Committee
FROM.:
Min Saysay, Right -of -Way Manager
Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director
THROUGH:
Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Approve a Memorandum of Understanding with Metropolitan Water
District for the 'Construction of the Perris 'Valley Pipeline and the
Provision of a Substitute Easement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) No. 07-33-15`5-00
with Metropolitan Water District (MWD) for the construction ;of the
Perris, Valley Pipeline in the San Jacinto Branch Line RailRight-of-Way
and for Provision of a Substitute Easement; and
2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel (Adorno, Yoss,
Alvarado, -& Smith) review,- to execute the MOU on behalf of ,the
Commission.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On February 14, 2005, -March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) entered into an
agreement with the Commission to exchange properties associated with the
realignment of Interstate 215. The property exchange ,has not yet been completed.
Western Municipal Vllater. District (WMWD) and ;MWD have undertaken a public
works project to construct a 96-inch diameter water transmission pipeline
(hereinafter referred to as the "Perris Valley Pipeline") for the purpose of providing
additional municipal water supply within the service, areas of WMWD and MWD.
A portion of the Perris Valley Pipeline project will be constructed on properties
(hereinafter referred to as the "Property") that are involved in the open exchange
between the Commission and 'March JPA.
WMWD has commenced an. action to exercise its authority under the California
Eminent Domain . Lavv to acquire, an easement to construct, operate and maintain
the Perris Valley Pipeline across the March JPA property, including the Property.
After completion of the eminent ;domain action ,to acquire the Easement, the
Agenda Item 6
10
Easement will be assigned to MWD. MWD is solely ` responsible for the
construction, ..,operation and maintenance of the Perris Valley Pipeline within the
Easement, and will execute a .public works contract for construction of the same..
*The 'MOU would allow the Perris Valley Pipeline to be installed and constructed by.
MWD,at MWD's sole cost. Any construction method that will interfere with: rail
traffic shall be approved' by, the Commission in advance. The MOU provides that
within 30 days of MWD's receipt of .the assignment of the 'Easement from WMWD,
MWD will execute the. `'Easement Agreement with Metropolitan Water District of. .
`Southern California . for ._96=Inch Water Transmission.. Pipeline", (the ",Substitute'
,Easement").
The Substitute Easement grants .a non-exclusive easement from' the Commission to
MWD for the purpose locating, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining,
operating, inspecting and repairing the Pipeline. MWD will use the Easement and
Perris Valley Pipeline solely for transmission of water. The Commission retains the
right of use the surface area of the Easement for railroad uses.
In drafting the MOU, the Commission retained the services of :Adorno, Yoss
Alvarado, & Smith because Best, Best, and Krieger also represents the WMWD.
11
y -215 Pending Transactions Exhibit D
Eastridge Ave
Caltrans Parcel # 7724
Caltrans Parcel # 7723-1
_. Euctayptos Ave
Proposed City of
Moreno Valley
Pipeline Easement
Caltrans Parcel #7723-A
Caltrans Parcel # 7723 2 V
Caltrans Parcel #7723-B
/ Cottonwood Ave_„
Caltrans Parcel #7723-3
Caltrans Parcel #7723-C
Caltrans Parcel #7773-01-01
Caltrans Parcel # 7730-1
Legend
■ CALTRANS to March JPA
March IPA to RCTC
RCTC to March IPA
RCTC to CALTRANS
CALTRANS to RCTC
Potential RCTC Surplus Property
. RCTC to Riverside County
C`1
Caltrans Parcel # 8051-01-01
-A7tsffr'aco l3tva
Caltrans Parcel # 7731-01-01
Caltrans Parcel # 7731-1-B
T 7 Epic Land Solutions, Inc."'
0 .os .oa au_sul
L-26
Cactus Avenue
Caltrans Parcel # 7731-1-A
Caltrans Parcel # 7731-3
Caltrans Parcel # 7731-2
(Access Rights)
Revised 1-31-2005