Loading...
05 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 • Commission staff is not prepared to recommend to the Commission Board a joint development proposal for the Downtown Metrolink site that relies on any of the following: • charging Metrolink riders for parking. • tax increment financing from the Redevelopment Agency of the city of Riverside: • other public financing mechanisms such as Special :Assessment Districts, Community facilities Districts, etc. ❖ 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: - • modify its private development proposal to improve its overall financial feasibility; and/or • seek third -party financial assistance through state or federal programs, ❖ The Commission is willing to consider development proposals requiring that some portion or all of the development site is conveyed to the Developer in fee. ❖ The Commission and the city of Riverside will :provide feedback to the Developer: regarding the current project design, which may include matters such as: • parking ratio for private components • treatment of the Metrolink garage component • other considerations Specifically, the city of Riverside 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 Alan Mruvka Company has accepted the_ above conditions as outlined in Attachment 1.. The proposal submitted by Blue Square Development: • • Agenda Item 5 Incorporates a parking structure supporting the future parking expectations of the rail station; Incorporates retail and mixed housing types consistentwith the city of Riverside zoning and general plan as well as allows expanded use of adjoining properties owned by Blue Square; and Proposes a financial return to the Commission. 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