Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPhil Zisakis - Guardian Savings Charter Centre-Negotiating Agrmt 1988-1989 - 1988-10-24 /-0�a 6af" REQUESTU V PMENT ALNCY ACTION APP$ ED I3 .j. RH 89-75 • F�3 29 August 21, 1989 C CL•xX Date Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: , Paul Cook, Executive Director Submitted by: Douglas La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Prepared by: APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS FOR THE Subject: NORTHWEST CORNER OF CYPRESS & BEACH, AND AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE DDA FOR PUBLIC HEA RING Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ) New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments. DT ,'CEMENT OF ISStT : At your meeting of May 15, 1999, with regard to Charter Centre Phase III (Guardian Savings), the Agency terminated the Negotiating Agreement that was in effect at the time, and took a series of related actions (see attached staff report). One of those ' actions was that staff be directed to prepare an Owner Participation Agreement/DDA for Agency consideration and action with Mr, and Mrs. Phil Zisakis for the property generally identified as Site A on the attachment to the recommended action. This action was ' Intended to provide for the disposition and development of a portion of the Agency-owned property at the corner of Cypress and Beach. Before you for consideration this evening, is the approval in concept of a proposed Scope of Development for this portion of the site. A Disposition and Development Agreement is being finalized, and subsequent to your approval of the proposed Scope of Development, the DDA will be advertised for Agency public hearing. RECQMMENDATION: Approve in concept the alternative plan prepared for this site, and direct staff to advertise the DDA for public hearing consideration by the Agency at the earliest possible date. ANALYSIS; Since the Agency's action of May 15, staff has been working to develop plans and conclude negotiations that would provide for the disposition of the various Agency-owned parcels of property pursuant to the Agency's direction. Staff initially, working with the consultant we have previously used to develop the alternative site concepts; prepared several alternative development scenarios that would provide for the development of the parcel generally identified as Site A. Upon the completion of various alternative schemes, two alternative concepts identified as Scheme A and Scheme B were completed and reviewed with M:. Zisakis.. Following the completion of the development of an alternative for Site A, that would work separately, negotiations were undertaken regarding the completion of a DDA that would allow development to occur at the corner of Cypress and Beach. PIO/1185 The process staff has used to carry out the specific actions of the Redevelopment Agency has been to deal with each parcel on a separate basis, and has used Jim Wilson of Thirtieth Street Architects to provide for the coordination of various development plans among the several property owners. At this time, staff and Len Lichter, the owner of Site C, are discussing alternatives to determine whether to proceed with a facade improvement program, or a more extensive redevelopment effort that would provide for reciprocal ingress and egress between parcels A & C. The development scenarios as provided for in Scheme A & B with Mr. Zisakis will provide for either alternative to be implemented. In terms of Guardian Center, the preliminary concept that they have submitted provides for the construction of a multilevel parking structure on Site B. The proposed Scope of Development provides for incorporating interim-surface parking on a portion of Site B which would allow for the ultimate development of the multi-level parking structure, should that be the development generated on Site B by the owners of Guardian Center. FUNDING SOURCE: None required as a result of this action. ,ALTERNAT_BT ACT 0 : 1) Direct staff to proceed with alternative development scenarios for Site A and defer concept approval at this time. 2) Defer action on this matter until discussions have been finalized with the Sites B & C property owners. ATTAQTMMENTS: 1) Request for Agency Action dated May 15, 1989, regarding Guardian Center. 2) Scope of Development - Scheme A & B. 3) Site Plans - Scheme A & B. PEC/DLB:lp 5046h SCQ)!E Of L P TENT Scheme A Scheme A proposes an approximately 4,830 square foot first floor addition to the existing 1,250 square foot first floor glass shop. Also proposed is a second story office area of approximately 5,340 square feet added to the existing 1200 square foot second story. Required parking shall be pursuant to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code at one space per 300 square feet of office area and one space per 500 square feet of glass shop area. All parking shall be met on site. Scheme A assumes that the new portion of the building will extend from the existing glass shop to the north property line of the sales parcel, and that reciprocal access with the property to the north (Lichter property) will be obtained for the easterly and westerly drive aisles. Building setbacks, landscaping, building height, and parking layout shall meet the development standard., as set forth in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Building architecture, colors and materials shall be compatible with the existing glass shop and with Guardian Center, and shall be subject to final review and approval by the Design Review Board. Schme B Scheme B proposes an approximately 3,230 square foot first floor addition to the existing 1,250 square foot first floor glass shop. In addition, approximately 5,700 square feet of office area is proposed for the second and third floors in addition to the existing 1,200 square foot second story. Required parking shall be pursuant to the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code at one space per 300 square feet of office area and one space per 500 square feet of glass shop area. All parking shall be met on site. Scheme B assumes that no reciprocal access is obtained, and that a minimum 20 foot wide drive aisle is maintained along the northerly boundary of the sales parcel in order to connect the easterly and westerly parking areas onsite. Building setbacks, landscaping, building height, and parking layout shall meet the development standards as set forth in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, and shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Building architecture, colors and materials shall be compatible with the existing glass shop and with Guardian Center, and shall be subject to final review and approval by the Design Review Board. (3354d) . REQUE ' MENT A�NCY ACTION "LD CITY CO RH 89-•42 ofl May 15, 1989 r__....�_ ITY rim Date Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: x Paul E. Cook, Chief Executive Officer Submitted by: cLn Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Prepared by: N �-tee e•►r* CHARTER CENTRE PHASE III (GUARDIAN SAVINGS)-TERMINATION OF., Subject: NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND RELATED ACTIONS x a d Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception ca'o Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: '�'� STATEMENT_OIISSUE: On October 24, 1988, the Agency approved a Negotiating Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency, Guardian Savings and Loan Real Estate and Mr. & Mrs. Phil Zisakis. The purpose of that agreement was to seek to negotiate the terms of an ultimate Disposition and Development Agreement for the site known as Charter Centre Phase 1I (Guardian Savings). This Negotiating Agreement was executed on November 17, 1988. On February 27, 1989, a status report was presented to the Agency and a 90-day extension of the agreement was approved by the Agency to allow the parties a further opportunity to negotiate a final development proposal for the entire site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend the following actions at this time: 1. That the Negotiating Agreement not be extended beyond its extended termination date, and; 2. That staff be directed to prepare an Owner Participation Agreement/DDA for Agency consideration and action with Mr. & Mrs. Phil Zisakis for the property generally identified as Site A on Attachment 1 to this memorandum. This will provide for the disposition and development of a portion of the Agency-owned property at the corner of Cypress and Beach, and; 3. That staff be directed to enter into negotiations that will provide for the leasing of a portion of Agency-owned property generally identified as a part of SITE B on Attachment 1 with Guardian Savings for the purpose of surface parking; and; 4. That Agency staff be authorized to negotiate as appropriate with the owner of SITE C on Attachment 1 a facade easement or loan that will provide for enhancing the architectural compatibility of that structure in terms of adjacent improvements. P1o11/85 r rol Page 1]..- - Council/Ac ^y Agenda - 5/15/89 f�c- V F-3 . (ReoevQlopment Agency) C1lARTER CENTER PHASE III GUARDIAN SAVINGS - 2:Ez2MINA2:zON 9F NEGS?TIATINQ AGREEMENT AND RELATED S2'1ON S ( Communication from Deputy City .Admi.nistrator/Economic Development regarding 90 day extension approved 2/27/89 to Negotiating Agreement between Redevelopment Agency, Guardian Savings and Loan Real Estate and Mr . & Mrs . Phil Zisakis . REQQWTNDED ACI,ION: - Staff recommends the following actions at this time: 1 . That the Negotiating Agreement not be extended beyond 2� 3'. qJ S" its extended termination date, and; rave d CIS 2 . That staff be directed to prepare an Owner Participation Agreement/Disposition & Development Agreement for Agency q W consideration and action with Mr . & Mrs . Phil Zisakis /- for ' the property generally identified as Site A on S �d Ert �e Attachment_1 to this memorandum. This will provide for � $gj,hdr the disposition and development of a portion of the Agency-owned property at the corner of Cypress and ,r e Beach, and ; 3 . That :staff be directed to enter into negotiations that will provide for the leasing of a portion of Agency-owned property generally identified as a part of Site Fs on Attachment ]. with Guardian Savings for the purpose of surface parking , and; opA aNd DDA re S�►r(rtfS w de �. A . That Agency staff be authorized to negotiate as appropriate with the owner of Eite Q on Attachrpnt ] a facade easement or loan that will provide for enhancing the architectural compatibility of that structure in terms of adjacent improvements . s • 7;Faf fvf f VIel-roeny`s & danclkdleal c MIS Qo d'Irr (City Council} ASCON REMEDIATION ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT (CONSENT ORDER Communication from the Director of Community Development transmitting a Draft Enforceable Agreement (Consent Order) prepared by Ascon Properties and the State Department. of Health Services (DfiS) which would designate DHS as the lead agency for assuring site cleanup in compliance with the requirements of the Hazardous Substance Act of the California Health and Safety Code . RCCOMMENDEQ ACTION_ -- Staff recommends that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary Letter of Understanding for submittal to DHS and inclusion by reference in the Enforceable Agreement . #* * a /1r AfJ/r,)W/ ,� Dfts -DIff ��PIWII)fPI�X1 11s/ 4KGI fh e��/j' �a F-5 . (City CgUnQil) PIERSIDE VILLAGE REEZA_U ANT PR Q7ECT Communication from the City Administrator regarding the need to determine further direction toward the development of the Pierside village restaurant project . RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize staff to negotiate a lease with-Stanley M. Bloom to develop the Pierside Village restaurant project which will generally consist7.`of three new restaurants in addition to the existing Maxwell ' s Restaurant . Rppro v e ( -6- Z (($ree*i winC4 e�/-Irv) 4,�*l ff s bz,,9,er RH 89-42 May 15, 1989 s Page Two ANALYSIS: During the past six months considerable time and effort has been expended on the part of all parties to carry out the objectives of the Negotiating Agreement as entered into on November 17, 1988. Numerous meetings and discussions have taken place with regard to alternative plans. A number of development scenarios have been analyzed, along with project economics to seek a mutually viable project for all parties. As a result of these meetings and discussions, it is staff's analysis that an economically viable ultimate development scenario is not achievable at this time. While considerable time has been expended,'it is staff's analysis that this has been a very beneficial and productive process in assuring that the full range of options were carefully considered and analyzed. While proceeding with the above recommended actions may not achieve the highest and best Iand use or the most long term economic benefit for all of the parties, it will not preclude further additonal development that may achieve the highest and best land use and greatest economic return to all parties. The benefits to the Agency and private parties in moving forward with the above actions is that existing deficiencies on the site will be corrected and the process will be concluded which will serve to benefit the Agency and each of the parties. Staff would estimate the above negotiations with respect to Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 can be concluded within a period of 90--days for { subsequent consideration as appropriate by the Redevelopment Agency. FUNDING SOURCE: None required as a result of this action. ALIERNATiVE-ACTION,I: 1) Extend the Negotiating Agreement an additional period of time to allow for further negotiations with each of the parties. 2) Select a preferred alternative development scenario at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Site Map 2) Exclusive Negotiating Agreement PEC/DLB/TA:sar 4905r F Z W u WA R NE K A VE. .--- . 1 S • 0.4 90 .. W vz J i 10 s vw f or-4 04ok*A, J 1 TIC.!3i ft.Q rn 1001!. Nl1't'G"Ed.0 4d7.!5' P•1RGEL :ij a4r7 .f 05 .0hiss ;rctS of �C ct 5 -9 Kdf'!L'jj'G Jd7Jt' I • _ •� ''71t' _ _ ATTACHM._L'NT 2 r` NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Negotiating Agreement ("Agreement" ) is made and entered into by and among the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF 'THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a public body, ( "Agency") , PHILIP ZISAKIS and ROXANNE S. ZISAKIS ("ZISAKIS") , and GSL REAL ESTATE, a California corporation ("GSL" ) (collectively the "Property owners" ) A. In ,furtherance of the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 33000, a sea . , (the "Act" ) , the Agency desires to redevelop certain parcels of land within the Oakview Project Area (Project Area) , as shown on the attached and incorporated Site Map (Exhibit "A") and referred to herein as Proposed Development Site. B. The Proposed Development Site is composed of real property owned by the Agency, Zisakis (operated as "National Auto Glass") , GSL and Leonard E. and Nancy G. Lichter who were offered an opportunity to participate in this Negotiating Agreement but declined. The Proposed Development Site is located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of Cypress Street and Beach Boulevard within the Project Area . C. The parties desire to negotiate a Disposition and Development/Owner Participation Agreement ( "DD/OPA") with the , Agency to assemble the Proposed Development Site for the purpose of developing thereon a commercial development . D. The parties recognize and acknowledge that the purpose of this Agreement is to seek to negotiate the terms of a DD/OPA which will include without limitation, the economics of the development, the Site Plan, and specific uses of the development, and the other terms of a DD/OPA toward the disposition and redevelopment of the Proposed Development Site. l AGREEMENT The parties mutually agree as follows : 1. The parties shall negotiate diligently and in good faith for a 90 day period from the date this Agreement is executed - by the Agency' ("Negotiating Period") , to establish and agree upon mutually acceptable development plans , concepts, or alternatives, determine the economic feasibility of the development, and establish a value of the Proposed Development Site. If the Agency is provided evidence reasonably .' satisfactory to it that the parties have either fully resolved or are progressing toward the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of the development, as proposed, the Agency shall extend the Negotiating Period for ninety (90) days ("Extended Negotiation . Period") and, thereafter, the parties shall seek in good faith within such additional ninety (90) day period to finalize the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of the development and negotiate a DD/OPA for the disposition and development of the Proposed Development Site. Except as this Agreement is extended, if on the 180th day from the date of this Agreement (the end of the Extended Negotiating Period) , the Property Owners have not signed and submitted a DD/OPA to the Agency, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate, and the parties knowingly agree that none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the other under this Agreement . If a DD/OPA is so signed and submitted within the Extended Negotiating Period, then this Agreement may extended in writing for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of such submittal to enable the Agency to: (i ) determine whether it desires to enter into such DD/OPA, (ii) take the actions necessary to bring such DD/OPA before the Agency and the City Council for consideration, action, and authorization to sign, and (ii) sign the DD/OPA, if such is approved. 2. The Agency agrees that within the initial sixty (60) days of this Agreement it shall submit documents, reports , and information concerning the proposed development that will provide the parties with the following information: a . A preliminary site plan and architectural/design concept for the development showing access roads , amount and location of parking, location and size of all buildings including height and perimeter dimensions, pedestrian circulation system, landscaping, floor plans, elevations , perspective renderings, and the architectural character of the project. ll/1/88 1986n/2960/00 -2- b. A schedule for the development of all structures and improvements proposed and an 'estimate (supported by a description of the basis for such an estimate) of development costs including construction and non-construction costs. C. An estimate of project income and a pro - forma statement of project return (supported by a description of the assumptions made in making such an estimate and statement) adequate to enable the parties to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed development . This information will be prepared by a consultant selected by the Agency who will also prepare a reuse analysis of the value of the Proposed Development Site, ( i .e. , a value based upon such factors as market conditions, density of development, cost of development (including the costs set forth in Section 12 hereof) , risks incurred, estimated or actual profit, estimated or actual sales and/or rental prices of the development, the public purposes , and other matters relevant to establishing the value of the subject property for the uses permitted to be developed. 3 . The Property Owners will prepare and submit a description of the proposed method of construction and permanent financing and amount and sources of capital . 4 . Agency further agrees to cooperate with the Property Owners in supplying financial institutions with appropriate information, if available and not otherwise privileged, to facilitate the obtaining of financing for the Development. 5. Due to the fact the Property Owners are owners within the Project Area it is subject to the rules, rights , and obligations set forth in the Rules for Owner Participation of the Agency for the Project Area (herein "OP Rules" ) . Property Owners, by execution of this Agreement , acknowledge receipt of a copy of the OP Rules . 6 . The design and development objectives For the project shall be specified in the DD/OPA and the actual development shall be in conformity therewith. The Property Owners shall cooperate fully with the Agency' s professional consultants and associates in providing them with any information and assistance reasonably within the capacity of the Property Owners to provide in connection with the preparation and execution of the drawings , plans, and specifications or other documents or information required to be submitted by the Agency to the Property Owners or to the! City of Huntington Beach ("City" ) pursuant- to this Agreement or as required by state or local laws and regulations . All design, architectural, and building plans. for development shall be subject to the review f and approval of the Agency and the City. 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -3- ,f 7. In the event that the Property Owners or the Agency fails to fulfill the obligations described in this Agreement within the times specified, the non-performing party shall have fifteen (15) days following written notice from the other to cure, or commence to cure, such failure to perform as may be identified in the written notice. If the non-performing party has failed to cure, or commenced to cure, within such fifteen (15) day period, any other party may terminate this Agreement and, thereafter, none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the others under this Agreement except as hereafter provided. , The Property Owners, by execution hereof, knowingly agree, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, that they shall have no right by virtue of this Agreement to specific performance of this Agreement, nor to specific performance for conveyance of , nor to claim any right ' of title "or interest in the Proposed Development Site (except the parcel or parcels already owned by each of the Property Owners) or any part thereof, nor to money damages , nor any other legal remedies or equitable remedies under the law. 8 . Property Owners shall not discriminate against nor segregate, any .person, or group of persons on account of sex, race, color, age, marital status, religion, handicap, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Proposed Development Site, nor shall the Developer establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation in the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of tenants, - lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land. 9 , The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage fees which may arise herefrom. Each party represents that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction, and each party agrees to hold the other parties harmless from any claim by any broker, agent or finder claiming through any such party. 10. The Property Owners acknowledge and agree that under the DD/OPA they shall be required to comply with all applicable - federal , state and local laws and regulations concerning the displacement and relocation, if such occurs, . of persons and/or businesses on and from the Proposed Development Site, including without limitation, compliance with the Relocation Assistance Law, Government Code Section 7260, et seq. 11 . It -is the objective of each of the parties that the DD/OPA will contain the following terms and conditions : 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -4- i t a . It is the objective: of Zisakis that: (1) The existing National Auto Glass Building will be retained at its present location with signage and new development will be constructed around the existing National Auto Glass Building . On completion of new construction National will own 7,000 square feet of ground floor property within the Proposed Development Site with at least 4,500 contiguous square feet having the potential for 12 foot ceilings suitable for auto glass shop use and the remainder of which will be appropriate for commercial retail use. In addition, ' National will have a right to own an additional 10, 000 square feet of office space within the Proposed Development Site. (2) Except as provided in ( 1) above, the ultimate location, square footage and configuration of the National Auto Glass Building including associated parking, as well as the purchase price paid by Zisakis for its rights hereunder shall be determined in the course of negotiating the DD/OPA. b. It is the objective of GSL that: (1) GSL shall be provided with unimpeded access to and from Cypress Avenue through the Proposed Development Site from the existing Charter Centre. (2) All development on the Proposed Development Site will be consistent with the architectural standards established by the existing Charter Centre. (3) GSL shall have the right to participate in any additional parking provided on the Proposed Development Site, which is no less than a proportionate share based on the size of the parcels owned by the Property Owners as of the date of execution of the DD/OPA. (4 ) The ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site shall include a reciprocal easement agreement standard for an), such integrated commercial center allowing for reciprocal ingress and egress throughout the Proposed Development Site as well as reciprocal parking rights and maintenance, repair , and upkeep of the Proposed Development Site in conformity with similar standards extant for Charter Centre. (5j- GSL will be selected as the developer for the Proposed Development Site. 1 ' 11/1/sa 1986n/2460/00 -�- . c.' It 'is the objective of the Agency that: (1) The Proposed Development Site be developed as an integrated commercial development further integrated with the existing Charter Centre so as to provide architectural unity as well as reciprocal access in parking throughout the Proposed Development Site and Charter Centre. (2) The Property Owners shall be granted . ownership rights in 'the ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site consistent with their respective ownership in the Proposed Development Site, subject to the further ability to acquire' additional ownership rights in the ultimate development through contributions toward the ultimate development" in the form of acquisition of property from .another party, equity contribution and/or similar contributions standard in such joint venture developments . 12 . GSL shall deliver to the Agency concurrently with execution hereof by the Agency an advance of funds ("Advance" ) in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20, 000) in cash or cashier ' s or certified check. The Agency shall have the right to draw down and to spend whatever portion of said Advance is necessary for site plan preparation, development feasibility analysis, including, without limitation, economic analysis, legal fees, redevelopment consultant fees , appraisal fees, staff .time, administration and other costs associated with the Proposed Development Project . The Agency shall maintain accurate documentation of such expenditures which information shall be made available to GSL in the form of a detailed accounting made every thirty (30) days after the Agency' s execution of this Agreement, and to the other Property Owners upon request. No interest shall accrue or be due to GSL on this .Advance. The Advance is submitted to the Agency as consideration for this Agreement and GSL knowingly agrees that the Advance may not be refunded to it except as hereinafter provided . In the event a DD/OPA is entered into, this Advance shall be considered a cost of development and shall be included in project costs allocated proportionally. As a material part of the consideration for GSL advancing the Advance, GSL shall retain all ownership rights in and to the plans , but not the studies and reports for which the Advance is used . In the event during the Negotiating Period or any extended period hereunder all of the Advance is expended or obligated and the Agency reasonably believes additional funds are necessary to pay for the cost associated with the Proposed Development Project and to reach a DD/OPA ready for Property Owner 's signature and Agency consideration, then the Agency shall submit a written request to GSL notifying it of- the ll/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -6- i nature of the items to be completed, the estimated cost of such items, and an explanation of the need for such items, and the amount of the additional funds required to be advanced by GSL to the Agency pursuant to the request. The collective amount of the initial advance of funds and the additional advance or advances of funds are referred to herein as the Advance. The Agency shall refund any unused and unobligated portion of the Advance within thirty (30) calendar days after the end of the Negotiating Period. Except as set forth in the sentence immediately preceeding, GSL shall have no right to the return of the Advance during the Negotiating Period or thereafter. 13 . In the event that this Agreement terminates by virtue of the passage of time, or otherwise, and the parties have not entered into a DDA/OPA, then each of the property owners has the right to request that the Agency consider independent development of each of their respective parcels , including the sale of land by the Agency to each such property owner to , accommodate such development . The Agency may, in its sole and absolute discretion, accept or reject any such proposals . The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year appearing below. 17 All 1988 REDEVELOPMEon AG Y THE CITY OF HU T YN G N Chi By: ha ' man "AGENCY" ATTEST: Agency Secretary el INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Dep tyty Administrator/ �t Direct r of Economic !� Development 11/1/88 . 1986n/2460/00 -7- REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS APPROVED: .� AS TO FORM: City/Agency At rney City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer Agency Special Counsel ZISAKIS :.ram,. •, GSL By.. . It By: r 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 --8- PROJECTSUMMAR Y. . APFA ANALYSIS I SPACE SQUARE FOOTAGE 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR(OPFICE SPACE) 6.900 S.F.TOTAL 11,3 80 S.F. , T % PARKING ANALYSIS i 1 TYPE OF USE. SQUARE 1 PARKING SPACES �. '• FOOTAGE SPACE PER REQUIRED l 'i 77-j OMCE SPACE 6,900S.F. 300 23.f ff ,4 '; ct w t PARKING PROVIDED 32.1 ; SQUARE • PER CENT FOOTAGE SITE AREA 21.U24 S.F. 100.096 LANDSCAPE AREA 3,030 S.F. 14.4% rt f thirtieth ZISAKIS ADDITION 0%itevs, Inc. ^� = 7hda1 f f f f 0 10 20 30 J 60 90 Ioo scHEmE B Graptiic5cale t PRO:TECT'SUMMARY - MIME—A_REA ANALYSIS SQUARE FOOTAGE • y 2ND FLOOR(OFFICE SPACE) 6.540 S.F. { a PARKIM; ANALYSIS k TYPE OF USE SQUARE 1 PARKING SPACES FOOTAGE SPACE PER REQUIRED OFFICE SPACE 6.540 S.F. 300 21.TOTAr.REQUIRED r'Y • PARKING PROVIDED 341 } `'4"f • .' r�;•; i • ` + SQUARE PER CENT FOOTAGE r`� SITE AREA 21,024 S.F. 150.0% LANDSCAPE.AREA 3,030 S.F. 14.4% thimieth . ZISAKIS DDITION �rc�hClleCts, inc. ,f 0 10 20 30 60 BO f 00 SCHEME Ar► _. Ora hic scale • REQUE MENTN..,GENCY ACTION grr.-••= > nr G"rY71= 4' RH 89-42 6 ZZ hiay 15, 1989 CI Date Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: c Paul E. Cook, Chief Executive Officer -� Submitted by: v`1 2 r, Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development 6 n tV e�i-F`cnr�n Prepared by: CHARTER CENTRE PHASE III (GUARDIAN SAVINGS)-TERMINATION Old' Subject: NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AND RELATED ACTIONS x d A Consistent with Council Policy? i I Yes I I New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On October 24, 1988, the Agency approved a Negotiating Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency, Guardian Savings and Loan Real Estate and Mr. & Mrs. Phil Zisakis. The purpose of that agreement was to seek to negotiate the terms of an ultimate Disposition and Development Agreement for the site known as Charter Centre Phase II (Guardian Savings). This Negotiating Agreement was executed on November 17, 1988. On February 27, 1989, a status report was presented to the Agency and a 90-day extension of the agreement was approved by the Agency to allow the parties a further opportunity to negotiate a final development proposal for the entire site. RECOMMEND TA ION: Staff would recommend the following actions at this time: 1. That the Negotiating Agreement not be extended beyond its extended termination date, and; 2. That staff be directed to prepare an Owner Participation Agreement/DDA for Agency consideration and action with Mr. & Mrs. Phil Zisakis for the property generally identified as Site A on Attachment 1 to this memorandum. This will provide for the disposition and development of a portion of the Agency-owned property at the corner of Cypress and Beach, and; 3. That staff be directed to enter into negotiations that will provide for the leasing of a portion of Agency-owned property generally identified as a part of SITE B on Attachment 1 with Guardian Savings for the purpose of surface parking; and; 4. That Agency staff be authorized to negotiate as appropriate with the owner of SITE C on Attachment 1 a facade easement or loan that will provide for enhancing the architectural compatibility of that structure in terms of adjacent improvements. PI OI1135 E V z S� D Page ].I. - Council ' �7ency Agenda - 5/15/89 'PO/2- PO f 2�� - Zi F-3 . (RedevelogmCnt Age Qy) CtLAR7'I:']R CrNTER PRASE III =GUARDIAN AV N - JERMINATION-OF NEQTIAIING bGREEMMENT_ AND RELAXED ' .. ACTIONS Communication from Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development regarding 90 day extension approved 2/27/89 to Negotiating Agreement between Redevelopment Agency, Guardian Savings and Loan Real Estate and Mr . & Mrs . Phil Zisakis . RECOMMENDT'D N_l - Staff recommends the following actions at this time: 1 . That the Negotiating Agreement not be extended beyond its extended termination date, and; cprove d ccS 2 . That staff be directed to prepare an Owner Participation 1- Agreement/Disposition & Development Agreement for Agency r(M end P d consideration and action with Mr . & Mrs . Phil Zisakis for the property generally identified as Site A on .S �a �rsl+HQAttpQhmqnt_ 1 to this memorandum. This will provide for the disposition and development of a portion of the Agency-owned property at the corner of Cypress and abs. ,ned� Beach, and ; 3 . That staff be directed to enter into negotiations that will provide for the leasing of a portion of Agency-owned property generally identified as a part of Site B on Attachm nt 1_ with Guardian Savings for the purpose of surface parking , and ; (3rp a,,d QDA re 4 . That Agency staff- be authorized to negotiate as appropriate with the owner of Site C on A-tta-chm_ ent I a facade easement or loan that will provide for enhancing the erchitectural compatibility of that structure in le terms of adjacent improvements . S - 7,Tir7, f a v-4 a_fe&,, i►e nA de eo/n clu did w,Ak:# 9D I'-4 . L i _11y CQung.il) ASQON REMEDIATION ENFORQEABLE Ag2REEMENT (CONSENT ORDER Communication from the Director of Community Development, transmitting a Draft Enforceable Agreement (Consent Order) prepared by Ascon Properties and the State Department of Health Services (DHS) which would designate DHS as the lead agency for assuring site cleanup in compliance with the requirements of the Hazardous Substance Act of the California Health and Safety Code . BECOM=NVED ACTION: - Staff recommends that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary Letter of: Understanding For submittal to DIIS and inclusion by reference in the Enforceable e A���///greement . j �� ySv F-5 .(City Councils PIERSI12E VILLAGE RESTA[IRANT PR_ JQ CCT Communication from the City Administrator regarding the need to determine further direction toward the development of the Pierside Village restaurant project . RECOMMENDED A T N: Authorize staff to negotiate a Lease with-Stanley M. Bloom to develop the Pierside Village restaurant project which will generally consist.' of three new restaurants in addition to the existing Maxwell ' s Restaurant . Appro v ed S- 2 [4rec4i winch ell-WO SbW mewle-eS /v RH 89-42 May IS, 1999 Page Two ANALYSIS: During the past six months considerable time and effort has been expended on the part of all parties to carry out the objectives of the Negotiating Agreement as entered into on November 17, 1988. Numerous meetings and discussions have taken place with regard to alternative plans. A number of development scenarios have been analyzed, along with project economics to seek a mutually viable project for all parties. As a result of these meetings and discussions, it is staff's analysis that an economically viable ultimate development scenario is not achievable at this time. While considerable time has been expended, it is staffs analysis that this has been a very beneficial and productive process in assuring that the full range of options were carefully considered and analyzed. While proceeding with the above recommended actions may not achieve the highest and best land use or the most long term economic benefit for all of the parties, it will not preclude further additonal development that may achieve the highest and best land use and greatest economic return to all parties. The benefits to the Agency and private parties in moving forward with the above actions is that existing deficiencies on the site will be corrected and the process will be concluded which will serve to benefit the Agency and each of the parties. Staff would estimate the above negotiations with respect to Recommendations 2, 3, and 4 can be concluded within a period of 90-days for subsequent consideration as appropriate by the Redevelopment Agency. FUNDING SOURCE: None required as a result of this action. ALTERNADVE ACTIONS: 1) Extend the Negotiating Agreement an additional period of time to allow for further negotiations with each of the parties. 2) Select a preferred alternative development scenario at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Site Map 2) Exclusive Negotiating Agreement PEC/DLB/TA:sar 4905r •e. NOTICE OF A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING BY THE ,CITY COUNCIL OF FrUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE REDEVELOPMENT .!AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACIi ON THE DISPOSITION�-AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PHIL AND ROXANNE ZISAKIS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach will hold a joint public hearing on er 18 , 1989, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, to consider and act upon the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Phil and Roxanne Zisakis, and sale of land pursuant thereto. The Agreement provides for an addition to an existing auto glass shop and development of office area . Descriptions of the site and scope of development can be found in the Agreement . The terms of the sale of property between the Agency and Phil and Roxanne Zisakis are set forth in the Agreement. This action is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15312, Class 12 . Copies of the Disposition and Development Agreement are on file for public inspection and copying for the cost of duplication at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California , between the hours of 8 : 00 AM and 5 : 00 PM, Monday through Friday, exclusive of holidays . Interested persons may submit written comments addressed to the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, Post Office Box 190, Huntington Beach, California, 92648, prior to 5 : 00 PM on e P 1989 . At the time and place stated above, all persons interested in the above matter may appear and be heard . City of Huntington Beach Connie Brockway City Clerk (714) 536-5227 f �- v k� f F+ ' w SCALC + /'sd0' /ire ,! � ~ O< 4 t w !0 I a � ►: ti j°' J }` :M 'Z a.wive cor-4 RZA'A, f.'M. - 100/1 • " a J Tt.13i PG4 P!7 IOOIj. IK wix1,' W moo' '4u '� �{ V.� � .�..c�••�i v f •�'•+ :�r'"�r /.�R1rLL Y.�� :.� .Y•T,'i,� ,.. �. � � f A^ ,� � i yr;�r.'r•yR'�,.:... ,Jr •:N:. ''�"..'r' l7,.f r.� Y �,Y,�%r:Y. i�•I�r� fif. � ; O 'a 4,;�_�-{ Tr, �•�.�?y..r i J'�t r: -:;�T..Ci #•. '.�;,!.. 'r.�����}..h� , s.. ,.� w � ' '''''`-- _.. ._ _ !. ...,.�.�+•.ti"" � •.�t/rr'ZG.tI;L' •�•dd.t 11• � ,,,' ."•rf ��_���..:; .�r._•� '' 3 tj� 'a 3 /I000 :.•.�,, �;i,':.s /10I3 ir� .r _ -�' M7Ct7'y w �� J V 1 F 154 .,c<t s q Mr .�._ o! r�tc c�s '- ° 0 Ac E e •N. .f a ✓7.1/i' I ..� r.♦i o n .� �+rrr r C Y ATTACHMENT*Z NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Negotiating Agreement ( "Agreement" ) is made and entered into by and among the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a public body, ( "Agency" ) , PHILIP ZISAKIS and ROXANNE S . ZISAKIS ( "ZISAKIS" ) , and GSL REAL ESTATE, a California corporation ( "GSL" ) (collectively the "Property Owners" ) A. In .furtherance of the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq . , (the "Act" ) , the Agency desires to redevelop certain parcels of land within the Oakview Project Area (Project Area) , as shown on the attached and incorporated Site Map (Exhibit "A" ) and referred to herein as Proposed Development Site . B . The Proposed Development Site is composed of real property owned by the Agency, Zisakis (operated as "National Auto Glass" ) , GSL and Leonard E . and Nancy G. Lichter who were offered an opportunity to participate in this Negotiating Agreement but declined. The Proposed Development Site is located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of Cypress Street and Beach Boulevard within the Project Area . C . The parties desire to negotiate a Disposition and Development/Owner Participation Agreement ( "DD/OPA" ) with the Agency to assemble the Proposed Development Site for the purpose of developing thereon a commercial development . D. The parties recognize and acknowledge that the purpose of this Agreement is to seek to negotiate the terms of a DD/OPA which will include without limitation, the economics of the development , the Site Plan, and specific uses of the development , and the other terms of a DD/OPA toward the disposition and redevelopment of the Proposed Development Site. AGREEMENT The parties mutually agree as follows : I. The parties shall negotiate diligently and in good faith for a 90 day period from the date this Agreement is executed by the Agency' (-Negotiating Period") , to establish and agree upon mutually acceptably: development plans, concepts, or alternatives, determine the economic feasibility of the development, and establish a value of ' the Proposed Development Site. If the Agency is provided evidence reasonably : satisfactory to it that the parties have either fully resolved . or are progressing toward the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of the development, as proposed, the Agency shall extend the Negotiating Period for ninety (90) days ("Extended Negotiation Period" ) and, thereafter, the parties shall seek in good faith within such additional ninety (90) day period to finalize the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of the development and negotiate a DD/OPA for the disposition and develcpment of the Proposed Development Site. Except as this Agreement is extended, if on the 180th day from the date of this Agreement (the end of the Extended Negotiating Period) , the Property Owners have not signed and submitted a DD/OPA to the Agency, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate, and the parties knowingly agree that none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the other under this Agreement . If a DD/OPA is so signed and submitted within the Extended Negotiating Period, then this - Agreement may be extended in writing for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of such submittal to enable the Agency to: (i) determine whether it desires to enter into such DD/OPA, (ii) take the actions necessary to bring such DD/OPA before the Agency and the City Council for consideration, action, and authorization to sign, and (iily sign the DD/OPA, if such is approved. 2 . The Agency agrees that within the initial sixty (60) days of this Agreement it shall submit documents, reports, and information concerning the proposed development that will provide the parties with the following information: a . Apreliminary site plan and architectural/design, concept for the development showing access roads, amount and location of parking, location and size of all buildings including height and perimeter dimensions, pedestrian circulation system, landscaping, floor plans , elevations, .perspective renderings, and the architec Ural character of the project. 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -2- r b. A schedule for the development of all structures and improvements proposed and an estimate (supported by a description of the basis for such an estimate) of development costs including construction and non-construction costs. C. An estimate of project income and a pro forma statement of project return (supported by a description of the assumptions made in making such an estimate and statement) adequate to Enable the parties to evaluate the economic feasibility ,of the proposed development . This information will be prepared by a consultant selected by the Agency who will also prepare a reuse analysis of the value of the Proposed Development Site, (i .e. , a value based upon such factors as market conditions, density of development, cost of development (including the costs set forth in Section 12 hereof) , risks incurred, estimated or actual profit, estimated or actual sales and/or rental prices of the development, the public purposes, and other matters relevant to establishing the value of the subject property for the uses permitted to be developed. 3 . The Property Owners will prepare and submit a description of the proposed method of construction and permanent financing and amount and sources of capital . �✓ 4 . Agency further agrees to cooperate with the Property owners in supplying financial institutions with appropriate information, if available and not otherwise privileged, to facilitate the obtaining of financing for the Development. 5. Due to the fact the Property Owners are owners within the Project Area it is subject to the rules, rights, -and obligations set forth in the Rules for Owner Participation of • the Agency for the Project Area (herein "OP Rules") . Property owners, by execution of this Agreement, acknowledge receipt of a copy of the OP Rules . 6. The design and development objectives for the project shall be specified in the DD/OPA and the actual development shall be in conformity therewith. The Property Owners shall cooperate fully with the Agency's professional consultants and associates in providing them with any information and assistance reasonably within the capacity of the Property Owners to provide in connection with the preparation and execution of the drawings, plans, and specifications or other documents or information required to be submitted by the Agency to the Property Owners or to the City of Huntington Beach ("City") pursuant, to this Agreement or as required by state or local laws and regulations . All design, architectural, and building plans. for development shall be subject to the review �+✓ and approval of the Agency and the City, 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -3- 7 . In the event that the Property Owners or the Agency fails to fulfill the obligations described in this Agreement within the times specified, the non-performing party shall have fifteen ( 15) days following written notice from the other to cure, or commence to cure, such failure to perform as may be identified in the written notice. If the non-performing party has failed to cure, or commenced to cure, within such fifteen (15) day period, any other party may terminate this Agreement and, thereafter, none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the others under this Agreement except as hereafter provided . The Property Owners, by execution hereof , knowingly agree, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, that they shall have no right by virtue of this Agreement to specific performance of this Agreement , nor to specific performance for conveyance of , nor to claim any right ' of title or interest in the Proposed Development Site (except the parcel or parcels already owned by each of the Property Owners) or any part thereof , nor to money damages , nor any other legal remedies or equitable remedies under the law. 8 . Property Owners shall not discriminate against nor segregate, any person, or group of persons on account of sex, race, color, age, marital status , religion, handicap, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Proposed Development Site, nor shall the Developer establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation in the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of tenants , lessees , subtenants , sublessees or vendees of the land. 9 . The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage fees which may arise herefrom. Each party represents that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction, and each party agrees to hold the other parties harmless from any claim by any broker, agent or finder claiming through any such party. 10 . The Property Owners acknowledge and agree that under the DD/OPA they shall be required to comply with all applicable federal , state and local laws and regulations concerning the displacement and relocation, if such occurs , of persons and/or businesses on and from the Proposed Development Site, including without limitation , compliance with the Relocation Assistance Law, Government Code Section 7260 , et seq . 11 . It is the objective of each of the parties that the DD/OPA will contain the following terms and conditions : II i I i ll/l/88 1986n/2460/00 -4- a, It is the objective of Zisakis that: ( 1) The existing National Auto Glass Building will be retained at its present location with signage and new development will be constructed around the existing National Auto Glass Building . On completion of new construction National will own 7,000 square feet of ground floor property within the Proposed Development Site with at least 4,500 contiguous square feet having the potential for 12 foot ceilings suitable for auto glass shop use and the remainder of which will be appropriate for commercial retail use. In addition, National will have a right to own an additional 10,000 square feet of office space within the Proposed Development Site. (2) Except as provided in (1) above, the ultimate location, square footage and configuration of the National Auto Glass Building including associated parking, as well as the purchase price paid by Zisakis for its rights hereunder shall be determined in the course of negotiating the DD/OPA. b. It is the objective of GSL that: (1) GSL shall be provided with unimpeded access to and from Cypress Avenue through the Proposed Development Site from the existing Charter Centre. (2) All development on the Proposed Development Site will be consistent with the architectural standards established by the existing Charter Centre. (3) GSL shall have the right to participate in any additional parking provided on the Proposed Development Site, which is no less than a proportionate share based on the size of the parcels owned by the Property Owners as of the date of execution of the DD/OPA. (4) The ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site shall include a reciprocal easement agreement standard for any such integrated commercial center allowing for reciprocal ingress and egress throughout the Proposed Development Site as well as . reciprocal parking rights and maintenance, repair, and upkeep of the Proposed Development Site in conformity with similar standards extant . for Charter Centre. (5)- GSL will be selected as the developer for the Proposed Development Site. ll/l/88 1986n/2460/00 -5- C. It 'is the objective of the Agency that: (1) The Proposed Development Site be developed as an integrated commercial development further integrated with the existing Charter Centre so as to provide architectural unity as well .as reciprocal access in parking throughout the Proposed Development Site and Charter Centre. ' (2) The Property Owners shall be granted ownership -rights in the ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site consistent with their respective ownership in the Proposed Development Site, subject to the £urther 'ability ! to acquire additional ownership rights in the ultimate ; development through contributions toward the ultimate development in the form of acquisition of property from another party, equity contribution and/or similar contributions standard in such joint venture developments . 12 . GSL shall deliver .to the Agency concurrently with execution hereof by the Agency an advance of funds ("Advance") in the amount of -Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) in cash or cashier ' s or certified check. The Agency shall have the right to draw down and to spend whatever portion of said Advance is necessary for site plan preparation, development feasibility analysis, including, without limitation, economic analysis, legal fees, redevelopment consultant fees, appraisal fees, staff time, administration and other costs associated with the Proposed . Development Project . The Agency shall maintain accurate documentation of such expenditures which information shall be made available to GSL in the form of a detailed accounting made Every thirty (30) days after the Agency's execution of this Agreement, and to the other Property Owners upon request. No interest shall accrue or be due to GSL on this Advance. The Advance is submitted to the Agency as consideration for this Agreement and GSL knowingly agrees that the Advance may. not be refunded to 'it except as hereinafter provided . In the event a DD/OPA is entered into, this Advance shall be considered a cost of development and shall be included in project costs allocated proportionally. As a material part of the consideration for GSL advancing the Advance, GSL shall retain all ownership rights in and - to the plans, but not the ' studies and' reports . for which the Advance is used . In the event during the Negotiating Period or any ; extended period hereunder all of the Advance is expended or obligated and the Agency reasonably believes additional funds are necessary to pay for the cost associated with the. Proposed Development Project and to reach a DD/OPA ready for Property Owner 's signature and Agency consideration, then the Agency shall submit a written request to GSL notifying it of the 11/1/as ' 1986n/2460/00 -6- t r nature of the items to be completed, the estimated cost of such items, and an explanation of the need for such items, and- the amount of the additional funds required to be advanced by GSL to the Agency pursuant to the request. The collective amount of the initial advance of funds and the additional advance or advanceA of funds are referred to herein as the Advance. The Agency shall refund any unused and unobligated portion of the Advance within thirty (30) calendar days after the end of the Negotiating Period. Except as set forth in the sentence immediately preceeding, GSL shall have no right to the return of the Advance during the Negotiating Period or thereafter. 13 . In the event that this Agreement terminates by virtue , of the passage of time, or otherwise, and the parties have not entered into a DDA/OPA, then each of the property owners has the right to request that the Agency consider independent development of each of their respective parcels, including the sale of land by the Agency to each such property owner to accommodate such development. The Agency may, in its sole and absolute discretion, accept or reject any such proposals. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the 1� date and year appearing below. 7 f1 1988 REDEVELOPMEVn AG THE CITY OF HUXTrNG N CH By: ha" :nan "AGENCY" ATTEST: Agency Secretary INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Dep ty dr ty Administrator/ Directof Economic Development ll/1/88 1986n/2960/00 -7- REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS APPROVED: AS TO FORM: City/Agency At rney w� City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer Agency Special Counsel ZISAKIS ve 7- GSL By It By: I s: 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -8- REQUEST FC, REDEVELOPMENT . �IENCY ACTION A. RH 89-22 4c'� • Date March 20, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members fubAtted to: Paul E. Cook, Chief Executive Director Q C Submitted by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Developmen Prepared by: CHARTER CENTRE PHASE III-LAND USE CONCEPTS Subject: Consistent with Council Policy? 04 Yes t j New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: Na I On February 27, 1989 it was the Agency's action to approve a ninety day(90) extension to the Charter Centre Phase III Negotiating Agreement. To proceed with further discussions with regard to the Negotiating Agreement a review of alternative land use concepts would be appropriate at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff on the five land use concepts as presented. ANALYSIS. Scenario N4^I assumes that the existing C4 zoning will remain along Beach Blvd. and that the existing R2 zoning will remain at the corner of Cypress and Elm. Mr. Zisakis' existing 2,500 sq. ft. glass shop is expanded by 2,000 sq. ft. Mr. Lichter's existing 12,750 sq. ft. office building is expanded by 4,950 sq. ft. for a total of 17,700 sq. ft. The remaining C4 zoned property is utilized for surface parking sufficient to meet the needs of these two uses, and for reciprocal access through the site from Guardian Centre to Cypress Avenue. The R2 zoned property would be developed separately with multi-family housing. Scenario No,22 would also consist of additions to the existing glass shop and office. Mr. Zisakis' building would be expanded by 2,000 sq. ft. for a total area of 4,500 sq. ft. and Mr. Lichter's building expanded by 11,550 sq. ft., for a total of 24,300 sq. ft. The R2 property at Cypress Avenue and Elm Street would be changed to C4, and incorporated into surface parking to accommodate the expanded office square footage. Reciprocal access through the site from Guardian Centre to Cypress• Avenue is provided. Scenario No. 3 would involve demolition of the existing glass shop and office building and construction of a single three-story building fronting Beach Blvd. that would house both uses. Mr. Zisakis' new glass shop area would total 5,000 sq. ft. on the first floor of the building, and Mr. Lichter's new office area would total 37,000 sq. ft. on the first, Plolt185 r RH 99-22 March 20, I989 Page Two Scenario No. 3 (Continued) second, and third floors. The R2 zoned property at Cypress and Elm would be rezoned to C4, and utilized for a two level parking structure to accommodate the office and glass shop. Reciprocal access through the site is provided. It is possible that two additional Ievels of parking could be added to the parking structure (approximately 120 spaces) to help ease parking demand for the health club. Scenarj,Q_Ng, 4 assumes demolition of the existing structures on the site and rezoning the R2 property to C4. A seven-story office tower is proposed, containing 71,900 sq. ft. of office area. An underpass on the first level provides access to Cypress from Guardian Centre. The glass shop would be incorporated into a four level parking structure at Cypress and Elm. Scenario No. 5 is similar to No. 4. The office tower would be expanded to nine-stories (90,000 sq. ft.), and a fifth subterranean level added to the four level parking structure. The glass shop would be incorporated in the first floor of the office tower and in an "annex", an out-builidng at the corner of Cypress Avenue and Beach Blvd. In Scenarios 4 and 5, it becomes difficult to provide additional levels of parking for the health club, since C4 zoning limitations restrict the height of the structures to approximately four levels. In addition, the impact of high intensity office uses on surrounding streets and land uses may be significantly adverse. It may be expected that any scenario that adds more than minimal office area would have significant impacts in the areas of land use compatibility, traffic circulatlon, aesthetics, light and glare, and noise. An Environmental Impact Report would most likely be prepared to examine likely impacts and to outline mitigation measures and project alternatives. FUNDING SOURCE: Agency contractual service funds will be used to provide consulting services. ALIERNAMM-ACIION: Defer action at this time and direct staff to evaluate additional land use alternatives. ATTACHMENTS: 1. RAA dated February 27, 1989 with attachments. a. Negotiation Agreement. b. Site Diagram. c. Land Use Concepts 1 through S. d. Keyser Marston letters of January 27, 1989 and February 3, 1989. 2. Guardian Savings letter of February 17, 1989. 3. National Auto Glass letter of February 27, 1989. PEC/DLB/TA:sar 4582r REQUEST F&R REDEVELOPMENI"�AGENGY ACTION ' "V4J RH 89-18 February 27, 1989 Date Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: Paul E. Cook, Executive Director Submitted by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Develop Prepared by: CHARTER CENTRE PHASE III- NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT STATUS Subject: REPORT AND RECOMMENDED 90 DAY EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT Consistent with Council Policy? V4 Yes I j New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT-0FJSSC! On October 24, 1988, the Agency approved a Negotiating Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency, Guardian Savings and Loan Real Estate, and Mr. and Mrs. Zisakis. The purpose of that Agreement was to seek to negotiate the terms of an ultimate Disposition and Development Agreement outlining the economics and design feasibility of a commercial development project on properties owned by the participants. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize extension of the Negotiating Agreement for an additional ninety days (90) in order to allow parties to the Agreement further opportunity to negotiate towards a final development proposal. ANALY51S: The terms of the existing Negotiating Agreement calls for the parties to negotiate diligently in good faith for a ninety-day period from Agreement's approved date to establish and agree upon mutually acceptable development plans, concepts, or alternatives, and determine the economic feasibility of the proposed development, and establish a value of that proposed development site. It further states that, if the Agency is provided reasonable evidence, the parties have either fully resolved or progressing towards resolution of a development proposal, an additional ninety-day period to finalize a development proposal and negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement/Owner Participation Agreement would be in order. To date, the following actions have been taken: . Staff's had informational meetings with GSL Real Estate and Phillip Zisakis. • GSL Real Estate has deposited twen:% . 0inusand dollars ($20,000) with the Agency to be used as outlined in the Negotiating Agreement. Staff has retained the-services of an architect who has prepared five development concepts dated January 6, 1989. Agency's financial consultant (Keyser Marston), has analyzed the five development concepts and prepared two reports dated January 27, and February 3, 1989. FUNDING SOURCE: Agency contractual service funds. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1) Do not approve or modify the proposed ninety (90) day extension. 2) Sell Agency property through the bid process to one or more of the adjacent property owners. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Negotiating Agreement. 2) Site Map. 3) Land Use Concepts. 4) Keyser Marston letters of January 27, and February 3, 1999. PEC/DLB/TA:sar 4415r a r 1 . ATTACHMENT 1 NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Negotiating Agreement ("Agreement" ) is made and entered into by and among the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF -THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a public body, ("Agency") , PHILIP ZISAKIS and ROXANNE S. ZISAKIS ("ZISAKIS") , and GSL REAL ESTATE, a California corporation ("GSL") (collectively the "Property ,Owners") ; A. In furtherance of the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 33000, g.t =g. , (the "Act") , the Agency desires to redevelop certain parcels of land within the Oakview Project Area (Project Area) , as shown cn the attached and incorporated Site Map (Exhibit "A") and referred to herein as Proposed Development Site. B. The Proposed Development Site is composed of real property owned by the Agency, Zisakis (operated as "National Auto Glass") , GSL and Leonard E. and Nancy G. Lichter who were offered an opportunity to participate in this Negotiating Agreement but declined. The Proposed Development Site is located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of Cypress Street and Beach Boulevard within the Project Area. C. The parties desire to negotiate a Disposition and Development/Owner Participation Agreement ("DD/OPA") with the Agency to assemble the Proposed Development Site for the ' purpose of developing thereon a commercial development. D. The parties recognize and acknowledge that the purpose of this Agreement is to seek to negotiate the terms of a DD/OPA which will include without limitation, the economics of the development, the Site Plan, and specific uses of the development, and the other terms of a DD/OPA toward the disposition and redevelopment oE- the Proposed Development Site. AGREEMENT The parties mutually agree as follows: 1. The parties shall negotiate diligently and in good faith for a 90 day period from the date this Agreement is executed by the Agency- ("Negotiating Period") , to establish and agree upon mutually acceptable development plans, concepts, or alternatives, determine the economic feasibility of the development, and establish a value of the Proposed Development Site. If the Agency is provided evidence reasonably : ' satisfactory to it that the parties have either fully resolved . or are progressing toward the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of the development, as proposed, the Agency shall extend the Negotiating Period for ninety (90). days ("Extended Negotiation Period") and, thereafter, the parties shall seek in good faith within such additional ninety (90) day period to finalize the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of- the development and negotiate a DD/OPA for the disposition and development of the Proposed Development Site.. Except as this Agreement is extended, if on the 180th day from the date of - this Agreement (the. end of the Extended Negotiating Period) , the Property Owners have not signed and submitted a DD/OPA to the Agency, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate, and the parties knowingly agree that none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the other under this Agreement. If a DD/OPA is so signed and submitted within the Extended Negotiating Period, then this Agreement may be extended in writing for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of such submittal to enable the Agency to: (i) determine whether it desires to enter into such DD/OPA, (ii) take the actions necessary to bring such DD/OPA before the Agency and the City Council for consideration, action, and authorization to sign, and (iii) sign the DD/OPA, if such is approved. 2. The Agency agrees that within the initial sixty (60) days of this Agreement it shall submit documents, reports, and information concerning the proposed development that will provide the parties with the following information: a. A preliminary site plan and architectural/design concept for the development showing access roads, amount and location of parking, location and size of all buildings including height and perimeter dimensions, pedestrian circulation system, landscaping, floor plans, elevations, .perspective renderings, and the arch ec `u- al character of the project . 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -2- b. A schedule for the development of all structures and improvements proposed and an estimate (supported by a description of the basis for such an estimate) of development costs including construction and non-construction costs. C. An estimate of project income and a pro forma statement of project return (supported by a description of the assumptions made in making such an estimate and statement) adequate to enable the parties to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed development . This information will be prepared by a consultant selected by the Agency who will also prepare a reuse analysis of the value of the Proposed Development Site, (i .e. , a value based upon such factors as market conditions, density of development, cost of development (including the costs set forth in Section 12 hereof) , risks incurred, estimated or actual profit, estimated or actual sales and/or rental prices of the development, the public purposes,• and other matters relevant to establishing the value of the subject property for the uses permitted to be developed. 3 . The Property Owners will prepare and submit a description of the proposed method of construction and permanent financing and amount and sources of capital. 4 . Agency further agrees to cooperate with the Property owners in supplying financial institutions with appropriate information, if available and not otherwise privileged, to facilitate the obtaining of financing for the Development. 5 . Due to the fact the Property Owners are owners within the Project Area it is subject to the rules, rights, end obligations set forth in the Rules for Owner Participation of the Agency for the Project Area '(herein "OP Rules") . Property Owners, by execution of this Agreement, acknowledge receipt of a copy of the OP Rules . 6. The design and development objectives for the project shall be specified in the DD/OPA and the -actual development :shall be in conformity therewith. The Property Owners shall cooperate fully with the Agency's professional consultants and associates in providing them with any infgrmation and assistance reasonably within the capacity of the Property Owners to provide in connection with the preparation and execution of the drawings, plans, and specifications or other documents or information required to be submitted by the Agenc§ to the Property Owners or to the City of Huntington Beach ("City") pursuant- to this Agreement or as required by state or local laws and regulations. All design, architectural, and building plans. for development shall be subject to the review and approval of the Agency and the City. 11/l./88 1966n/24 b0/00 -3- 7, In the event that the Property Owners or the Agency fails to fulfill the obligations described in this Agreement within the times specified, the non-performing party shall have fifteen (15) days following written notice from the other to cure, or commence to cure, such failure to perform as may be identified in the written notice. If the non-performing party has failed to cure, or commenced to cure, within such fifteen (15) day period, any other party may terminate this Agreement and, thereafter, none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the others under this Agreement except as hereafter provided. ' The Property Owners , by execution hereof, knowingly agree, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, that they shall have no right by virtue of this Agreement to specific performance of this Agreement., nor to specific performance for conveyance of, nor to claim any right ' of title or interest in the Proposed Development Site (except the parcel or parcels already owned by each of the Property Owners) or any part thereof, nor to money damages, nor any other legal remedies or equitable remedies under the law, B. Property Owners shall not discriminate against nor ` segregate, any person, or group of persons on account of sex, race, color, .age, marital status, religion, handicap, creed, national origin or ancestry in. the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Proposed Development Site, nor shall. the Developer establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation in the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land. 9 . The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage fees which may arise herefrom. Each party represents that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction, and each party agrees to hold the other parties harmless from any claim by any broker, agent or finder claiming through any such party. 10. The Property Owners acknowledge and agree that under the DD/OPA they shall be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the displacement and relocation, if such occurs, of persons and/or businesses on and from the Proposed Development Site, including without limitation, compliance with the Relocation Assistance Law, Government Code Section 7260, et seq. 11. It is the objective of each of the parties that the DD/OPA will contain the following terms and conditions: 11/1/8a 1986n/2460/00 -4- a . It is the objective: of Zisakis that: ( 1) The existing tational Auto Glass Building will be retained at its present location with signage and new development will be constructed around the existing National Auto Glass Building. On completion of new construction National will own 7,000 square feet of ground floor property within the Proposed Development Site with at least 4 ,500 contiguous square feet having the potential for 12 foot ceilings suitable for auto glass shop use and the remainder of which will be appropriate for commercial retail use. In addition, National will have a right to own an additional 10,000 square feet of office space within the Proposed Development Site. (2) Except as provided in (1) above, the ultimate location, square footage and configuration of the National Auto Glass Building including associated parking, as well as the purchase price paid by Zisakis for its rights hereunder shall be determined in the .course' of negotiating the DD/OPA. b. It is the objective of GSL that: (1) GSL shall be provided with unimpeded access to and from Cypress Avenue through the Proposed Development Site from the existing Charter Centre. (2) All development on the Proposed Development Site will be consistent with the architectural standards established by the existing Charter Centre. (3) GSL shall have the right to participate in any additional parking provided on the Proposed Development Site, which is no less than a proportionate share based on the size of the parcels owned by the Property Owners as of the date of execution of the DD/OPA. (4) The ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site shall include a reciprocal easement agreement standard for any such integrated commercial center allowing for reciprocal ingress and egress throughout the Proposed Development Site as well as reciprocal parking rights and maintenance, repair, and upkeep of the Proposed Development Site in conformity with similar standards extant for Charter Centre. ' (5y- GSL will be selected as the developer for the Proposed Development Site, 11/l/Sa 2986n/2460/00 -5- j - C. It is the objective of the Agency that : ( 1) The Proposed Development Site be developed as an integrated commercial development further integrated with the existing Charter Centre so as to provide architectural unity as well as reciprocal access in parking throughout the Proposed Development Site and Charter Centre . (2) The Property Owners shall be granted ownership rights in the ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site consistent with their respective ownership in the Proposed Development Site, subject to the further ability to acquire additional ownership rights in the ultimate development through contributions toward the ultimate development in the form of acquisition of property from another party, equity contribution and/or similar contributions standard in such joint venture developments . 12 . GSL shall deliver to the Agency concurrently with execution hereof by the Agency an advance of funds ( "Advance") in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20, 000) in cash or cashier ' s or certified check. The Agency shall have the right to draw down and to spend whatever portion of said Advance is necessary for site plan preparation, development feasibility analysis, including, without limitation, economic analysis , legal fees , redevelopment consultant fees, appraisal fees, staff time, administration and other costs associated with the Proposed Development Project . The 'Agency shall maintain accurate documentation of such expenditures which information shall be made available to GSL in the form of a detailed accounting made every thirty (30) days after the Agency' s execution of this Agreement, and to the other Property Owners upon request . No interest shall accrue or be due to GSL on this Advance . The Advance is submitted to the Agency as consideration for this Agreement and GSL knowingly agrees that the Advance may not be refunded to it except as hereinafter provided. In the event a DD/OPA is entered into, this Advance shall be considered a cost of development and shall be included in project costs allocated proportionally. As a material part of the consideration for GSL advancing the Advance , GSL shall retain all ownership rights in and to the plans , but not the studies and reports for which the Advance is used . In the event during the Negotiating Period or any extended period hereunder all of the Advance is expended or obligated and the Agency reasonably believes additional funds are necessary to pay for the cost associated with the Proposed Development Project and to reach a DD/OPA ready for Property Owner ' s signature and Agency consideration, then the Agency shall submit a written request to GSL notifying it of the 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -6- nature of the items to be completed, the estimated cost of such items, and an explanation of the need for such items, and the amount of the additional funds required to be advanced by GSL to the Agency pursuant to the request. The collective amount of the initial advance of funds and the additional advance or advances of funds are referred to herein as the Advance. The Agency shall refund any unused and unobligated portion of the Advance within thirty (30) calendar days after the end of the Negotiating Period. Except as set forth in the sentence immediately pr.eceeding, GSL shall have no right to the return of the Advance during the Negotiating Period or thereafter. 13 . In the event that this Agreement terminates by virtue of the passage of time, or otherwise, and the parties have not entered into a DDA/OPA, then each of the property owners has the right to request that the Agency consider independent development of each of their respective parcels, including the sale of land by the Agency to each such property owner to accommodate such development. The Agency may, in its sole and absolute discretion, accept or reject any such proposals. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year appearing below. J. 1988 REDEVELOPME AG THE CITY OF H T G N CH Hy: ha' man "AGENCY" ATTEST: Agency Secretary INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT Dep ty sty Administrator/ �'t DirectKr of Economic Development 11/1/88 1966n/2460/40 -7- REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS APPROVED: AS TO FORM: City/Agency At rney City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer Agency Special Counsel i ZISAKIS GSL By: It By: 11/l/88 1986n/2960/00 -8- N 7. ' I ��� yVARNFfZ /IVY. E7CNIBlT >>�u I • SCALD + /.•gyp' �� ►: J �` ��lNE LOTd; 6LX.if� F.M. • �unf9 .. ��' . y rt.sas Pe,¢ Rr1t�oo/f. .Vd!•tG'rJ•e �sx�s' W v � • � iA4br !d7 .10��• •� v a P+i GCE L 1 .� et4zl ACkeS v j .2I54 Ac.(e s 0 ifSCAC�ce 53 o,�i8 AC<Es .ru' 3L' 4 < •, Ndl'JL'3a'L' Je�7 JZ' ,�• _ � '•T d:' •LCC + -I f 1 9 i /I� � . 1 •' f/Y7��" ...S�Mf �' Ku�T�/'6L�`�GGN�rT� � ti/�/7��1• itz '-�N6 A07727 R /Sr1.4vSf: ,�,v • `'`j. •."� � �!J f�i�i'NF> ��TTO c /Sr":��vOs� t . /°S tse SCENARIO - 2 1p _ Av T 1 ✓ Gl'3p/ ,11`�/fl'oY✓ /�, v S I r Jivd -2:7 f� 5r• 4 + ' M ..�.. Ap i Q � SCENARIO - 3 Td-By�,�7wNs AV er ow T 3 � Nb�d710 l /3/5 /7-3 Nov -AW Pot.saysr T FiAN^V �rfs� �F,prro � gyp./�5� Y AW t + r f SCENARIO - 4 - � Nam✓ ��!� ��,�' ' 5.2'7 ti /v,7oD5•� �. T�fL gyp~ ?/, n - frrr-HP1d , ice ��SP ' � f r Nam✓ G�� � Nam' �x 5ff�� 5c�st- Till New .�.. ..�• - ,�r��i '�l�d �'f�%/PLC! , • ��r 5�1Ffi�• 3`f 5Y • •• N I. SCENARIO - S AS�MAVV7- Voxlf�-���y G7�t' G 1�5 New orlf-'r-- l - . , * if-rnlzr- ., t t;v f r. W Gil/ r � y ..` �C —..��_ � Nit/ 60: r • a If so ee /rc ATTACHMENT 4 Key gMamtonAssodateslnc Richard L.BOtti 500 South Grand Avenue,Suite 1480 Calvin E.Hollis,II Los Angeles,California90071 213/622.8095 Fax 213/622-5204 SAN DIEGO 619/942-0380 Heintz A.Schilling SA FRANCISCO 4I5/398•3050 Timothy C.Kelly A.Jerry Keyser Kate Earle Funk Robert J.Wetmore Michael Conlon Denise E.Conley {T] January 27, 1989 SAN 3 DEPARTMENT O�MENT COMMU141rf DEVELOP Mr. Pat Spencer REDEvELOPMEHT ptvtSlpTA Deputy Director of Housing and Redevelopment City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Pat: In accordance with your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) reviewed the five alternative development scenarios submitted for the glass works" site. This analysis presents a summary of our preliminary findings, and identifies the issues to be con- sidered in pursuing these scenarios further. , BACKGROUND STATEMENT The subject site consists of six parcels totaling approximately 71, 741 square feet (1. 65 acres ) . They are currently under four • different ownerships, divided as follows: GSL Real Estate 15,333 sf Leonard Lichter 27,936 sf Philip Zisakis 31136 sf Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 25,336 sf 71,741 sf At the present time the owners are attempting to arrange a joint- venture for the .development of the property. The Agency has provided KMA with the development alternatives and requested that we analyze the economic viability of each scenario. The following section of this letter presents the comparative analysis, which is based on typical construction costs for the types of buildings analyzed, and field work to ascertain achievable rent levels. Real.Estate Pmdcvelolm tnt&Evaluatim5Srvices j . r f ' Mr. Pat Spencer City of Huntington Beach { January 27, 1989 Page 2 ANALYSIS Table 1 presents the alternative development scenarios as they apply to each property owner. The development scenarios, prepared by 30th Street Architects, are presented in order from the lowest commercial density (Scenario 1) to the most intense commercial den- sity (Scenario 5 ) . As can be seen in Table 11 each of the scenarios require the use of both the GSL parcels and the Agency parcels to provide parking for the office and glass works facility uses . Table 2 presents a summary of the basic assumptions used to arrive at. the land values supported by the alternative development scenarios. As can be seen in Table 2, the shell costs and tenant improvement allowances increase as the building sizes and heights increase. The achievable office rent levels also increase as the structure shifts from garden office to mid- to high-rise construc- tion. It was further assumed that it would be necessary to provide concessions such as free rent to be competitive in . attracting tenants to the mid- and high-rise buildings. Another basic assump- tion is that the absorption period will be more protracted for the larger buildings. Based on the preceding assumptions, KMA determined the warranted land value for the assembled site under each of the development al- ternatives. Table 3 presents these findings, as well as both our comments regarding each scenario and the recommended allocation of the land value amongst the various land owners . This allocation reflects the relative marketability of each parcel, assuming the entire property were not being assembled for a larger development. CONCLUSIONS On a relative basis, Scenario 4 represents the most economically viable of the development alternatives tested. It should be noted that given current market considerations it is probable that the total of each of the parcels' land values at the highest and best use exceeds the value of the assembled site. ' However, the separate development of each of the landowners ' holdings would implicitly result in piecemeal or fragmented development. These uses would most likely include retail on the Beach Boulevard frontage and medium density residential 'at the rear of the site. KeyserM arstonAssoriatesr nc. TOM I ALTEP.NAIIVE DI MMIRI SCERAtiOS CRARTF4 rINIF>t FTPJR%TnI: HUNIINCION ?EACH, CA[IFORNIA M L1CN1E6 115AT15 AGENCY ,I SIM SF LAND USED IN. 1 TI15 M OFFICE EXPANDED IT T EXISTING CLASS VOCKS FACILITY 14 20,2% SF LAND USED FOR SCER4110 1 1 SUF.FA:E FAAKING ; 4,950 SF ; EIFAMDED BY 2,OG•O SF 1 SUi,FACE FORTIN' 'f 9,525 Sf LAND RES[RVEQ FOR ; i DA 5,040 SF LAND P.FSEPVED FOR ; FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ; ; ; FUTUPE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ; i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i SCENARIO 2 i 15,333 SF LAND USED FOR I EX1511xG OFFICE EXPANDED BY EkIS11xG GLASS VORCS fAC1lTTY ; 25,336 SF LAUD USED FOR ; SURFACE PARKING 1 II,550 SF EXPANDED BY 2,000 SF 1 SURFACE PAPKIRC 1 i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +- -------------------------------- +--------.------ . . . T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15,333 SF LAND USED FOR EXI511NG OFFICE BUiLD1xG ; EXISTING CLASS WORKS FACILITY 25,336 SF LAND USED FOR ; SCENARIO 3 1 2-STOPT PARTING STRUCTURE i DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH A i DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED PITH 2-STORT PARTING STRUCTURE. T 1 1 3-SIORY 37,000 SF OFFICE DUILDIRG.' A 5,000 SF FACILITY OH GROUND PDR110N Of SITE USED FOR OFFICE I WITH CLASS mrs FACILITY oN 1 FLOOR OF OFFICE BUILDING BUILDING WITH GLASS FACILITY THE CM11ND FLOOR ON GPOUMD FLOOR. 1 1 , '-----------------------------------'------------------------------------' 1 1 1 + 1 15,333 SF LAND USED FOt I EXISTING OFFICE IUILDIKG 1 EXISTING CLASS WORKS FACILITY 1 25,336 SF LAND USED FOR 1 SCENARIO A 1 A-SToRT PARKING SiRuclUPE 1 DEMIA.ISHED AND REPLACED W17R A 1 DEMOLISHED AND IFP19CED VITN 1 4-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE i 1 VITO $,000 SF GLASS VOR(S' 1 1-STORY 11,900 SF OFFICE BUILOINGI A 5,000 SF FACILIIY IN ; VITN GLASS FACILITI 0% CROLINO ; FACILITY ON FIRST LEVEL 1 1 PART)ru STRUCTURE FLOOR. PORTION OF SITE USED FOR i i T OFFICE BUILDING. i i i i i 1 '-----------------------------------'-----------------------------------I ---------------------------.._. +. ...----------------------------- , 1 1 1 1 1 IS,333 SF LAND USED FOR EXISTING OFFICE IUILDIRG 1 EXISTING CLASS WORKS FACILITY 1 251336 SF LARD USED FOR ; S-STCRT PA►KIRG STRUCTUFE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WISH A i DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED VITN 1 5-510R1 FIRMS SIRUCTURE 1 SCERARIO 5 VITN ONE LEVEL OF SCIBIERP.ANEAN ; 9110RY 90,000 St OFFICE BUILDIRGI A 4,500 SF FACILITY ON GROUND WITH ONE LEVEL OF SUBTERRANEAN FAR[1RG 1 WITH CLASS WORKS FACILITY ON 1 FLOOR of OFFICE BUILDING ; PARKING. PO£11oH OF SITE USED ; 1 1NE C asa FLOQt I FOR OFFICE LU11jIH5 1114 GLASS 1 1 1 1 FACILITY ON CROun FLOOR. ; ---------------------------------------------------...--------•--------------------------.........-----....---------...------------...------_.... . . SOUPCF: FETSER Ptl$TOR ASSOCIATES, INC. .--_ FILE NAWI: MINA* AN?IAKT, 1989. ' � V Mr. Pat Spencer City of Huntington Beach January 27, 1989 Page 3 We look forward to reviewing our findings with you at your earliest convenience. Yours very truly, KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. Kathleen H: Head KHH:gbd 69047.HTB 14066 .0018 KmrMarstonA ssoci atesinc. ' TAFIf 3 ANALYSIS SLH!MAP.f C890fR FTk1ft EYFANSIDH H011111CION LEACH, CA[IFORNIA IS11MA1EL IOTAL LAND VALUE ALLOCATED LAND VALK CORNEH1S 1. THIS SCENAUD ASSUMES 101 LIC111111 A1I0 71$015 AU03i 21,ID4 SF ; OF LAND F16n GSL AND THE AGENCY io Pcom PAm mI For.. mit ; hDMINAL VALUE ; EXPAkhED FACIt111E5. ; SCENARIL 1 ; ; ----- ; 2. IHf ADDJIIDKAL J1rJME ASSOCIATED VITO THE EXPANSWR OF THE GFTICf EXCLUDES VALUE OF 9,525 SF [AND ; ; AND G1AS5 PORES FACILITY IS ONLY SUFFICIENT 10 AH,411tE THE P.ESfFm FOR PESIOfHTIAI ; ; CONSTILILIIDR COSTS FOR THE EXIA."109. IHEN IS HOT ADEOUAIE INCOME; DEVELOPMENT. ; ; 10 SIIPPGRI A IAHD PAYMEHI TOR THE 26,105 SF OF ADGIIIONAt LARD UOUIRED. ;- --------------------------------- --------------------;..........------------..---------------------- -•---; I ; ; 1. 10I5 SCENARIO ASSUMES THAT LICHIER 19D TIS.11S AC09K 1YE ENIIIE 40,419 SF Of AGENCY AND 6SL LAND TO PPUY1Df PA URS FOP. THEII ; EXPANDED FACILITIES. IRIS SCERALIO PROVIDES AN 11,.50 SF OFFICE SCENARIO 2 ; NOMIMIL YALVE ; ----- 1 UPANSIDH VERSUS 4,950 SF IN SCENARIO 1. ; ; 2. Ti1E ADDITIDHAL INCOME ASSOCIATED VITO THIS SCENARIO O1k T SUPPORTS ; A MINIMAL LAND PAYMENT TO 6SL AND THE A6EHCY. THE VAST f-0QUIT OF; + ; THIS INCOME MUST It tr0 TO AMDRIIIE THE CONSIRUCTION COSTS FOR ; T 1K nPANSION. ; T- ------------------------------- -;----------------------------------- • -------------------------------------------------------------------- T ; LICHIER: 1294,00D OR $10.50 (SF IISAITS: 113,000 DR 110.50 /SF ; THE Lou DENSITY OF C00-451TLE OfFICf KYE10K NT DOES NDl I SCENA116 3 ; 0601000 ; ; MAXIMIN THE VALUE OF IRE EVIIF.E SITE, P1.[LICULACLT THE SfACH CSL: 041000 O1 13.sn pj ; IZUVA0 FAUTACE. ; AGENCY: 1179,000 OR 17.00 JSF ; '----------------------------- - ,.—.--- -. --- ------------'-------------------------------------------------------------------•--- LICHTEI: 1369.MO OR 113.2D /SF ; I ; ; 1. THE REA1-YEAH INCOME LEVELS ACHIEYA5IE $Y A NID-PISE 1U111IR6 1H so I 715A[IS: S411000 OR 113.20 f5F ; IRIS LOCATION, CKIPLED WITH THE LEVEL OF CONCf5510NS noui ED To ; SCENARIO 1 ; Y700,00 ; ; ATTRACT MAIDR IENANT4, CDKSTRAIN IRE VIAlILT1Y OE THIS DfVfLOPhUT; GSL: 167,0DO OR 11.0 /SF ; SCENARIO. ; 2. 09 A RELATIVE IAS13, THIS DEVELOI'KEN1 SCEM0.10 PEPPESENIS IRE AGENCY: 1223,000 OR S930 j5T A01 ECOHOMICAU T V14SLE OF THE DEVELOPrENI ALIEFRAIIVE5 1E: E0. ; '----------------------------- --- '----------------------------------'---------------- .---------.._.-_-------. 1. THE HIGH COST OF CONSIRUCTINO SUEIURAMEAN NUINS OUIWEIGHS THE ; 01I1100t INCOME CENCUTED IT CONSIRUCIING ADDII)OHAt SPACE ON ; SCENARIO S ; N6rINAL VALUE ; - -- ; THE SITE. ; T ; 2. THE INCL[KION OF THE CLASS VOR[S FACItIIY IN THE FIRST FIDot 6F ; THE OFFICE 1UILDIRG CONSIIAINS THE MARIETAIJLIIT OF THE OFFICE I TONER, PAITICIRAILY IN TEEMS OF ATIP.ACIING rA1DR COP,PGRAIE-TYPE SOULCE: IEYSER r.«' ASSGCIAIES, INC. IIIE MARC: IXFX4 JANUIty, I°N9. TAU E 2 f9O FOP.11A ASSM CHARTER CENIER FIPANSIOH HUNTINGTOH STACH, CALIFOna REV OEVELOPKENT SHELL COSTS / FENIAI RATE f SIZE / Nil TENANT 1KPROYENENTS PARKING IMPP,OYEK"T MIS COKCESSIONS AFSORPTTOH OFFICE: 050 SF ; SHELL: 110 ISF ; GFFlCE: 115/5f F56 SCENARIO I i 61A:5 NORIS: 2,D00 SF ; OFFICE 1.1.- 115 ISF ; SURFACE: 1l,Ot+O /SPACE I 11455: IN ISF NO ; YEAR 1: 951 ; I'MIHS 'Was: 68 I GLASS T.1.; 110 /SF ; ; ND ME RINI ---------------------------- -------------------- --- --- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------� OFFICE: 11,550 SF i SHELL: 140 /SF i i OFFICE: 11S fSF FS5 i i i I i i SCENARIO 2 ; CLASS MIS: 2,000 SF ; OFFICE T.I.: FIS /SF I SURFACE: $1,000 /SPACE ; GLASS: 118 ISF HNN ; YEAR l: 951 ; 1 PAPIING SPACES: 101 ; CLASS 1.1.: 110 fSF 1 i 94 FREE RENT ----------------------------;---------__^'---------------i----------------------------i---------------------------I----------------------------I i i i i I i OFFICE: 37,DOO Sr SHELL: SIS ISF ; 1 WTICE: 117.40 ISF FSG i I ; SURFACE: 31,000 /SPACE SCENARIO 3 ; GLASS VMS: 5,000 5F ; OFFICE I.I.: 115 /SF ; I GLASS: 110 ISF KW ; YEAR I: 901 ; 1 ; i SIRUCTnEo: 15,006/SPACE I YEAR 2: S1 I FAR[1N6 SPACES: 114 i CLASS T.I.; 110 fSF NO EPEE FENI ;- -------------------------- -------------------------- -;- ----.------- ;~--------------------------;- -------------------------; OFFICE: 71,90D SF I OFFICE SHELL: 155 /SF I OFFICE: 121 ISF FS6 I ! I OFFICE T.1.: SIR ISF ; SURFACE: 11,000 /SPACE ; f SCENARIO 1 I GLASS VMS: 5,000 SF ; ; ; CLASS: 118/SF W ; YEAR 1: 65l ; i I 91AS3 SNELI: 140 /SF ; SIRUCTUPEO: 16,800/SPACE i i YEAR 2: 302 i i PAR[INC SPACES: 266 i GLASS T.I.; 110 fSF i i FREE RENT: 2 NOS /11 OFFICE ONLY --------------..-------------;----------------------------;---........................;--------------- ---------------------------- ; . ; OFFICE: 90,000 5F I OFFICE SHELL: 155 ISF It OFFICE: 121 ISF FSG ; I i 1 OFFICE T.I.: FIB ISF i SURFACE- 11,NO /SPACE 1 1 YEAR 1: Sol ; SCENARio S ; BASS 40115: 6,500 Sr I 1 I GLASS: 118 /SF NNN ; YEAR 2: 401 ; I i GLASS SHELL: 140 ISF I 51RUCtURf4: =8,500 /SPACE I I YEAR 3: SI I PARTING SPACES: 330 ; GLASS I.1.: So fSF ; ; FREE RENT: ? NOS /YR ; OFFICE ONLY I � .........................................w...............«-__....r....«__....«__....._-_--w-......._.w__-_................................. SOME: RETSFt KARSION ASSOCIATES, W. ME PAPI: 1SCENARIO: IANUARY, 1939. ATTACHMENT 4 KeyserMarstonAsso ateslnc, Richard L.Botti S00 South Grand Awnue,Suite 1480 Calvin E.HoIlis,II Los Angeles,Calirornia 9=1 213/622-8095 Pax 213/622-5204 SAN DIEGO 619/942-0390 Heinz A.Schilling SAN FRANCISCO 415/398.3050 Timothy C.Kelly A.Jerry Keyser Kate Earle Funk Robert J.Wetmore Michael Conlon M E M O R A N D U H Denise E.Conley TO: Mr. Pat Spencer Director of Housing and Redevelopment City of Huntington Beach FROM: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. SUBJECT: Charter Center - Phase III DATE: February 3, 1989 r As a follow up .to our January 27, 1989 analysis, Keyser Marston l Associates, Inc. (KMA) prepared this summary of the level of Agency financial . assistance warranted under each of the alternative development scenarios for the site adjacent to Charter Center. This analysis also presents the allocation' of Agency cash and land associated with each scenario, as well as a preliminary projection of tax increment revenues. ` 1. Developer Assistance - Column 1 summarizes the Agency assistance required to i make each development scenario economically viable based on current projections. The Agency cash infusion is equal to the warranted assistance level minus the reuse value of the Agency parcel supported by each development scenario. 2. Agency Costs Column 2 presents the required Agency cash infusion plus the land contribution associated with each development scenario. These cost projections ascribe the highest and best use value to the Agency land. 3. Construction Costs {, These estimates are based on the financial projections presented in our January, 1989 letter. Real E'slatePndewlopm nt valua ionSc Page 2 s 4 . Annual Tax Increment Revenues These revenues were estimated based on the project value less the current assessed value of the property. The tax revenues were calculated at 1% of the net value. 5. Annual Return on Agency Cost This represents the annual tax increment revenue as a percentage of the Agency cost. 6 . Net Present Value of Tax Increment Stream The annual tax increment revenues were escalated at 2% annually for 27 years and discounted back to present value at an 8$ discount rate. As can be seen in Table 1 , the developer assistance ranges from $668, 000 in Scenario 4, to $1, 145, 000 in Scenarios 1, 3 and 5. The assistance level is constant in Scenarios 1, 3 and 5 because the proposed developments do not generate sufficient revenues to sup- port any land value. Thus, if one of these scenarios were chosen it would be necessary to fully compensate the current landowners for the land value at the highest and best use value. While the cost and income characteristics associated with Scenarios 3 and 4 generate value for the land holdings, the value is significantly lower than could be achieved if the various parcels were sold separately. Under the Scenario 3 development the total Agency as- sistance is estimated at $164,000, decreasing to $668, 000 under the Scenario 4 development The Agency costs under each of the development scenarios are equal to the direct cash infusion into the project plus the value of the Agency land holdings at the highest and best use. The estimated total costs range from $977,000 to $1, 677, 000. As shown in Table 1 , the net present value of the tax increment revenues, over the redevelopment project area life, are sufficient to repay the Agency costs in Scenarios 4 and 5. Thus , in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 the Agency never fully recoups its full investment in the project. Table l also illustrates the annual return on the Agency investment in the project. As can be seen in Table 1, this return ranges from less than 1% to nearly 11% on an annual basis . Once again, the higher rates of return are found in Scenarios 4 and 5 . 89071 .HTB 14066.0018 KeyserMarstonAssociatesInc. 'ol( 1 'MY A551S1AN .'.NJ RETUfihs 'NARTER CENTER EXFAR3104 JUT"-OH REACH, CA'IFOP.HIA AIO{'J9 TAX ANNUAL RETURN NPV OF TAX bEVELTfER ASSISIANCI AriNCY COST CONSTRJCfIOH COST )KINW47 REVENUES ON AGENCY COST INCREMENT STREAM 1 , , ! 1 f SCEN:fi1p 1 ; CASH 11,145,000 ; CASH 1111151000 ; 173C,000 1 10,200 I M100'0 ; ( iAr:D (1) t0 ; LAND (2) t532,000 TOTAL 11,16,000 ; TOTAL 11,677,000 1 1 + 1 1 , , '-------------------------'------------------------'--------------------'--- -'- ------------------'- -- -- - + � 1 • 1 f + SCIN3 10 2 ; CASH 31,145,000 ( CASH 31111151000 ; 11,270,00 ; :14,500 ( 0.9I; $190,000 1 LARD (1) SO ; 1 0t 121 $532,000 ' ---------- ' ---------- i01A1 11,115,000 ; TOTAL 11,677,000 '-------------------------'-------------------------'...... -------------- '--------------------'--------------------'--------------------' , , 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 , 1 1 1 1 f S:iNAlIo 3 ; CASH 035409 ; CASH 1$851000 ; 13,990,000 ; 1301603 ; 3.5I1, 3506.000 ; LIJ.D (1) $179:000 ; LARD (2) 1532.000 ; TOTAL 3761.000 ; TOTAL 11,117,000 ; '---------------«__-•«_•'• -------------------- --.--- --. .- �_ . ..................+-------------------.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 f 1 1 1 • ' SCEK6R10 A ; CASH tAtS1000 ; CASH $495,000 ; 191111311:00 ; 8105,100 ; 10.9I1, 31,377.006 ; LAND 11) 3223,00 ; LAND (2) 153200 ---------- ; ---- --- TOTAL t668,000 ; TOTAL t977,000 '----------------------- -'_ ---------------------► ..« -.. .+. '---—-------------------------------------' , a , SC:{A1I0 S i CASH tl,115,000 i CASH tl,115,000 1 112,75C.000 ; 1132,000 ; 7.91: 11.730.020 1 LAND (11 to ; LAND (2) 1532,000 ; ' ---------- TOTAL 11,115,000 ; TOTAL 11,677,000 --- ------- --------------------------------- ----- III LAND Al REUSE VALUE (2) LAND AT HIGHEST AvO 6ES1 USE VALUE :WRCE: WSER HARS104 ASSOCIATES, INC. RILE NAME: ISCWlIO: FERRUART, 1909. t9 N IONAL AUTO CwLASS Co. 17131 BEACH BOULEVARD e HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 • (714) 842 2525 February 27, 1989 honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Hembers City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main streat P.O. Bow 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: CHARTER CENTRE PHASE III- NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT STATUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR 90 DAY EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT Fonorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency -Members: I am Phil Zisakis, the owner of National -Glass and the property owner at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Cypress in Guardian Center. The following are my Comments with respect to the above-referenced matter before you tonight, 1. 2 support the 90-day extension recommended by staff. 2. .At the end of 90 days, however, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency should be ready to- rake a decision. 3 . I agreed to a delay because staff claimed it could design a project that would allow my business to stay where it is and expand along the lines I have been planning, with the Agency's agreement, for the past several years. d . Unfortunately, several of the plans drawn up by the Agency's consultant and included in the agenda packet don't leave me in my present location, despite the fact that the Agency had made numerous representations to me over the last eight or nine years (including an exclusive right to negotiate) that I would be able to develop the property adjoining mina to expand my business. 5. I am operating a glass shop with only 1250 square feet, far below the area needed for my existing clientele, much less growth ; in the number of clients. I badly nead a speedy resolution of this issue. I i Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members February 27, 1989 Page 2 5. I submitted a Complete development proposal to the Agency last year. For some reason, the economic analysis in front of you tonight completely omitted any discussion or analysis of my plan, even though it is the only one which doesn't cost the Agency any money. My plan called for completion of the frontage along Beach Boulevard, a three story office and retail building and adequate ground level expansion for my shop. It would be designed to match the development of the rest of Guardian Center. It would leave the back of the block available for Guardian or the city to put a parking structure, residential or anything else. I would not be asking the Agency to donate anything---just to sell me the small piece of property I would need. If parking cannot be met on my project I am willing to work with the Agency on that issue. In fact, I am and have always been willing to work with the Agency. 7. I am going into the discussions with the Agency and Guardian with an open mind. However, I have my doubts the Agency is going to be willing to underwrite Guardian's plans for a high rise to the tune of $1 million. Should all these plans be rejected because they are too expensive, all I ask is that I be given a chance to make my plan work. Thank you. Si a ely yogrr, Phil 8i akis National Glass ii l � SAVINGS A i' ND LOAN ASSOCIATION February 17, 1989 � Of p,Cp NTk M���Lov",Nr-Mr. Thomas Andrusky �°�Eo v��cPNE1 e%�`S 1 Project Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Beach City Council Meeting Proposed development of parcels at Beach Boulevard and Ella Street, Huntington Beach Dear Mr. Andrusky: This letter will confirm your telephone conversation with Mr. Russell. Jedinak of Guardian Savings and Loan on February 16, 1989, wherein Mr. Jedinak agreed to your proposal for a 90-day extension of the hearing set for February 27, 1987, before the Huntington Beach City Council to discuss possible plans for development of that certain parcels of land situated on the corner of Beach Boulevard and Elm Street in Huntington Beach. As the owner of a portion of the land proposed to be developed, as well as owner of improved property adjacent thereto, it is considered by us to be in the best interest of all parties concerned to reach tentative agreement on a proposal for development of the property in question before presenting such proposal to the City Council for consideration. Accordingly, we agree with your proposal to a 90-day extension of the aforesaid hearing. Very truly yours, w�1 � tome J, e G neral Co sel JSJjf 710842.40W 17011'111:AC I I BOULEVARD SUITE 1500 I IUNTINGm r)q m-'A0 i.cA nm? CIVY OF HUNTINGTON kdEA' CH COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 89-14 11UN IPOGTON 11AC11 ' t i To From Pg®rAlCook Honorable Mayor or and Cit Council Paul E. Members City Administrator Subject GUARDIAN SAVINGS AND LOAN Date February 24, 1989 LETTER OF FE-BRUARY 17, 1989 Attached is a letter from Guardian Savings and Loan Association supporting the proposed 90 day extension of the Negotiating Agreement relative to development of land in the area bordered by Beach/Cypress/Elm. This item will appear on your February 27, 1989 Agenda as Charter Centre Phase III Negotiation Agreement and recommended 90 day extension. PEC:TA:jar 4522r Attachment REQUEST FG,,.,� RE NCY ACTION APPR WD BY C1'1'Y CO 1 'CIL I 2 RH 89-18 ,7..0 . •C ebruary 27, 1999 cr�rc�tx�: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: Paul E. Cook, Executive Director Submitted by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Develop a Prepared by: CHARTER CENTRE PHASE III—NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT STATUS Subject: REPORT AND RECOMMENDED 90 DAY EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT Consistent with Council Policy? DQ Yes I ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUFL On October 24, 1988, the Agency approved a Negotiating Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency, Guardian Savings and Loan Real Estate, and Mr. and Mrs. Zisakis. The purpose of that Agreement was to seek to negotiate the terms of an ultimate Disposition and Development Agreement outlining the economics and design ` feasibility of a commercial development project on properties owned by the participants. RECOMMENDE13J1M N: Authorize extension of the Negotiating Agreement for an additional ninety days (90) in order to allow parties to the Agreement further opportunity to negotiate towards a final development proposal. ANALYSIS: The terms of the existing Negotiating Agreement calls for the parties to negotiate diligently in good faith for a ninety--day period from Agreement's approved date to establish and agree upon mutually acceptable development plans, concepts, or alternatives, and determine the economic feasibility of the proposed development, and establish a value of that proposed development site. It further states that, if the Agency is provided reasonable evidence, the parties have either fully resolved or progressing towards resolution of a development proposal, an additional ninety—day period to finalize a development proposal and negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement/Owner Participation Agreement would be in order. To date, the following actions have been. taken: Staffs had informational meetings with GSL Real Estate and Phillip Zisakis. GSL Real Estate has deposited twenty-iholisand dollars ($20,000) with the Agency to be used as outlined in the Negotiating Agreement. PI0/1/35 1 "e Y I Staff has retained the services of an architect who has prepared five development concepts dated January 6, 1999. Agency's financial consultant (Keyser Marston), has analyzed the five development concepts and prepared two reports dated January 27, and February 3, 1989. FUNDING SOURCE: Agency contractual service funds. LT RACTIONS- 1) Do not approve or modify the proposed ninety(94) day extension. 2) Sell Agency property through the bid process to one or more of the adjacent property owners. ATTACHMENIS: 1) Negotiating Agreement. 2) Site Map. 3) Land Use Concepts. 4) Keyser Marston letters of January 27, and February 3, 1989. PECIDLB/TA:sar 4415r if J , t ATTACHMENT 1 NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT This Negotiating Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and among the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF 'THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a public body, ("Agency") , PHILIP ZISAKIS and ROXANNE S. ZISAKIS ("ZISAKIS") , and GSL REAL ESTATE, a California corporation ("GSL") (collectively the "Property .Owners") A. In furtherance of the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 33000, at sea. , (the "Act") , the Agency desires to redevelop certain parcels of land within the Oakview Project Area (Project Area) , as shown on the attached and incorporated Site Map (Exhibit "A") and referred to herein as Proposed Development Site. B. The Proposed Development Site is composed of real property owned by the Agency, Zisakis (operated as "National Auto Glass") , GSL and Leonard E. and Nancy G. Lichter who were offered an opportunity to participate in this Negotiating Agreement but declined. The Proposed Development Site is located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of Cypress Street and Beach Boulevard within the Project Area. C. The parties desire to negotiate a Disposition and Development/Owner Participation Agreement ("DD/OPA") with the Agency to assemble the Proposed Development Site for the purpose of developing thereon a commercial development. D. The parties recognize and acknowledge that the purpose of this Agreement is to seek to negotiate the terms of a DD/OPA which will include without limitation, the economics of the development, the Site Plan, and specific uses of the development, and the other terms of a DD/OPA toward the disposition and redevelopment of the Proposed Development Site. 1 AGREEMENT The parties mutually agree as follows: 1. The parties shall negotiate diligently and in good faith for a 90 day period from the date this Agreement is executed by the Agency' ("Negotiating Period") , to establish and agree upon mutually acceptable development plans, concepts, or alternatives, determine the economic feasibility of the development, and establish a value of the Proposed Development Site. If the Agency is provided evidence reasonably : satisfactory to it that the parties have either fully resolved . or are progressing toward the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of the development, as proposed, the Agency shall extend the Negotiating Period for ninety (90). days ("Extended Negotiation Period") and, thereafter, the parties shall seek in good faith within such additional ninety (90) day period to finalize the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of the development and negotiate a DD/OPA for the disposition and development of the Proposed Development Site. Except as this Agreement is extended, if on the 180th day from the date of this Agreement (the end of the Extended Negotiating Period) , the Property Owners have not signed and submitted a DD/OPA to the Agency, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate, and the parties knowingly agree that none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the other under this Agreement. If a DD/OPA is so signed and submitted within the Extended Negotiating Period, then this Agreement may be extended in writing for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of such submittal to enable the Agency to: (i) determine whether it desires to enter into such DD/OPA, (ii) take the actions necessary to bring such DD/OPA before the Agency and the City Council for consideration, action, and authorization to sign, and (iiiy sign the DD/OPA, if such is approved. 2. The Agency agrees that within the initial sixty (60) days of this Agreement it shall submit documents, reports, and information concerning the proposed development that will provide the parties with the following information: a. A preliminary site plan and architectural/design concept for the: development showing access roads, amount and location of parking, location and size of all buildings including height and perimeter dimensions, pedestrian circulation system, landscaping, floor plans, elevations, .perspective renderings, and the arch�ite mural character of the project . ll/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -2- b. A schedule for the development of all structures and improvements proposed and an estimate (supported by a description of the basis for such an estimate) of development costs including construction and non-construction costs. C. An estimate of project income and a pro forma statement of project return (supported by a description of the assumptions made in making such an estimate and statement) adequate to enable the parties to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed development. This information will be prepared by a consultant selected by the Agency who will also prepare a reuse analysis of the value of the Proposed Development Site, (i .e. , a value based upon such factors as market conditions, density of development, cost of development (including the costs set forth in Section 12 hereof) , risks incurred, estimated or actual profit, estimated or actual sales and/or rental prices of the development, the public purposes, and other matters relevant to establishing the value of the subject property for the uses permitted to be developed. 3. The Property Owners will prepare and submit a description of the proposed method of construction and permanent financing and amount and sources of capital . 4 . Agency further agrees to cooperate with the Property Owners in supplying financial institutions with appropriate information, if available and not otherwise privileged, to facilitate the obtaining of financing for the Development. 5 . Due to the fact the Property Owners are owners within the Project Area it is subject to the rules, rights, and obligations set forth in the Rules for Owner Participation of the Agency for the Project Area (herein "OP Rules") . Property Owners, by execution of this Agreement, acknowledge receipt of a copy of the OP Rules. 6. The design and development objectives for the project shall be specified in the DD/OPA and the actual development shall be in conformity therewith. The Property Owners shall cooperate fully with the Agency's professional consultants and associates in providing them with any information and assistance reasonably within the capacity of the Property Owners to provide in connection with the preparation and execution of the drawings, plans, and specifications or other documents or information required to be submitted by the Agency to the Property Owners or to the City of Huntington Beach ("City") pursuant• to this Agreement or as required by state or local laws and regulations. All design, architectural, and building plans. for development shall be subject to the review and approval of the Agency and the City. 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -3- 0 7. In the event that the Property Owners or the Agency fails to fulfill the obligations• described in this Agreement within the times specified, the non-performing party shall have fifteen (15) days following written notice from the other to cure, or commence to cure, such failure to perform as may be identified in the written notice. If the non-performing party has failed to cure, or commenced to cure, within such fifteen (15) day period, any other party may terminate this Agreement and, thereafter, none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the others under this Agreement except as hereafter provided. - The Property Owners, by execution hereof, knowingly agree, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, that they shall have no right by virtue of this Agreement to specific performance of this Agreement, nor to specific performance for conveyance of, nor to claim any right - of title or interest in the Propcsed Development Site (except the parcel or parcels already owned by each of the Property Owners) or any part thereof, nor to money damages, nor any other legal remedies or equitable remedies under the law. 8 . Property Owners shall not discriminate against nor segregate, any person, or group of persons on account of sex, race, color, age, marital status, religion, handicap, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Proposed Development Site, nor shall the Developer establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation in the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land. 9 . The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage fees which may arise herefrom. Each party represents that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction, and each party agrees to hold the other parties harmless from any claim by any broker, agent or finder claiming through any such party. 10. The Property Owners acknowledge and agree that under the DD/OPA they shall be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the displacement and relocation, if such occurs, of persons and/or businesses on and from the Proposed Development Site, including without limitation, compliance with the Relocation Assistance Law, Government Code Section 7260, et seq. 11. It is the objective of each of the parties that the DD/OPA will contain the following terms and conditions: ll/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -4- a. It is the objective of Zisakis that: (1) The existing National Auto Glass Building will be retained at its present location with signage and new development will be constructed around the existing National Auto Glass Building . On completion of new construction National will own 7,000 square feet of ground floor property within the Proposed Development Site with at least 4 ,500 contiguous square feet having the potential for 12 foot ceilings suitable for auto glass shop use and the remainder of which will be appropriate for commercial retail use. In addition, National will have a right to own an additional 10,000 square feet of office space within the Proposed Development Site. (2) Except as provided in (1) above, the ultimate location, square footage and configuration of the National Auto Glass Building including associated parking, as well as the purchase price paid by Zisakis for its rights hereunder shall be determined in the course of negotiating the DD/OPA. b. It is the objective of GSL that: (1) GSL shall be provided with unimpeded access to and from Cypress Avenue through the Proposed Development Site from the existing Charter Centre. (2) All development on the Proposed Development Site will be consistent with the architectural standards established by the existing Charter Centre. (3) GSL shall have the right to participate in any additional parking provided on the Proposed Development Site, which is no less than a proportionate share based on the size of the parcels owned by the Property Owners as of the date of execution of the DD/OPA. (4) The ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site shall include a reciprocal easement agreement standard for any such integrated commercial center allowing for reciprocal ingress and egress throughout the Proposed Development Site as well as reciprocal parking rights and maintenance, repair, and upkeep of the Proposed Development Site in conformity with similar standards extant for Charter Centre. (5)- GSL will be selected as the developer for the Proposed Development Site. ll/l/88 1986n/2460/00 -5- • �� _ c. It is the objective of the Agency that: (1) The Proposed Development Site be developed as an integrated commercial development further integrated with the existing Charter Centre so as to provide architectural unity as well as reciprocal access in parking throughout the Proposed Development Site and Charter Centre. (2) The Property Owners shall be granted ownership rights in the ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site consistent with their respective ownership in the Proposed Development Site, subject to the further ability to acquire additional ownership rights in the ultimate development through contributions toward the ultimate development in the form of acquisition of property from another party, equity contribution and/or similar contributions standard in such joint venture developments . 12. GSL shall deliver to the Agency concurrently with execution hereof by the Agency an advance of funds ("Advance") in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) in cash or cashier 's or certified check. The Agency shall have the right to draw down and to spend whatever portion of said Advance is necessary for site plan preparation, development feasibility analysis, including, without limitation, economic analysis,' legal fees, redevelopment consultant fees, appraisal fees, staff time, administration and other costs associated with the Proposed Development Project. The Agency shall maintain accurate documentation of such expenditures which information shall be made available to GSL in the form of a detailed accounting made every thirty (30) days after the Agency's execution of this Agreement, and to the other Property Owners upon request. No interest shall accrue or be due to GSL on this Advance. The Advance is submitted to the Agency as consideration for this Agreement and GSL knowingly agrees that the Advance may. not be refunded to it except as hereinafter provided. In the event a DD/OPA is entered into, this Advance shall be considered a cost of development and shall be included in project costs allocated proportionally. As a material part of the consideration for GSL advancing the Advance, GSL shall retain all ownership rights in and to the plans, but not the studies and reports for which the Advance is used. In the'. event during the Negotiating Period or any ; extended period hereunder all of the Advance is expended or obligated and the Agency reasonably believes additional funds are necessary to pay for the cost associated with the Proposed Development Project and to reach a DD/OPA ready for Property Owner's signature and Agency consideration, then the Agency shall submit a written request to GSL notifying it of the 11/1/88 19B6n/2460/00 -6- nature of the items to be completed, the estimated cost of such items, and an explanation of the need for such items, and the amount of the additional funds required to be advanced by GSL to the Agency pursuant to the request. The collective amount of the initial advance of funds and the additional advance or advances of funds are referred to herein as the Advance. The Agency shall refund any unused and unobligated portion of the Advance within thirty (30) calendar days after the end of the Negotiating Period. Except as set forth in the sentence immediately preceeding, GSL shall have no right to the return of the Advance during the Negotiating Period or thereafter. 13 . In the even't that this Agreement terminates by virtue of the passage of time, or otherwise, and the parties have not entered into a DDA/OPA, then each of the property owners has the right to request that the Agency consider independent development of each of their respective parcels, including the sale of land by the Agency to each such property owner to accommodate such development. The Agency may, in its sole and absolute discretion, accept or reject any such proposals. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year appearing below. 7'�-r'► r .d u�. 1988 REDEVELOPME AG QF THE CITY OF HU T G N ACH By: ha' man "AGENCY" ATTEST: Agency Secretary ZI INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: �0111 Dep ty gity Administrator/ �r Direct r of Economic !� Development Il/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -7- REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS APPROVED: AS TO FORM: City/Agency At rney City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer R Agency Special Counsel J ZISAKIS r '• GSL By: It By: I s• ` 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -8- ,f N a WARNED AVE, FXli1BIT 'v SCAL D o 4O' h , of �1( LICNTER W !O S a r a GPM J 7t.4di At en,/00/! NJ7'IG'r4•G J37la � gas 1 ' Awl All ACE L 1 '�, W 't •1 .3 $ o.4r7 ACf tts K ' y N o` 3 v Z 3 q AACEL RligCE4 4 o174 .4cte5 b 0/6S AC.ctS r .°, 0//8 AC[155 p fp' f(,' v o t 1100O, j 'molfe, /1�700 ` _ Nd1;'0'!I� .r7i 4r' fit' �i SCENARIO — Z i . V �Gll.�d�"/o/t/5 • • - ' 1,71411 . LOW. jrlc Pm- 041 7/77 ,'o-17'#P.41 --__ V� SCENARIO - 2 Aftv Jc : a � � !•r 7 V 'rT /lam 1 " SCENARIO - 3 Aopv 0111 NOW I.-powall.- t � ---�t1I : amp to iv AP SCENARIO - 4 _F/T `Ft#fp# rl7/V$ NWV /Vio?Lt 44 Y � t C7�.Z-f•7 - t� 70D�'•� i MAW • d /v �v /o F" SCENARIO - 5 r I 7W 5•f' • '' } � �. � /vet/ �`��i- �f�� ��� ��'�'�� • D fo sv /A:P ATTACHMENT 4 KeyserMarstonAssociateslnc. Rich3rd L.Botti 500 South Grand Avenue.Suite 1480 Calvin E.Hollis.11 Los Angeles.California 900"1 213.'622-8095 Fax 213/622-5204 $AN OIEGO 619,'942.0380 Heinz A.Schilling SAN FRANCISCO415/398.3050 Timothy C.Kelly A.Jerry Keyser Kate Earle Funk Robert J.Wetmore Michael Conlon Denise E.ConIey F,1D R V E1\1 January 27, 1989 �At`1 1939 pEPARTh�EPJT OPp,1ENT Gotahtuwf" CEVELO Mr. Pat Spencer REDEVELOPt'1ENT Dy'IIStOrL Deputy Director of Housing and Redevelopment City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Pat: In accordance with your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) reviewed the five alternative development scenarios submitted for the ~glass works" site. This analysis presents a summary of our preliminary findings, and identifies the issues to be con- sidered in pursuing these scenarios further. BACKGROUND STATEMENT The subject site consists of six parcels totaling approximately 71, 741 square feet (1 .65 acres) . They are currently under four different ownerships, divided as follows: GSL Real Estate 15,333 sf Leonard Lichter 27,936 sf Philip Zisakis 3, 136 sf Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 25,336 sf 71,741 sf At the present tine the owners are attempting to arrange a joint- venture for the development of the property. The Agency has provided KMA with the development alternatives and requested that we analyze the economic viability of each scenario. The following section of this letter presents the comparative analysis, which is based on typical construction costs for the types of buildings analyzed, and field work to ascertain achievable rent levels. Real ES[atePre]LwelepmenlREvalualionSer%iees v � Mr. Pat Spencer City of Huntington Beach January 27, 1989 Page 2 ANALYSIS Table 1 presents the alternative development scenarios as they apply to each property owner. The development scenarios, prepared by 30th Street Architects, are presented in order from the lowest commercial density► (Scenario 1) to the most intense commercial den- sity (Scenario 5) . As can be seen in Table 1 , each of the scenarios require the use of both the GSL parcels and the Agency parcels to provide parking for the office and glass works facility uses. Table 2 presents a summary of the basic assumptions used to arrive at the land values supported by the alternative development scenarios. As can be seen in Table 2, the shell costs and tenant improvement allowances increase as the building sizes and heights increase. The achievable office rent levels also increase as the structure shifts from garden office to mid- to high-rise construc- tion. It was further assumed that it would be necessary to provide concessions such as free rent to be competitive in attracting tenants to the mid- and high-rise buildings. Another basic assump- tion is that the absorption period will be more protracted for the larger buildings. Based on the preceding assumptions, KMA determined the warranted land value for the assembled site under each of the development al- ternatives. Table 3 presents these: findings, as well as both our comments regarding each scenario and the recommended allocation of the land value amongst the various land owners . This allocation reflects the relative marketability of each parcel, assuming the entire property were not being assembled for a larger development. CONCLUSIONS On a relative basis, Scenario 4 represents the most economically viable of the development alternatives tested. It should be noted that given current market considerations it is probable that the total of each of the parcels' land values at the highest and best use exceeds the value of the assembled site. However, the separate development of each of the landowners ' holdings would implicitly result in piecemeal or fragmented development. These uses would most likely include retail on the Beach Boulevard frontage and medium density residential at the rear of the site. KeyserNtntonAssociateslnc. Mr. Pat Spencer City of Huntington Beach January 27, 1989 Page 3 We look forward to reviewing our findings with you at your earliest convenience. Yours very truly, KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATTES, INC. � -j ( Ncpj Kathleen H. Head KHH:gbd 89047.HTB 14066.0018 Keyse MarstonAssmateslac. TAKE L AtTIPMAIIVE DEVELMINT SCEFUIPS Cos IM CEWTU EX4A%Slfi% 11CRTINGio" FFACH, LALIFUPNIA Ell LIGHTER 2istriS A69:CY I i i i i i i 1 i i �+ 5,M SF LARD BCD FOR I FITS114; OrFTCF EXPANDED ty ; ETISIM EMS WOFF15 FACILITY I+ 20,2?6 5f LARD USED FCR i SCENARIO 1 ! SUPFA"E PATFING 41950 SF EXPANDED IT 2,00 5F SURFACE FIEFING 1 14 9,525 5F LAND RESIRVID FOR + 5,040 SF LARD PFSEhTD FOR ; i FUIPPE RESIDENUAL DEVELOPMENT ; ; I FUIUPE RESMENTIAL DEVELOPFENT I 1 I i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '- ------------------------------- _----------------------------------'_ -------------------------_.._.._ 1 1 ---------------------------------, - -1' 1 - 1 I I I SCENARIO 2 i 15,333 SF LAND USED FOR I 111571RG OFFICE EXPANDED 1Y ElISURG GLASS WOPFS FACILITY 1 25,336 IF 114D tFSED FOR I I STURFACf FAILING i 11,559 SF i EXPANDED ET 2,OD0 SF i SUF'FACE PAPFIHG i i i i i i I i1 i i i i 1 i i ' .- ---- ----- --- .. - - 1---------------- ------ ------ -1 -------------------------------- -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 15,333 IF LARD USED FOR EXISTING OFFICE PUILDIN6 1 EX151)xG 91a55 kOFLS FAt1lI1T I 25,336 IF LARD USED FOR 1 SCENARIO 3 1 2-STOPY PAPIING SIPUCTURE ; V"L15NFD AND PEPLACED WITH A i MM9LISHED AVO FfFLACED WITH I 2•SIOR1 PARI M S1RUC UPE. ; i ! 3-STORY 37,010 SF OFFICE FUILDINGI A 5,M IF FACILITY ON GPOUHD i PORTION OF SITE USED FOR OFFICE 1 I I WITH GLASS MIS FACILITY ON 1 FLOOR OF OFFICE BUILDING I BUILDIFS WITH GLASS FACILITY I 1 1xF 6�mx10 Alnna I 1 GI! 6Rti'v'1.'D;L6v$. I ------ .--- .. _1 .-. . 1_ ,-----------------------------------1 It i 1 1 1 1 I 15,333 Sf LAND USED FOP. i EXISTING OFFICE BU1tDIM6 i EXISTING GLASS Km FACILITY I 25,336 5F LA49 tiSED FOR SCfRMO 4 1 4-511DRY PAPFING STLUCTUPE I DEMIMSM M REPLACED WITH A 1 DEM4t154i1.4 AND RUMED W11% 1 4-51OR1 PARTING 51RUC1UEf i I WITH 5,00D IF GLASS UM S 1 1-STOP.Y 71,"0 SF OFFICE BUILDINrI A 5,PM IF FACILITY IN I WITH StASS FACILITY ON wtm i i FACILITY OR FIRST LEVEL I 1 MI MS STR(fCTUF,E i FLOOR. PORTION OF SITE MED FOR I i i i I OFFICE BUILDING. I I i i i i 1. . ---. .» . .----- '--. .. . ---- 1. .-. .----- ------' - - ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- -- 1 1 15,333 IF LARD Lu D FOR 1 EXISTM OFFICE BUILDIHrr, 1 EXISIING GLASS UM S FACILITY i 25,336 IF LAND USED FOR I 5.51OBY PARIING 57RUCT'UFE 1 DFROU SWI)AND REPLACED WITH A Dfls MOT D Ar.D F.EPLACED WITH i 5-STOFY FAFFING STPUCTUFE 1 SCENAPID 5 I WITH ONE LEM OF VIt1ERFIREAR ; 4-SIOR1 40,MO SF OFFICE BUriCM. A 4,5M SF FACILIll ON GROUND i VIU ME ItVll OF SMIRRANEAN 1 i FARINGi WITH SLABS 041S FACILITY OR I FtOnR OF OFFICE PUILPING i PARFIN5. POFIIOH OF 511E USED 1 i INE CROWD rim ; ; FOR OFFICE EUILDINS 9114 GI ASS ; I I FACILITY OR 6RnUm4 rjw. I Sollrf- MIER r0s](19 ASSFd1AlF5, I!FC. Flt{ %AM4: 15rFNiFTO: 7A+ �ALY, 1?D9. TAELE 2 PRO FOP.RA ASSUMFI MRS CHARIER CENIER FXPANSIGN HUNIINGION FEACN, CAI IIOI,NIA ti NFU DryQ(toKol SELL CMIS J FEI•IAL FATE / SIZE / Nil 1EHANT 11:PPt1PF!!MS PAP.FING 14PROVEPTNT CGSIS CONCESSIONS AWIP,PTION -- ----- ---------------- 1 i OFFJCF: 11,950 SC i SHELL: 340 /Sf i : aria. SL5 /Sr FSG i i i i i i S('fUM l 1 CWS W15: 2.ND ;F Olfltf M.: 115 JU ; Slll•FACI: 11,0f10 /SPACE ; CLASS. 118 /SF NNN 1 YEAR 1: 952 1 rARE1HG SPACES: 68 ; GLASS 1.1.: 110/SF ; ; N) WE PENT i i i i i i i i 1 i i i �....__...__ ------------ -� _i__________________________ _1_-_---- --- --_--- 1____-----___-.--.____--.____1---- _--.------__--«-- 1 1 -1 1 �, 1 1 { 1 1 1 OFFICE: 1I/5S0 SF ; SHELL: 140 /Sr ! ; orria: 11S /SF FSG i i i i i StEsIR;O 2 1 LiISS UOf0: 2,1)00 SF ; OFFICE T.1.: 115 JSF ; SUT,CAfE: 11,000 /SFACE ! CLASS: 118 /SF NItN YEAR l: 45I ; HPURG SPACES: 101 ; GLASS 1.1.: 110/SF 1 113 FREE RENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '- ------------------------- '--------------------------'. .-- -- - '- ----------------- ------- ' i i i i i i orfirf: 37,000 SF i SHELL: 115 JSF i Ororf: :17.40 /SF FSG i 1 1 SURFACE: 11,000 /SFACE SCENAPIO 3 ; GLASS UORFS: S AO SF ; mICE 1.1.: 115 JSF ; ; GLASS: 110 /SF NNN ; YEAR 1. 901 ; 1 SIPUCTURED: 15,000/SPACE 1 YEAR 2: SI i PAPF11M SPACES: 114 1 GLASS T.1.: 110 ISE 1 Nd FPFE FM 1 '- ------------------------ '----------------------------'----------------------------'- --------------------------'---------------------------- OFFICE: 71,900 IF OFFICE SHELL: 155/SF ! = OCFIM 121 /SF FSG 1 OFrICF T.I.: 112 JSF SJErvu ti3ObO /SFACE SCENARIO 1 1 GLASS VOPFS: 5,090 IF ; ; CLASS. I18/SF M ; YEAR 1: 651 ; GI ASS SHELL: 140/SF i STRUCIUI:FD: 16,00/SPACE i i YEAR 2: 301 i PARING SPACES: 266 i CLASS I.I.: t10 JSF ; i FREE RENT: 2 NOS JYR OFFICE ONLY i J i i i i '_ _•------ -__• • _..« 1. -- -'- --• '- ------------------------- '- ---------^ ---------------' ---.1 ....................--• - 1 --. -...--..-..----....._1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OFrlrf: 90,000 IF 1 OFfICf SHELL: IS5/SF ; OFFICE: 121 /SF FSG OFFICE 1.1.: 118 JSF SUFFICE: 11,000 /SPACE i ; YEAA 1: 501 i SCENARIO 5 1 CLASS PORTS: 1,500 SF ; ; S GLASS: 118 JSF NNN YEAR 2: ACI i 1 GLASS SHILL.- 140/SF i SUMMED: SB,SOQ /SPACE i YEAR 3: 5I = PAPIIRG SPACES: 330 ; CLASS T.I.: t10 JSF ; ; FREE 1E91: 2'ADS JYR 1 i i i OFFICE ONLY i i SOURfE: IBM WSW% ASSOCIATES, lilt. FILE ISCENRRIO: ]AHJARY, 1939. I TAELE 3 'I I AHALISIS SUnMARY rHAtIrl CfW1fR rrFAN51[iW ll HI4ITINGTON FFACH, CAI IFOPNIA E510410 TOTAL LAND VALUE A[IOMED LAND VAI11E COHMENIS 1 1. THIS SPFkAF.10 ASSOMIS THAI LICHTER ARD IISAFIS ACCUIPE :6,103 Sr ; OF LAND FROM GSI AND THE AGFNCY TO FROVIfE PA.PFINS p! 14EIP Wilt AL VALUE ; r><FANLfD FACIE111rs. SCrNA210 I 1 ; ----- ; 2. THE ADDIII(INAL INCOME ASSOCIATED WIN THE [XPAHS169 GF INE 6FFICE fXClUDES VALVE OF 9,525 SF LAND 1 ; AND GIASS YOPI.S FACILITT 13 014T SUrfICI[NT 10 AMACTIN WE ; PfSff.VFD FGR FIS]UENIIAL ; ; CONSTPIT1I6N COSTS FOR THE EXFA45IO4. TRIPE IS NOT A9EOV471 II;COME1 DfYrLOPnrNI. 10 SWOPT A WS PAYMENT FOR THE 26,104 SF Of ADO111OH4t IAI;D 1 ; ; EE4JlREO. ; ;- ---------------------------------'- -----------------------------^-- '---------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 1. THIS SCFNARIO ASSUMES THAT LICHTER AND IISAFIS ACOVIP,E THE IN1IEE 1 ; ; 10,60 SF OF 96(KCY AND 6SL LAND 10 FP(iV]D[ rAFFING FOR THEIR 1 1 EXPANDED FACILITIES. THIS SCENARIO PROVIDES AN ll,550 SF OFFICE SOUNA'110 2 1 NnMl&'L VALVE 1 - ; EXPANSION VERSUS 4,Y50 SF IN SCFH1,F10 1. 1 i 1 2. IRE ADDITIONAL INCOME ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SCENARIO DOLT SUPPORTS 1 1 1 A MINIM4 [AND FAYMEKT 10 6SL AND THE AGENCY. THE VAST MA1PF]IT OFI 1 1 ; THIS INCOME EUSI FE USED TO AM01.11IE THE C6tlSlfXIl0M EOSIS FOR 1 1 i ; THE EXPANSION. 1 i- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------1----------^------------------------------------------------------------i 1 ; LICHTER: JM,000 OR 110.50 /SF 1 ; 1 1 1 IISAFIS: 133,000 OR 110.5D /SF i THE LOU DENSITY OF 6l,POER-MLE OFFICE EEVftOPMfHI WS 01 ; SCENARIO 3 1 SS60,000 ; ; MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF THE ENTIRE SITE, 141TICULAREY THE !EACH 1 1 Q: 154,000 OP 33.9 /SF ; lODLCYAI.D rRCIETACE. i 1 AGFNCY: 1179,OOD DR 17.00 /SF ; 1 '- ------------------------------- ------------------'- ' 1 1 LICHTER: 1369,000 OR 113.20 /5F 1 1 1 ; 1 1. THE NEAR-IERK INCOME LEVfIS ACHIEVAFLE 61 A FIC-PISE EUILD11u lK 1 II91IS: :11,009 OR 113.20 /SF 1 1K15 LOCAIIGW, CGuFLfD Y1TH THE LEVEL OF COMCESSfOKS REQUIRED i0 ; SCENARIO 4 1 31DO,DO4 ; ; ATTRACT P.0 1 TFNAWTS, CRK57RAIR THE VIAYILITT OF THIS DFYFLOPMFNTI T 1 6SL. $67,000 OR 14.40 /SF ; SCENARIO. ; 1 2. OR A RELATIVE FASTS, THIS DEVELOEP01 SCEWAF:ID PrPPESCNIS THE 1 AGFNCY: 3223, m OR 18.SD /SF i NZI fCONOWAtLT VIAFLE OF IRE DEVELOPMENI ALTEI:NAIIYES TESTED. ; 1- ---------------------------------1- ---------------------------------1-----------------------------------------------------------------------1 1 i 1 1. THE HIGH COST OF CONSIP,UCTIKG SU6IERFAMEIN PAF.IING (11TWEIGHS THE 1 1 AbD11IONAL INCUP.E CENEP.A1[D FT CONSTRUCTING ADDITIONAL Sr0F ON ; SCENARIO S 1 NCYIKAL VA[LIE ; ----- ; 14E SITE. 1 i ; 2. THE INCLtrj]04 Of THE CLASS VORFS FACILITY IN THE FIRST FiA(IR (,F 1 1 i THE (a!rE FUILDING CONSTRAINS THE MAP,FEIAFIt11T OF THE OFFICE IllUrR, PARIICULAP.LY 1N lIPMS Or AIIhACTIHG r0l'R COP,YOPAINTPL 1 1 1 1 TEN.1111S. SOVACC: tETS[R PAF.SFGN AS50CIAlfS, INC. FIT# HAKE: IS(fNAF10: ?AN113T, 1989. ATTACHMENT 4 KeyserMarstonAssociateslnc. Richard L.Botti 500 South Grand Avenue,Suhe 14,90 Calvin E.Hollis,11 Los Angeles.CaGiurnia 9Wt 1 213,'622-8095 Fax 213;622-5204 SAN DIEGO 6191942-0380 Heinz A.Schilling SAN FRANCISCO4151398-3050 Timothy C.KeIly A.Jerry Keyser Ka:c Earle Funk Robert I Wetmore Michacl Conlon MEMORANDUM Denise E.Conley TO: Mr. Pat Spencer Director of Housing and Redevelopment City of Huntington Beach FROM: KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. SUBJECT: Charter Center - Phase III DATE: February 3, 1989 As a follow-up to our January 27 , 1989 analysis, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) prepared this summary of the level of Agency financial assistance warranted under each of the alternative development scenarios for the site adjacent to Charter Centel. This analysis also presents the allocation of Agency cash and land associated with each scenario, as well as a preliminary projection of tax increment revenues, 1. Developer Assistance Column 1 summarizes the Agency assistance required to make each development scenario economically viable based on current projections. The Agency cash infusion is equal to the warranted assistance level minus the reuse value of the Agency parcel supported by each development scenario. 2. Agency Costs Column 2 presents the required Agency cash infusion plus the land contribution associated with each development scenario. These cost projections ascribe the highest and best use value to the Agency land. 3. Construction Costs These estimates are based on the financial projections presented in our January, 1989 letter. Real Estate Predeveloprnen t&Evalua 1 inn Senices Page 2 - 4. Annual Tax Increment Revenues These revenues were estimated based on the project value less the current assessed value of the property. The tax revenues were calculated at 1t of the net value. 5. Annual Return on Agency Cost This represents the annual tax increment revenue as a percentage of the Agency cost. 6. Net Present Value of Tax Increment Stream The annual tax increment revenues were escalated at 2% annually for 27 years and discounted back to present value at an 8% discount rage. As can be seen in Table 1, the developer assistance ranges from $668,000 in Scenario 4, to $1, 145,000 in Scenarios 1, 3 and 5. The assistance level is constant in Scenarios 1, 3 and 5 because the proposed developments do not generate sufficient revenues to sup- port any land value. Thus, if one of these scenarios were chosen it would be necessary to fully compensate the current landowners for the land value at the highest and best use value. While the cost and income characteristics associated with Scenarios 3 and 4 generate value for the land holdings, the value is significantly lower than could be achieved if the various parcels were sold separately. Under the Scenario 3 development the total Agency as- sistance is estimated at $764,000, decreasing to $668,000 under the Scenario 4 development The Agency costs under each of the development scenarios are equal to the direct cash infusion into the project plus the value of the Agency land holdings at the highest and best use. The estimated total costs range from $977, 000 to $1, 677,000. As shown in Table 1, the net present value of the tax increment revenues, over the redevelopment project area life, are sufficient to repay the Agency costs in Scenarios 4 and 5. Thus , in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 the Agency never fully recoups its full investment in the project. Table 1 also illustrates the annual return on the Agency investment in the project. As can be seen in Table 1, this return ranges from less than 1% to nearly 11% on an annual basis . Once again, the higher rates of return are found in Scenarios 4 and 5. 89071.HTB 14066.0018 KevscrMarstonAssocixesInc. r AUNZY ASSISTA'tE AND REETUMS CHARM CENTER EXPAKSI6H l+t;'iTINC14H BEA_q, CALIFOmu ANNUAL TAX ANNUAL RETURN NPY OF TAX OEVELUER ASSISTAM AGENCY COST CONSTRUCTION C(ST IKCRiKENT REVENUES OH AGENCY CGST I'ICRERENT SIREAR ---- -------- ----------------- i 1 1 1 1 i i i i i 1 i SCEHARID J 1 CASH 11,145,000 1 CASH 11,145400 ; 1737,00 i 38,230 i 0.52: 110C,ODO i LAND 11) 10 1 LAND (2) 1532,000 i TOIAI 11,1451000 1 TOTAL $1.677,000 1 1---_••- ..•----'- -----------------------'-------------------- ---------'- ------------------'-------•------_--_1 I k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 ! ! 1 1 1 ! 1 1 SCE44F.10 2 i CASH $1,145,DD'O i CASH 11,145,OD0 I 11,270,000 i 114,500 i 0.91: $190,000 i 1 LANE (1) 30 ; LAND 121 $532,000 1 ; ; 1 ; 1 .......... I ---------- I ! t i 15% 11,1451000 It TOTAL 11,07,= 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 i-- ----------------------'- -----------------------'- ------------•-----'».. .----.••..- 1_ --- - ------'------ ---- ---...1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S:iIAM 3 1 CASH W5,000 I CASH 1585,000 I 13,95[,300 ; WAD ( 3.5:1 150E,0n.0 1 ! LAND (1) 1:79,030 1 LAN] (2) f532,000 1 ; 1 1 ---------- 1 TOTAL 1164,OCJ i TCTAL 11,117,010 1 i i i i i i i ' - -------..•— -------- ---------------------- ---------------- -'-------------------'--------------------'----------- ----I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S:E.UM A I CASH S445,930 I CASH SWIM I 19,71i,C09 I 1105,100 1 10.81: 11,37710GG ; 1 LAND (1) 1223,830 I LAND (2) 1532,000 I 1 1 1 1 ---------- I ---------- 1 1 1 I 1 i TOTAL 1668,000 i TOTAL 1977,000 i i i Is + 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 '- ----------------------'- ----------------------'----------------' -'- -------------•- '_ --------------- i-..-----------------' 1 1 -� 1 - 1 - -�1 - -1 , 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ! Su'FFdl4 5 Is CASN 11.145.00 i CASH 111145/C00 i 112,150,400 1 1132,000 T 7.9.: 11,730,000 ; I LAND (1) 10 i LARE (2) 35321000 --------- --------- 1 1 TOTAL 11,14.,C00 1 TOTAL 11,677,000 1 I i 1 1 I ! 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I (II LANE AT F.EL'_E VALUE (2) LAN: AT H16-E51 AND MT USE VALUE LETSE9 HARSTON ASSOCIATES, 1NC. FILE Noi: 1S:EW13: FEIRCARY, 1989. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 89-14 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION "NYTMTON MAUL Pea 4 To Honorable Mayor and City Council From Paul E. Cook r,,vy Members City Administrator Subject GUARDIAN SAVINGS AND LOAN Date February 24, 1989 LETTER OF FEBRUARY 17, 1999 Attached is a letter from Guardian Savings and Loan Association supporting the proposed 90 day extension of the Negotiating Agreement relative to development of land in the area bordered by Beach/Cypress/Elm. This item will appear on your February 27, 19S9 Agenda as Charter Centre Phase III — Negotiation Agreement and recommended 90 day extension. PEC:TA:jar 4522r Attachment UARDIAN SAVRCA A N b L O A N A S S O C I A T I O N y�www February 17, 1989 F 0f DCQpRt 'O jf-v psd�N� CaM E �P ppjs5�d� Mr. Thomas Andrusky h01t v�4 Project Manager RS9 City of Huntington Beach Community Development 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Beach City Council Meeting Proposed development of parcels at Beach Boulevard and Elm Street, Huntington Beach Dear Mr. Andrusky: This letter will confirm your telephone conversation with Mr. Russell Jedinak of Guardian Savings and Loan on February 16, 1989, wherein Mr. 'Jedinak agreed to your proposal for a 90-day extension of the hearing set for February 27, 1987, before the Huntington Beach City Council to discuss possible plans for development of that certain parcels of land situated on the corner of Beach Boulevard and Elm Street in Huntington Beach. As the owner of a portion of the land proposed to be developed, as well as owner of improved property adjacent thereto, it is considered by us to be in the best interest of all parties concerned to reach tentative agreement on a proposal for development of the property in question before presenting such proposal to the City Council for consideration. Accordingly, we agree with your proposal to a 90-day extension of the aforesaid hearing. Very truly yours, come J. e G neral Co sel is/if 71V84:-4000 17011 BEACH BOULEVARD SUITE 1500 HUNTINGTON BEACII.CA 92647 117 N 10NAr, AUTO C EAS S Co. 0/z,>x� /,g/, 17131 BEACH BOULEVARD ►HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 • 1714) 842-2525 February 29, 1989 Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members City of Huntington Beach 200D Main Street P.O. Dom 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: CHARTER CENTRE PHASE III- NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT STATUS REPORT AND RECOMKENDATION FOR 90 DAY EXTENSION Of AGREEMENT Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members: 1 I arc Phil Zisakis, the owner of National Glass and the j property owner at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Cypress in Guardian Center. The following are my comments with respect to the above-referenced natter before you tonight. 1. I support the 90-day extension reco=anded by staff. 2. ,�t the end of 90 days, however, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency should be ready to make a decision, 3 . � I agreed to a delay because staff claimed it could design a project that would allow my business to stay where it is and expand along the lines I have been planning, with the Agency's agreement, for the past several years. 4 . Unfortunately, several of the plans drawn up by the Agency's consultant and included in the agenda packet don't leave me in my present location, despite the fact that the Agency had made numerous representations to Tae over the last eight or nine years (including an exclusive right to negotiate) that I Would be able to develop the property adjoining mina to expand my business. 5. I am operating a glass shop with only 1250 square feet, far below the area needed for my existing clientele, much less growth in the number of clients. I badly need a speedy resolution of this issue. Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Merbers February 27, 1989 Page 2 b. i subwitted a complete development proposal to the Agency last year. For some reason, the economic analysis in front of you tonight completely omitted any discussion or analysis of my plan, even though it is the only one which doesn't cost the Agency any money. My plan called for completion of the frontage along Beach Boulevard, a three story office and retail building and adequate ground level expansion for my shop. It would be designed to match the development of the rest of Guardian Center. It would leave the back of the block available for Guardian or the City to put a parking structure, residential or anything else, I Would not be asking the Agency to donate anything---just to Bell me the small piece of property I would need. If parking cannot be met on my project I am killing to work with the agency on that issue. In fact, I at and have always been willing to work with the Agency. 7. I am going into the discussions with the Agency and Guardian with an open mind. However, I have ay doubts the Agency is going to be willing to underwrite Guardian's plans for a high rise to the tune of $1 million. Should all these plans be rejected because they are too expensive, all I ask is that I be given a chance to make my plan work. Thank you. OiFi sly yours, akis National Glass CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 89-14 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION MUN71NGTON NACM 1 /J From "�'�`'� �'4rC. by To Honorable Mayor and City Council Paul E. Cook gt:�. Members City Administrator Subject GUARDIAN SAVINGS AND LOAN Date February 24, 1989 LETTER OF FEBRUARY 17, 1989 Attached is a letter from Guardian Savings and Loan Association supporting the proposed 90 day extension of the Negotiating Agreement relative to development of land in the area bordered by Beach/Cypress/Eim. This item will appear on your February 27, 1989 Agenda as Charter Centre Phase III -- Negotiation Agreement and recommended 90 day extension. PEC:TA:}ar 4522r Attachment XUARDIANSAVINGS A N D L O A N A S S O C I A T I O N C, February 17, 1989 C)f t),C9;,'RWE E1.OQMENl MMyt`l��`( ��� O1��S�Q� OVI Mr, Thomas Andrusky cO�EOEVELQPM Project Manager City of Huntington Beach Community Development 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re; Huntington Beach City Council Meeting Proposed development of parcels at Beach Boulevard and Elm Street, Huntington Beach Dear Mr. Andrusky: This letter will confirm your telephone conversation with Mr, Russell Jedinak of Guardian Savings and Loan on February 16, 1989, wherein Mr. Jedinak agreed to your proposal for a 90-day extension of the hearing set for February 27, 1987, before the Huntington Beach City Council to discuss possible plans for development of that certain parcels of land situated on the corner of Beach Boulevard and Elm Street in Huntington Beach. As the owner of a portion of the land proposed to be developed, as well as owner of Improved property adjacent thereto, it is considered by us to be in the best interest of all parties concerned to reach tentative agreement on a proposal for development of the property in question before presenting such proposal to the City Council for consideration. Accordingly, we agree with your proposal to a 90-day extension of the aforesaid hearing. Very truly yours, l rome J. e G neral Co sel JS/jf , 7)418424000 17011 BEACH BOULEVARD SUITE 1500 HUNTINGTON BEACI I,CA 92647 NEGOTIATIUG AGREEMENT This Negotiating Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and among the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a public body, ("Agency") , PHILIP ZISAKIS and ROXANNE S. ZISAKIS ("ZISAKIS") , and GSL REAL ESTATE, a California corporation ("GSL") (collectively the "Property Owners") A. In furtherance of the objectives of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 33000, at sea. , (the "Act") , the Agency desires to redevelop certain parcels of land within the Oakview Project Area (Project Area) , as shown on the attached and incorporated Site Map (Exhibit "A") and referred to herein as Proposed Development Site. B. The Proposed Development Site is composed of real property owned by the Agency, Zisakis (operated as "National Auto Glass") , GSL and Leonard E. and Nancy G. Lichter who were offered an opportunity to participate in this Negotiating Agreement but declined. The Proposed Development Site is located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of Cypress Street and Beach Boulevard within the Project Area. C. The parties desire to negotiate a Disposition and Development/Owner Participation Agreement ("DD/OPA") with the Agency to assemble the Proposed Development Site for the purpose of developing thereon a commercial development. D. The parties recognize and acknowledge that the purpose of this Agreement is to seek to negotiate the terms of a DD/OPA which will include without limitation, the economics of the development, the Site Plan, and specific uses of the development, and the other terms of a DD/OPA toward the disposition and redevelopment of the Proposed Development Site. REFi_iEN The parties mutually agree as follows: 1. The parties shall negotiate diligently and in good faith for a 90 day period from the date this Agreement is executed by the Agency ("Negotiating Period") , to establish and agree upon mutually acceptable development plans, concepts, or alternatives, determine the economic feasibility of the development, and establish a value of the Proposed Development Site. If the Agency is provided evidence reasonably satisfactory to it that the parties have either fully resolved or are progressing toward the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of the development, as proposed, the Agency shall extend the Negotiating Period for ninety (90) days ("Extended Negotiation Period") and, thereafter, the parties shall seek in good faith within such additional ninety (90) day period to finalize the resolution of the development plans and concepts and the economic feasibility of the development and negotiate a DD/OPA for the disposition and development of the Proposed Development Site. Except as this Agreement is extended, if on the 180th day from the date of this Agreement (the end of the Extended Negotiating Period) , the Property Owners have not signed and submitted a DD/OPA to the Agency, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate, and the parties knowingly agree that none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the other under this Agreement. If a DD/OPA is so signed and submitted within the Extended Negotiating Period, then this Agreement may be extended in writing for a period not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of such submittal to enable the Agency to: (i) determine whether it desires to enter into such DD/OPA, (ii) take the actions necessary to bring such DD/OPA before the Agency and the City Council for consideration, action, and authorization to sign, and (iii) sign the DD/OPA, if such is approved. 2. The Agency agrees that within the initial sixty (60) days of this Agreement it shall submit documents, reports, and information concerning the proposed development that will provide the parties with the following information: a. A preliminary site plan and architectural/design concept for the development showing access roads, amount and location of parking, location and size of all buildings including height and perimeter dimensions, pedestrian circulation system, landscaping, floor plans, elevations, perspective renderings, and the architectural character of the project. 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -2- �l b. A schedule for the development of all structures and improvements proposed and an estimate (supported by a description of the basis for such an estimate) of development costs including construction and non-construction costs . C. An estimate of project income and a pro forma statement of project return (supported by a description of the assumptions made in making such an estimate and statement) adequate to enable the parties to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed development. This information will be prepared by a consultant selected by the Agency who will also prepare a reuse analysis of the value of the Proposed Development Site, (i .e. , a value based upon such factors as market conditions, density of development, cost of development (including the costs set forth in Section 12 hereof) , risks incurred, estimated or actual profit, estimated or actual sales and/or rental prices of the development, the public purposes, and other matters relevant to establishing the value of the subject property for the uses permitted to be developed. 3 . The Property Owners will prepare and submit a description of the proposed method of construction and permanent financing and amount and sources of capital . 4 . Agency further agrees to cooperate with the Property Owners in supplying financial institutions with appropriate information, if available and not otherwise privileged, to facilitate the obtaining of financing for the Development. 5. Due to the fact the Property Owners are owners within the Project Area it is subject to the rules, rights, and obligations set forth in the Rules for Owner Participation of the Agency for the Project Area (herein "OP Rules") . Property Owners, by execution of this Agreement, acknowledge receipt of a copy of the OP Rules. 6 . The design and development objectives for the project shall be specified in the DD/OPA and the actual development shall be in conformity therewith. The Property Owners shall cooperate fully with the Agency's professional consultants and associates in providing them with any information and assistance reasonably within the capacity of the Property Owners to provide in connection with the preparation and execution of the drawings, plans, and specifications or other documents or information required to be submitted by the Agency to the Property Owners or to the City of Huntington Beach ("City") pursuant to this Agreement or as required by state or local laws and regulations. All design, architectural, and building plans for development shall be subject to the review and approval of the Agency and the City. 11/l/88 1986n/2460/00 -3- 7. In the event that the Property Owners or the Agency fails to fulfill the obligations described in this Agreement within the times specified, the non-performing party shall have fifteen (15) days following written notice from the other to cure, or commence to cure, such failure to perform as may be identified in the written notice. If the non-performing party has failed to cure, or commenced to cure, within such fifteen (15) day period, any other party may terminate this Agreement and, thereafter, none of the parties shall have any further rights or obligations to the others under this Agreement except as hereafter provided. The Property Owners, by execution hereof, knowingly agree, notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, that they shall have no right by virtue of this Agreement to specific performance of this Agreement, nor to specific performance for conveyance of, nor to claim any right of title or interest in the Proposed Development Site (except the parcel or parcels already owned by each of the Property Owners) or any part thereof, nor to money damages, nor any other legal remedies or equitable remedies under the law. 8. Property Owners shall not discriminate against nor segregate, any person, or group of persons on account of sex, race, color, age, marital status, religion, handicap, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Proposed Development Site, nor shall the Developer establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation in the selection, location, number, use, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the land. 9 . The Agency shall not be liable for any real estate commission or brokerage fees which may arise herefrom. Each party represents that it has engaged no broker, agent or finder in connection with this transaction, and each party agrees to hold the other parties harmless from any claim by any broker, agent or finder claiming through any such party. 10. The Property Owners acknowledge and agree that under the DD/OPA they shall be required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the displacement and relocation, if such occurs, of persons and/or businesses on and from the Proposed Development Site, including without limitation, compliance with the Relocation Assistance Law, Government Code Section 7260, et seq. 11. It is the objective of each of the parties that the DD/OPA will contain the following terms and conditions: ll/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -4- a. It is the objective of Zisakis that: (1) The existing National Auto Glass Building will be retained at its present location with signage and new development will be constructed around the existing National Auto Glass Building. On completion of new construction National will own 7,000 square feet of ground floor property within the Proposed Development Site with at least 4,500 contiguous square feet having the potential for 12 foot ceilings suitable for auto glass shop use and the remainder of which will be appropriate for commercial retail use. In addition, National will have a right to own an additional 10,000 square feet of office space within the Proposed Development Site. (2) Except as provided in (1) above, the ultimate location, square footage and configuration of the National Auto Glass Building including associated parking, as well as the purchase price paid by Zisakis for its rights hereunder shall be determined in the course of negotiating the DD/OPA. b. It is the objective of GSL that: (1) GSL shall be provided with unimpeded access to and from Cypress Avenue through the Proposed Development Site from the existing Charter Centre. (2) All development on the Proposed Development Site will be consistent with the architectural standards established by the existing Charter Centre. (3) GSL shall have the right to participate in any additional parking provided on the Proposed Development Site, which is no less than a proportionate share based on the size of the parcels owned by the Property Owners as of the date of execution of the DD/OPA. (4) The ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site shall include a reciprocal easement agreement standard for any such integrated commercial center allowing for reciprocal ingress and egress throughout the Proposed Development Site as well as reciprocal parking rights and maintenance, repair, and upkeep of the Proposed Development Site in conformity with similar standards extant for Charter Centre. (5) GSL will be selected as the developer for the Proposed Development Site. 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -5- c. It is the objective of the Agency that: (1) The Proposed Development Site be developed as an integrated commercial development further integrated with the existing Charter Centre so as to provide architectural unity as well as reciprocal access in parking throughout the Proposed Development Site and Charter Centre. (2) The Property Owners shall be granted ownership rights in the ultimate development of the Proposed Development Site consistent with their respective ownership in the Proposed Development Site, subject to the further ability to acquire additional ownership rights in the ultimate development through contributions toward the ultimate development in the form of acquisition of property from another party, equity contribution and/or similar contributions standard in such joint venture developments. 12. GSL shall deliver to the Agency concurrently with execution hereof by the Agency an advance of funds ("Advance") in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20, 000) in cash or cashier 's or certified check. The Agency shall have the right to draw down and to spend whatever portion of said Advance is necessary for site plan preparation, development feasibility analysis, including, without limitation, economic analysis, legal fees, redevelopment consultant fees, appraisal fees, staff time, administration and other costs associated with the Proposed Development Project. The Agency shall maintain accurate documentation of such expenditures which information shall be made available to GSL in the form of a detailed accounting made every thirty (30) days after the Agency's execution of this Agreement, and to the other Property Owners upon request. No interest shall accrue or be due to GSL on this Advance. The Advance is submitted to the Agency as consideration for this Agreement and GSL knowingly agrees that the Advance may not be refunded to it except as hereinafter provided. In the event a DD/OPA is entered into, this Advance shall be considered a cost of development and shall be included in project costs allocated proportionally. As a material part of the consideration for GSL advancing the Advance, GSL shall retain all ownership rights in and to the plans, but not the studies and reports for which the Advance is used. In the event during the Negotiating Period or any extended period hereunder all of the Advance is expended or obligated and the Agency reasonably believes additional funds are necessary to pay for the cost associated with the Proposed Development Project and to reach a DD/OPA ready for Property Owner's signature and Agency consideration, then the Agency shall submit a written request to GSL notifying it of the 11/l/88 1986n/2460/00 -6- nature of the items to be completed, the estimated cost of such items, and an explanation of the need for such items, and the amount of the additional funds required to be advanced by GSL to the Agency pursuant to the request. The collective amount of the initial advance of funds and the additional advance or advances of funds are referred to herein as the Advance. The Agency shall refund any unused and unobligated portion of the Advance within thirty (30) calendar days after the end of the Negotiating Period. Except as set forth in the sentence immediately preceeding, GSL shall have no right to the return of the Advance during the Negotiating Period or thereafter. 13 . In the event that this Agreement terminates by virtue of the passage of time, or otherwise, and the parties have not entered into a DDA/OPA, then each of the property owners has the right to request that the Agency consider independent development of each of their respective parcels, including the sale of land by the Agency to each such property owner to accommodate such development. The Agency may, in its sole and absolute discretion, accept or reject any such proposals. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year appearing below. 7�l' ti 1988 REDEVELOPMEM AG Y THE CITY OF HU G N ACH By: ha ' man "AGENCY" ATTEST: ,f; t Agency Secretary INITIATED AND APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Dep ty ty Administrator/ k Direct r of Economic �' Development 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -7- REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS APPROVED: AS TO FORM: City/Agency Al rney City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer Agency Special Couns ZISAKIS 1 r CIO GSL By: It By: I s: • 11/1/88 1986n/2460/00 -8-- s tLi�c In �La:C�d ter tti Z et, j am. GALud, aql UARDIAN SAVINGS �,a�� AND LOAN ASSOCIATION Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the City Council . My name is Larry Day, and I am General Counsel with Guardian Savings and Loan Association and its subsidiary, GSL Real Estate. I would first like to thank the City Council for giving Guardian this opportunity to respond and reaffirm our position regarding the staff recommendation relating to Agenda item B-1 on the September 19, 1988 City Council Agenda. I'd like to begin by briefly summarizing the background of Guardian Savings and Loan Association as it relates to Charter Centre. On August 5, 1988, GSL Real Estate purchases'! the Charter Centre, which is located at 'the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. Within a matter of days after the purchase we learned that multiple proposals to acquire 'land adjacent to the Centre were pending with the City. Because of cur interest in resolving the real and perceived issues associated with the parking and traffic circulation within the Centre, we sought to meet with the City staff and council members to resolve these issues. We did this to protect the health and safety concerns of the citizens of Huntington Beach as well as our investment in the Centre. 71418442441 5200 V41AEtNER AVENUE H[.TNT[NGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92649 Our initial meeting with City staff took place on September 1 . 1988. At that meeting we were advised that if we were interested In protecting our interests and concerns relating to the Centre, we should present a written proposal for the purchase of City lands adjoining the Centre which was to come before the Council on September 6, 1988 (later adjourned until September 19, 1988). as an agenda item. In response to that notice we quickly prepared such a proposal, which is now attached to the Staff Report for Agenda item E-1 . Since the date of that first meeting with the City we have met with all three of the landowners adjacent to the Centre, and have reached tentative agreements in principle with two of the landowners for acquiring their land. We are continuing discussions with the third party to resolvs the open issues regarding the acquisition of their land. Accordingly, although Guardian Savings feels it is not in the best interests of the City or the Centre to adapt the Staff's Alternative Action, we steadfastly support the the staff's recommendation to postpone any decision regarding this land until the staff, the Redevelopment Agency representative, ourselves and the third landowner can sit down together and reach a mutually- agreeable solution that will satisfy each person's needs and most of their desires. r In summary. I'd like to emphasize that Guardian Savings continues to be interested in only three (3) issues regarding the development of the lands immediately adjacent to the Centre. These are: 1. To ensure that any future development of these lands results in a cohesive and unified project when viewed In relation to the Centre. 2. To correct the parking issue by constructing a multi— tiered parking structure immediately behind the Holiday Health Spa, and 3. To provide for better traffic circulation through the Centre by developing an unobstructed traffic flow to and from Cypress Avenue. we believe that these three issues, when ttey are cumulatively completed, will serve to address the concerns and issues expressed to us about the Centre, and will provide the citizens of Huntington Beach with greater safety and convenience in their use of the Centre. It is for all of these reasons that we strongly support the staff recommendation and respectfully ask the City Council to adopt that recommendation. Thank you. REQUEST FC,�REDEVELOPMENT PjENCY ACTION , P RII 88-71 October 24, 1988 Date `v `J Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted by: Paul Cook, Executive Director��, , Prepared by: Douglas La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Develop Subject: CHARTER CENTRE PHASE III- NEGOTIATING AGREEAIE Consistent with Council Policy? [ ) Yes [ j New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Att merits: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Charter Centre development located within the northerly portion of the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area has been completed, except for the 1.7 acre site at the northerly intersection of Cypress Avenue and Beach Boulevard. At the City Council/Agency meeting of September 19, 1988, it was your action to continue the disposition of Agency-owned property within this site until your meeting of October 24. This continuation was intended to allow further opportunity to work with the property owners to develop an overall integrated plan for the site. To achieve this, numerous meetings were held with staff, the three property owners, their attorneys and architects, in an attempt to formulate a Negotiating Agreement for the Agency's consideration. A Negotiating Agreement has been prepared and signed by two of the parties (Phil Zisakis and Guardian Savings), with the third party (Lichter) unwilling to participate wanting only an option to purchase a portion of Agency-owned property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Agency Clerk and Chairman to execute the Negotiating Agreement. ANALYSIS: Since the adoption of the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area in 1982, considerable effort has been extended on behalf of all parties to develop a workable plan for the ultimate development of the final phase of the site known as Charter Centre. Most recently, it was your action on September 19, to continue the matter of selecting a developer for a portion or all of the site to allow a final opportunity for staff and the property owners to seek a mutual resolve towards the development of the total site. In that regard, a number of meetings have been held and as a result of those meetings, a Negotiating Agreement has been prepared and two of the parties have executed. The objective of this agreement is to resolve to all issues relating to the ultimate development of the site in question. ] w l� r V / rio/i/ss 1 �f RII 88-71 October 24, 1988 Page Two The Agreement before the Agency provides the participating property owners and the Agency a six month period of time to develop a plan and conclude a Disposition and Development Agreement that will serve to implement the ultimate development plan. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not approve or modify the Negotiating Agreement. 2. Direct staff to proceed with the preparation of a Disposition and Development Agreement at this time. 3. Sell Agency property through the bid process to one or more of the adjacent property owners. FUNDING SOURCE: Agency contractual service funds. ATTACHMENT.- 1. Negotiating Agreement. 2. Site Map. 3. Letter from Guardian Savings dated October S, 1988. PEC/DLB:lp 4180h WARNER. AVE. CxN16�T r1 6'C.1 L e r"•40' .� h L I CHYER r w to W a b kK B L/N� LO]'3 9LX v 74.I3i PER PH. N".ee, 4.4749' � ova A�ENC � d � PARCEL 1 � - W z • aarz ACICrS a N:rrzi'r!� 3sfl�' � 3 , •� RCEL 3 v EI ! o a iia ACRES � n o/4 S Ac c r y a 118 ACES v ja' d6' 0 a► i l I lOOa' /14/L 197A0' 1 { nref•rc'J4f'iO 3a74r- 4�7 ¢� CYPRESS STREET xG'X t� S C17Y orRn Tc.H (q cy,C,i1F Pif CJ ACj4rW 07 0) 19800 RfCEM `A CITY CLERN OCT 10 Z 28 FH 'E lcu� lt�4 --Ly'.. kkttM�- 64A A� =�-O &C7� CL7J LalIX c c,�- c kw AA lb4t 1 Ps COO aWLo-k -f%r,,4 I 0 �� x A Wj —ZAAX-t, "Ak LX� 4 e L JU.4 cs_ ... ,� a � + -. - ILA- ct Jo,�— %)o S4� 014 JAIN AWIA J�:t� Nza'u- 0. ` '' v-At on o `�` / COAN LA� Wl'it CA 9a E,v y �7�`I) Syb 87i3 t _ - ' - � '-.,-=s-._.3..=.s ..r .y -r--.-ti-y:���-�.a_-n_-.m_. ,s-•�.-•_--a mom.- _ram.---•!•-'•i+a--..�--..-.mr�•x --- +-- ----• • -. - �- , -x ,, .7_7 .;.:.1:.,,_.�,.1_.J. � - - r. =s— _ �_..,._.... ..,.�sr s yj ` t 4NC Wednesday,Sept.2 i-Thun day,$apt.22,IM, The Orange County Register 7 1 mi i r� rn s edisoute : ..�_ r1$ .�. , •., .�• Huntl'ngto bal stones cast Monday night were dealing with Air. Zisakis over the Monday night,Zisakis asked the night." J .,sty council asked arbitrate a' years.µ'e allowed him to build half council to let hint buy the land he But Councilman Jack Kelly sa 'My perception is that there is a a building in the belief he could do needs for a 4t}foot expansion of his - a 3aday dolay of the +rote meaft•`� roblem over exp ion plans bias in the Redevelopment Agency the rest." glass shop, little when 'he considere&� he i toward larger projects and that we But hia proposals for the site - But Jedinak said his office build- -pottance oi`the corner at Be h 3 are driving out smaller family have beeil ignored by the city,Zisa- ing proposal was just one idea. and Wame to the city/, per mall-business owner, Phil businesses," City Councilman Pe- kis told the council, Ile has scaled back plans for the 'A decision on a SI04}�rtilIion car- Arm no r Z' said he needs the Iend to ter Green said. This summer,Guardian Savings office building from 14 stories to ner like thi shouldn't rest on the e his shop.Guardian Savings 1s Particular family u, ass, and Loan purchased Charter Cen- four or five,Jedinak said. And his fact that 1 it Zisakis is-a nice HLFN'f'iNGTOV BEACII—A di- and n, ft new owner of the Zisakis' National Auto Glass, at ter, and Russell M. Jedinak, the plans would.not necessarily pre- guy," Kelly said. "Then, is an un 3 vided and visibly angry City Ccwn- Cower, wants the city to 17704 RenCh Blvd., !ccupies the cnrnpany's chair-man of the board, elude exnan%inn«f the crlave eh— dercurrrnt -re th.at,�pfipa raaenn_ - 1 .. n r n,.,�.•..n�nrl • M tg i -r N ria,ralnn',.n•l,n � "•_•-•• ci=o...' •'�; ,,;b••� •o a;'bi 1__k t3ea..o. ---•-..Y:..6 • •� rratilrbiuck as the Charter Center's has s11►cc ctlhmirted to the city a he said. ablcncss. T is big city against lit-: •; trace a4WUte between David.attd- sue• ardiav is expewte d to Pre, 14-story office building. Zisakis development pro*el for the site. But Zisakis said that in previous t1e business .an stuff is pure crap, .•- •+ Goliath property owners on a � roject that could bring the completed the first phase of his Zisakis; said Guardian's draw- negotiations, Jedinak simply.told I would liken see what(proposal) multiati>itfion-dollar corner at city y tax revenues. blue-and-white building south of ings for 3 14-story office building him to move.Ile asked the council (Guardian Savings and Loan) will. •- � Beach Hotdevard and Warner Ave- a lengthy and often heated the office tower this year. cover not only the site he wants to not to delay its decision and a���a submit." ' •' � nue• di on, the council voted to He said he needs the adjacent buy,but the current site of Nation- hi r,e .ro uuil 111 11 ers After a tpecouncil on the Zisakis". . ; At the gtrre of the disa8ieemeat for a 1tth its decision 31,OO1) square feet to complete the al Auto Glass. Vreen, �'ilichell and Ruth Finley proposal, t appointed• t' is whether a glass-shop proprietor . on s' request to sell him the project.And,Zisakis told the coun- z Jedinak s proposal could add$I agreed. Idayor John Erskine and council. i# or the owner of the $55 rrlillion land. tvtg thaftima,three coon- cil,For the past nine years,the city 'I million to S20 million to the as,L. r. i5akis negotiated (u-ith members Creels Eu1,1 Tom Mays to Cl►est'lenr Center will be alluwcd to cil hers will cry to reach a has said he would get it. sessed value of the area, a staff the city) in good faith and the city. work out a compromise. Council- ; • 1 purclae and develop a portion of• com• ice with the two property Councilwoman Grace Winchell report said. Such a project would has not done the same," Green man Wes Bannister abstained.-.- the ! the 2S.WO-square-font property own I eed• bring the city*47. le tax revenues, said.'The city has engaged in pro- from voting, he said, because he- i••, owned by the city Kedevelopt nent: • Al* igh the issue centered on "The paper trail we've seen ... Zisakis cried foul and headed for, crastination and Possibly decep• insures the savings and lostn com- Agency. , the m usioesses,most of the ver- . indicates the city has done serious the council. tion and I think it should end to- parry. '. SMN SNMNGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION October 6, 1986 Mr. Paul Cook, City Administrator Mr. Doug La Belle, Deputy City Adninistrator The City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Land Acquisition Proposal Dear Messers . Cook and La Belle: As a follow-up to our meeting of September 1 , 1988, and several subsequent meetings with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency personnel, I an pleased to present, for the City' s review, and inclusion on the October 24 , 1988 , City Council Agenda, a proposal ("Proposal") to purchase certain City owned land located near the Northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Cypress Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. The Proposal is as follows: PROPOSAL 1 . Guardian Savings and Loan Association ("Guardian") agrees purchase, and the City of Huntington Beach ("City") agrees to sell, fee simple ownership to that real property cross-hatched and identified as Parcels 5 & 7 (comprised of approximately 25 , 336 . 32 square feet of land area) on Exhibit "A" ( the "Property") , which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and 2. In consideration for the City transferring fee simple ownership in the Property to Guardian, Guardian agrees to pay to the City, at the close of escrow, a total CASH sum of Thirty Dollars and No Cents ($30.00) per square foot of land area within the Property, which is equal to approximately Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Eighty-Nine Dollars and Sixty Cents ($760, 089.60) ; and 3. Within three (3) business days from City' s acceptance of this Proposal, Guardian will open escrow and title orders with companies , of its sole choosing, who will process the title orders and closing of the purchase and sale transactions; and 4. The only contingency to Guardian closing the transaction shall be Guardian' s review and approval of an ALTA preliminary policy of title insurance , and all underlying documents (which shall thereafter be ratified by a binding ALTA Title Report) , both of which shall be paid for by the City; and i 714/840-1441 5200 WAMNER AVE. SUITE 209 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 Mr. Paul Cook and Mr. Doug La Belle October G, 1988 Page: 2 5 . Escrow shall close within five (5) business days from the date of Guardian' s acceptance of the preliminary title report; and 6. This Proposal shall be valid until 5 : 00 p .m , on Tuesday, October 25, 1988 . If the Proposal is not formally accepted by that date, the Proposal shall be deemed to have been rescinded and of no further force or effect, without the need for any further notice or writing to the City. Paul and Doug, to assist you in your processing of this Proposal, I arm providing the following background information. Also, please understand that by requesting this Proposal be calendared for the October 24, 1988, City Council meeting I an not trying to interfer with the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement currently under discussion, but an only seeking to protect my client' s interest should Councilman Green be successful in having Mr. 2isakis' proposal heard on that same day. Guardian Savings and Loan is a $525 Million Dollar institution primarily engaged in the generation and sale of single fanily residential loans , with seven branch offices and ten loan production offices located throughout the entire State of California. Currently, Guardian is headquartered in several buildings near the intersection cf Warner and Bolsa Chica Avenues in the City of Huntington Beach, with approximately 200 employees housed in these facilities to conduct the administrative business of Guardian. For the calendar year 1988, Guardian is projecting an After Tax Profit of approximately $20,000, 000.00, thereby making it one of the most profitable financial institutions in the U.S. With regard to Charter Centre, on August 5, 1988, Guardian purchased Charter Centre from Mola Development Company. The purpose of the acquisition was to provide a first—class hone for our company, and to enable us to house our headquarters staff all under one roof. We are excited by the dynamics of the Centre and the potential such a move affords to us and are pleased that we were able to remain in Huntington Beach in order to facilitate our needs . One of the vital reasons behind our decision to acquire Charter Centre was the potential for the satisfaction of our future growth needs through the development of the under— developed lands which presently adjoin the Centre. Guardian is, at this time, projecting a growth in its headquarters work force of more than 50% over the next few years. To accommodate these additional people (while retaining the integral integrity achieved by our initial move into the Centre) , the ability to secure ownership of the surrounding and adjoining lands, and the ability to receive approval to develop it out to meet the needs i Mr. Paul Cook and Mr. Doug La Belle October 6, 1988 Page; 3 of Guardian, the Centre and the community, are opportunities that can provide a win—win situtation for all. Thus, the reason for our Proposal. Therefore, fulfilling this dream of the future , and in anticipation of the City's cooperation in bringing that dream to fruition, Guardian has undertaken to lay the foundation of cooperation, support and flexibility in working with the adjoining landowners to explore ways in which their concerns and needs can be met through amicable means. To date, the Senior Executive staff of Guardian has met with all three adjoining landowners (Mr. Len Lichter, Mrs . Pat Lilly and Mr. Phil Zisakis) , has acquired Mrs. Lilly' s property and wade substantial inroads to the satisfaction of mutual desires with Mr. Lichter in just one meeting. In addition, Mr. Lichter is agreeable to the future development plans of Guardian. Thus , with the City's approval of the Proposal, only Mr. Phil Zisakis' land presents an open issue . However, Guardian will continue to speak with Mr. Zisakis and is amenable to relocating Mr. Zisakis' business to other property in the surrounding area which possibly would have more square footage or land area in order to accommodate the current and future needs of Mr. Zisakis ' company. As you review our Proposal please keep in mind the following positive benefits an overall development can bring to the Centre and the community; 1) the tax revenue generated by the completion of Charter Centre could conceivably increase by over 400% from that generated by the present uses of the properties owned by the City, Mr. Lichter and Mr. Zisakis; and 2) completion of the Centre as a cohesive unit will allow Guardian to address the traffic circulation issue which exists within the Centre , and the purported parking congestion issue thought to exist within the Centre; and 3) completion of the Centre, under the eye and direction of Guardian, will ensure that the project brings an enhanced image to the entire Centre and the surrounding community; and 4) by having Guardian as a large employer/user of the facilities (rather than an off—site investor) a concern for regular naintenence becomes even more prevalant and again will add to the vibrancy of the Centre; and i ti Mr. Paul Cook and Mr. Doug La Belle October 6, 1988 Page: 4 S) by allowing Guardian to develop the remainder of the Centre it may be possible to add development refinements, such as a direct access walkway from the proposed new parking structure to the Holiday Health Spa; and 6) as an employer of more than 200 employees, and a projection of doubling that number in the next ten years, a significant added amount of revenue will be generated for the City through the influx of more families into the City as a result of their employment with Guardian. Paul and Doug, you can see that the opportunities afforded by our Proposal and the build—out of Charter Centre are to ourselves, the City and the community in general , vast and promising. We hope you share the excitement we feel about these possibilities and ask that you calendar this Proposal for the October 24, 1988, City Council meeting. We will be present to address the Council and answer their questions, and would further appreciate your assistance in providing each Council member with a copy of this letter and the Proposal. Again, that you for taking your time to listen to our plans, and for your assistance in fulfilling those dreams. Respectfully, a y . Day Vi p e ident General Counsel LRD/m bcc: Stan Uchizono f REQUEST PC,� REDEVELOPMENT IjENCY ACTION DN `f f�"- V ✓�/�Tlsl+� -A 7lft /4`AW**15E�1✓e RH 88-38 ifqAah sleb Zy 7�r Uo f>� Date • Dh T�h dQ dnorableoChair6�'n&d Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, Chief Executive Off Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Adi-ninistrator/Economic Develop t Prepared by: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subject: AREA - ZISAKIS Consistent with Council Policy? pQ Yes New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Staff is in receipt of a purchase and development proposal by National Auto Glass for a portion of several parcels owned by the Redevelopment Agency located within the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area. More specifically located at the northwest corner of Cypress and Beach Boulevard (Exhibit A). RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to further analyze proposals submitted by Phil Zisakis, Guardian Savings & Loan and Leonard Lichter and return with a recommendation for Agency consideration .at the October 17, 1988 meeting. ANALYSIS: The Redevelopment Agency recently acquired two parcels of land from willing sellers in an effort to control orderly development of the area south of the Charter Centre development. These parcels are approximately 25,000 sq. it. in area (see Exhibit A). In may of 1996 staff at Agency's direction solicited proposals from the three major property owners within the area. Those owners being Mola Development Corporation, Phil Zisakis of National Auto Glass, and Leonard Lichter for a development proposals on the remaining parcels located south of Charter Centre to Cypress Drive. At that time, Parcel No. 4 was a four-plex development, Parcel No. 3 was vacant, Parcel No. 6 a duplex owned by a willing seller, Parcel No. 7 a duplex recently purchased by the Redevelopment Agency, Parcel No. 8 also vacant and owned by hir. Zisakis and Parcel No. 3 owned by Mr. Lichter which existed with a two-story office professional building. The only proposal received at that time was from Mola Development Corporation showing a conceptual of complex which proved to be uneconomical. PIO/i185 a ` R H 88-58 September 19, 1988 Page Two The proposal before you is from Phil Zisakis, owner of Parcel 8, who has since developed a two-story building on that parcel and now wishes to expand onto portions of Agency Parcels No. 3 and No. 7. As outlined in Air. Zisakis' proposal submitted to the Agency dated August 9, 1988, he plans to construct a three-story building valued at approximately $1,300,000. This proposal is offering to purchase a building pad area of a 7200 sq. ft., exclusive of parking, driveways and landscaping at a dollar value of $20 per sq. ft. or $144,400. Staff has estimated that the area necessary for the total development proposal including landscaping, parking and driveways would be approximately 11,000 sq. ft. and have approximate land value of $30 sq. ft. or a total approximate value of $330,000. Subsequent to Mr. Zisakis' proposal, the Chairman of the Board of Guardian Savings & Loan, Russell Jedinak, whose institution has just recently acquired the Mola interest in Charter Centre has expressed a desire in expanding that facility onto Parcels No. S and No. 7 and are currently negotiating to purchase Parcels No. 4 and No. 6 and requests that an opportunity be given to submit a development proposal to the Agency that could add significant assessed value to the area (approximately $15420 million). Also, staff is in receipt of a letter from Mr. Lichter, owner of Parcel No. 3, who wishes time to submit a proposal for the Agency's consideration. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: t 1. Direct staff to enter into a contractual arrangement (D.D.A. with National Auto Glass) to sell a portion of Agency's land holdings necessary to complete a development at the corner of Cypress and Beach Boulevard at a price to be established by an appraisal. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit A. 2. Letter of May 1986. 3. National Auto Glass proposal. 4. Lichter letter of September 2, 1988. 3. Guardian Savings & Loan letter of September 7, 1988. PEC/DLB/PS:sar 3640r F VU WARNER AVE. e — • } , • 125557' on 71 t y. co I T ti pr JA i � r i _ r h��b��r�� r •�f�_�� ?t lv J AVENUE f � Z •r l� 722 140 73' r � k �LVr2 Ca• Lij eel.ir• cos4• ems• 8 � r3' /moo' l�e..er' /of• ti CYPRESS N •._. ,rti�• �• � ���✓fern f - we '.the underf igned hereby gc on record against the Guardiar. C.� _ :► .` Savinge Plan for another fourteen ( 14 ) etory high rise C�a office buildibg and six (6) story parking structure- to be " built at Charter Center. Objections are 'primarily: irtcreasE sir_:. ►'- y:t•=' in`�traffic to area, noise, blocking of light, lowering- of fk5 *; ={i_: adjacent property values and many other undesirable impacts. r NAME ADDRESS -.fir►• 1: / . scamp -seed � - 9 - ' + _ Li' _��•! — �(n 3L -/✓�r�lef y ti dt r� GOp 77 ' 7 + S ,` G f Last n 00-t-cn%. ib.IF t •t •� u!tpsrs7�"R"V.a =aa'r3a.r'"•�.�c-rr�.s�..+rww .�F We the undersigned hereby go on record against the Guardian Savinas Plan for another fourteen (14) story high rise office building and six (6 ) stcry parking structure to be built at Charter Center. Objections are primarily increase in traffic to area, noise, blocking of light, lowering of adjacent property values and many other undesirable impacts. NAME DDRE S -S Ur V r FLdA Dog r Cn) 4T M7- J A.k 60 Qs�V 1 .4 k- 61'a' CIAa k� --�3?Z �o I k G�. N �3_ Sze qC IL + �,�, ,�.•. is 2L- Y 7 fir s 1 3 2� /tOu e,- D JA Qr CU-_ Fz-ti: y 2 70. 9,-,Agd-, 9 -- - -� -- - J/0' OF _ _ we the undersigned hereoy co cr record against the Guardiar. Savings Plan fo: another fourteen (14) story high rise office building and six (6 ) story parking structure to be built at Charter Center. Objections are primarily increase in traffic to area, noise, blocking of light, lowering of adjacent property values and many other undesirable impacts. rIAME ADDRESS -� =-z S3 .2 TIN2 cx.s L7R_l�•r3 — 9�E �!T 8 wa-7e L i rt r` r3 YC 4�213 2_ - A ewv~� ltir � �• ! ©�� 7E'Ctrs /� 1/ . 92'p . �, � � �lap-' We the undersigned hereby go on record against the Guardian Savings Plan for another fourteen (14 ) story high rise office building and six (6) story parking structure to be built at Charter Center. Objections are primarily increase in traffic to area, noise, blocking of light, lowering of adjacent property values and many other undesirable impacts. p�,E ADDRESS ,-7 00, 7 JAA?A L4 L � (3 L 2 Xf/ 27 we the undersianec hereby oc an record against the Guardian SavincE Plan for another fourteen ( 14) story high rise office buildin: and six (6) story parking structure tc be built at Charter Center. Objections are primarily increase in traffic to area, noise, blocking of light, lowering of adjacent property values and many other undesirable impacts. NAME ADDRESS c J_L^AIV\ CA/L't E {� TV Af, Q F / �'Z�(a;:4 14. 6. IL 4D-it 1730 ( fry � 2tr . / /- , / 73 0/ We the undersigned hereby go on record against the Guardian. Savina_ Plan for another fourteen (14) story high rise office building and six (6) story parking structure to be built at Charter Center. Objections are primarily increase in traffic to area, noise, blocking of light, lowering of adjacent property values and many other undesirable impacts. NAME ADDRESS R v�ch 1-5I eack R!v 1-7/71 �t 47 rp AL zzt9 .__�_ ke the undersigned hereby gc on record against the Guardian. Savina€ Plan for another fourteen ( 14) story high rise office building and six (6) etory parking_ structure to be built at Charter Center. Objections are primarily increase in traffic to area, noise, blocking of light, lowering - of adjacent property values and many other undesirable impacts. DAME ADDRESS t 9�12 J . _ 9616 s,6t dee A-_— Sig'_=:�9 A ri n 1� 1 J We the undersigned hereby go on record against the Guardian saving: Plan for another fourteen (14) story high rise office building and six (6 ) story parking structure to be built at Charter Center. Objection:. are primarily increase in traffic to area, noise, blocking of lightt lowering of adjacent property values and many other undesirable impacts. LITTLE HOUSE OF REPUREss 7942 CYPRESS STRE 7— 1 HU T NG Dh BEACH, C CA5 - S S Ats. i f l • }-Q4{.! `L� ISM Vt1- KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN I[ t A LAW CORPCRATION � � C" 1-T-W 354 SOUTH SPRING STREET, SUITE 420 �/Gl LOS ANOELES, CALIFORNIA 00013 I1 � / � L � TELEPHONE 12M 617-0480 (((( ! � TELECOPIER 12M 625-0931 OQ�d �`- -;-�~ HURRAY O. KANE - SAN DILGO OFIICE SRJCE 0. 6ALLM£R 701 W* STREET. SUITE 1300 JAMES DEXTER CLARK SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 GI-ENN F. wASSEAMAN TELEPHONE 1619) 232-0747 MARJORIE R. FRIEDLANOER R. ORUCE TEPPER, JR. Ci47�L1 1F•�� [L PeNEE L. CAMP6ELL (� LANCE E. GARBER September 18, 1988 01_t� KATHRrN REIMANN �— PRINCIPALS JOHN W. IM.S14ER RoaERT P. BERKMAN RCTIREO _71 t-tyt.G�.�C�' Chairman Erskine and Members of the Redevelopment Agency City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Phil Zisakis Dear Mr. Chairman: On Monday night, as requested by the Agency at its August 15, 1988 r.eeting, the Redevelopment Agency will consider the selection of a developer and approval of conceptual drawings for development of three parcels of property within the Charter Center sub-area of the oakview Redevelopment Plan, including and adjoining a parcel owned and occupied by Phil Zisakis, dba National Auto Glass Co. This action culminates nine years of promises a assu r.• ec s by the edevelo me t e c sta and the City, Council- that Mr. Zisa his would be_able to complete his relocation- from the otter si dc?of peagh Botlgyard_ into a full-size wholesale and retail q, ass_shoo. 1. The Zisakis_Proposal_is Exactly the Right Proposal for this l,ocation.- The -proposal ,2v_Mr. Zisakis is the best and_mos a_pproariate 5e o t s part of-the QArter Center. Moreover, it is the proposal the City Council supported in September, 1984 when it approved the construction of the first phase of the National Auto Glass building (now constructed) . Phase II, a three-story, 17,500 square foot commercial structure incorporating the present structure, will generate substantial sales tax revenue to the city from wholesale operations (a benefit which doesn't exist from office buildings) , property tax revenue to the Agency, and have ample space for large or small commercial or professional tenants. Because of the moderate size and the wholesale business, parking can be accommodated on-site without exacerbating the existing parking and traffic problems. You will note from the attached V t . Chairman Erskine September 18, 1988 Page 2 conceptual plan that the building is designed to complement the newer existing structures within Charter Centre. Begause the footprint of the gisakis proposal is small , there is plenty of room left -in the Charter- Center block for, Gua d a 's rlans and/or Agency plans to alley atp parging_p=bjema_, Mr. Zisakis is open to any suggestions from the Agency for revisions or additions to his plan. We note, however, that since the proposal was presented to staff on August 11, 1988, neither Mr. Zisakis or I have received a single call to discuss the merits of the proposal. On August 29, I telephoned Doug Labelle to remind him of our intention to work with staff to modify Mr. Zisakis' proposal if necessary to meet the goals of the Agency and its staff. In the meantime, while staff claims to not have had time to discuss the merits of the Zisakis proposal, it has had time to meet with both Guardian and Lichtner to discuss merits of their proposals. Staff has had adequate time to analyze the Zisakis proposal and to return to you by September 19 with a complete analysis and recommendation. The fact that they have failed to do so should not penalize Mr. Zisakis by way of delays at a moment when time is of the utmost importance, 2. I10 Delay Should be Granted. Staff is suggesting that the Agency should postpone action because it needs a chance to talk with other property owners within the Charter Center sub-area. A postponement ,of action on the Zisakis proposal is tantamount to rejection of his proposal. As pointed out above, staff has already met with the other property owners. The only purpose a delay will serve is to advance the proposals of Guardian (an office tower replacing the recently completed National Auto Glass shop) or a vague proposal by Lichtner (to acquire the property next to National Auto Glass for his own expansion) . Moreover, failure to approve the Zisakis proRosal at this time will send a message to staff -that Guardian ,savings oLightner should enefit from acquisitions made years ago by the Redevelopment Agency on Zisakis' behalf. Not only does this run counter to prior instructions from the City Council to staff, it will drag out your involvement in the debate over this location in a high-pressure (now that Guardian is involved) environment for countless months. Meanwhile the Charter Center sub-area will continue to be a partially vacant, blighted and incomplete development. There is no middle-groundto be reached among these partLes. Guardian only wants to relocate National Auto Glass and it told Chairman Erskine September 18, 1988 Page 3 Mr. Zisakis that in no uncertain terms just last Thursday. Lichtner's only contact with Mr. Zisakis, despite Mr. Zisakis' advances over the years, was a demand that Mr. Zisakis sell his property to Lichtner for Lichtner's own use. Only a month ago, following a meeting with Lichtner, Paul Cook told Zisakis that Lichtner's ideas for development of the property in question were not appropriate and that Lichtner was completely out of the picture. National Auto Glass has only one-half a shop at the present time. If Mr. Zisakis is forced to move because another developer is selected to develop the property he now occupies or the adjacent property purchased by the Agency on his behalf in 1985, he will lose not only $500,000 in equity built up in the present building and location, but, because of the surrounding automotive industry, the only available location for his business to prosper. Because the election in early November will change the constitution of this Council, which is familiar with the history of the project, it is imperative that you select Mr. Zisakis as the developer for this project at this meeting. Between now and the election, important points will have to be negotiated in a disposition and development agreement and returned to you for approval. There will not be time to complete all documents for your approval before the election if you wait until October to pelect Mrg Zisakir _a_s the developer,, 3. The Guardian Proposal-Should-be-Rejected Out of Hand The Guardian proposal, whether the requested fifteen story monstrosity or a four or five story building, is completely wrong for this location. Office towers generate huge amounts of traffic. The intersection gf Beach and Warner is the worst-rated intersection on Beach Boulevard anywhere from_LA - 3abra to the gcepn, according to recent studies published by the Orange County Transportation Commission.1/ Your Growth Management Ad Hoc Committee has recommended a rating of "D" for all arterial intersections, including Beach-Warner. Beach-Warner is not even an "E". It is an "F", in fact an "F-" , if there were such a rating. It is not going to get any better. The School District will soon be presenting to you plans for a large-scale commercial development on its property across the intersection from the Charter Centre tower. The intersection is so bad that in 1985 (before the completion of Charter Centre) the Orange County Transportation The Beach-Warner rating is 1.20 (1.00 is maximum capacity, itself a traffic disaster) . The next worst intersection is Beach- Westminster at 1.08. By comparison, Beach-Talbert is rated at .72. Chairman Erskine September 18, 19£8 Page 4 Commission recommended the drastic measure that you " rode separate" Beach from Warner, by building an overpass. You chose, instead, a less drastic, but also less effective improvement program. Even if you fully implement all traffic mitigation measures for Beach-Warner short of an overpass, which will require spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, you will have an "F" rating in the year 2005. Guardian's claim that it's fifteen story office building will generate lots of money for the Agency is misleading and inaccurate. First of all, the building's tax increment would exceed the cap established by the Redevelopment Plan and, after a point, would flow to the County and not the Agency. More importantly, a fifteen Story office building wJU__nevgK be pyRroved. no property tax revenues from a smaller building will be little d1flerent from the Zisakis three-story proposal, Even a smaller Guardian office building2/ will generate significant traffic and cause the City to spend enormous amounts of money to alleviate traffic problems at Beach-Warner. Moreover, the orange County Transportation Commission has documented that increased congestion will cost local businesses significant losses in gross sales (and less sales tax revenue for the City) . Of course, the office building. unlike the Zisakis proposal, will generate virtually- no -sales-taxes. 4. The History of this Proposal Merits its Approval_ Contrary to what your staff report indicates, the history of this property did not begin in 1986. In fact; by 1986. Mr.- Zisakis had already presented three proposals to the Agency staff. none of wh j gh were_ever resMnded to and none gf which were_ever`presented to the Agency_itseZ"or discussion or action. The past is pot irrelevant (as staff has suggested to me) to the decision you will make, because a reversal of Agency policy forcing Mr. Zisakis to move or reduce the size of his business will wipe out substantial investment, equity and goodwill of National Auto Glass. 2/ Because the traffic at the intersection is at an "F" level, a new orange county Transportation Commission traffic study requirement was triggered, which study is now underway. -2/ The Guardian proposal violates the City's General Plan in that the Oakview Neighborhood Plan restricts the height of any structure within 100 feet of a residential use (the Walker and the Robinson parcels meet this criteria) to four stories. r Chairman Erskine September 18, 1988 Page 5 In 1981, while Mr. Zisakis was in discussions with the owner of the Walker Parcel to acquire the parcel, the Agency began the process of creating the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area. Staff at that time told Mr. Zisakis that the Agency would condemn the property and sell it to Mr. Zisakis at the price paid for it. Staff took no action to assist Mr. Zisakis until the City Council in September, 1984 (over staff's objections) granted Mr. Zisakis the right to build a small, inadequate-sized glass shop on his property, with the directive to staff that they work with Mr. Zisakis to acquire the adjacent properties so he could complete a full size shop. EgIlowing the-diregtive from a Cou the , "deal" (to convey the Walker and the Robinson parcels to Zisakis) was. then reiterated in January 1985 in a letter from Steve Eghler. wherein he,Aaenc31stated that it would acquire the- obinson_and the Walker-Parcels on Mr. Zisakis' behalf and sell them to him at the cost of acguis,ition. Staff later agreed in writing "to pay for the construction of the off-site improvements fronting these parcels on both Beach Boulevard and Cypress Street as well as on the parcel you now own" . Mr. Zisakis accepted these terms in a letter back to Mr. Kohler. Once the Agency accruired the Robinson and Walker parcels. however. theydisavowed-disavowed-gny gommitpent to_Zisakls a a t ad 12 s property appraised for condemnation purposes. In a letter from Mola to Charles Thompson, dated June, 1987, it was finally made clear that Charles Thompson had secretly promised Mola that the Agency would acquire the Zisakis parcel, combine it with the walker and the Robinson parcels and convey the whole thing to Mola for his own development plans. The Redevelopment Agency was never informed of this "deal." by Charles Thompson. Although Mr. Zisakis spent over $55,000 in off-site improvements in the course of improving the National Auto Glass parcel, the Agency staff refused to contribute anything, even though it had committed to do so and even though it had paid for off-sites for other developers in Charter Centre. Monday night's meeting is a critical juncture in the development of Charter Centre and for the survival of National Auto Glass. You have all the information you need to select a developer for this project and, in doing so, moving ahead to other important issues while leaving this one behind. Very truly yours, Jo n W. Belsher ----- . ������ � ���� • c„a � � ��f�`�� ��. � � � � � �, { .� ,71�h '�� '`� � � �'� S .�n r1 r ������ i r �! Y�r' r7 ' �•1 -�. � .j 7�r .��� 1�. y �J t} S� f • ,L:1f } �s .tom R�� i � of s�s� � , VS'� r� c� - �� l G�t1 Nell, LEONARD LICHTER 17111 Beach Blvd. Suite 212 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 September 2, 1988 Paul Cook City Administrator P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Cook, I was recently advised that the Redevelopment Agency will soon be considering proposals for the sale and development of City owned property adjacent to my building at 17111 Beach Blvd . Please be advised that I have been interested in purchasing that property for expansion of my office building since 1984 . I was negotiating with the owner, Mrs. Walker, when the City stepped in and purchased the property. Since then , I have been working with Hola Development to permit egress and ingress to Charter Centre through my property form Cypress Avenue. In turn for my permitting access, 11ola Development was to acquire the Agency 's property and trade me the 48 ft. wide lot south of my building for expansion of my building . They were also to provide additional parking for my building in their proposed parking strut— ture. Needless to say, I am still interested rin� expanding and improving my building and I will continue to work with the new owner of Charter Centre to improve parking and to improve traffic circulation by allowing access to Charter Centre from Cypress Avenue. I would like to be advised of the Agency 's plans for this property . Thank You. Sincerely, Leonard Lichter � •ti I,IA►RDI N SAV114GS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION September 21 1988 Mr. Paul Cook City Administrator CITY OF HUNTINCTOK BEACH The City of Huntington Beach ADMISTRATIIft OFFM 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re : Land Acquisition Proposal Dear Mr . Cook : As a follow-up to our meeting of September I, 1988, I am pleased to present, for the City's review, a proposal ("Proposal") to purchase certain City owned land located near the Northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Cypress Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach. The Proposal is as follows: PROPOSAL 1. Guardian savings and Loan Association ("Guardian") agrees purchase, and the City of Huntington Beach ("City") agrees to sell, fee simple ownership to that real property cross-hatched and identified as Parcels 5 & 7 (comprised of approximately 25,336.32 square feet of land area) on Exhibit "A" (the "Property") , which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and 2. In consideration for the City transferring fee simple ownership in the Property to Guardian, Guardian agrees to pay to the City, at the close of escrow, a total CASH sum of Thirty Dollars and No Cents ($30.00) per square foot of land area within the Property, which is equal to Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand Eighty--Nine Dollars and Sixty Cents ($760,089.60) ; and 3. Within three (3) business days from City's acceptance of this Proposal, Guardian will open escrow and title orders with companies, of its sole choosing, who will process the title orders and closing of the purchase and sale transactions; and 4. The only contingency to Guardian closing the transaction shall be Guardian's review and approval of an ALTA preliminary policy of title insurance, and all underlying documents (which shall thereafter be ratified by a binding ALTA Title Report) , both of which shall be paid for by the City; and 71418-10-2441 5,00 WARNER AVE. SUITE 209 HUNTINGTON BEACH.CA 92649 l Mr. Paul Cook September 2, 1988 Page: 2 5. Escrow shall close within five (5) business days from the date of Guardian's acceptance of the preliminary title report; and 6. This Proposal shall be valid until 5:00 p.m. on September 20, 1988. If the Proposal is not formally accepted by that date, the Proposal shall be deemed to have been rescinded and of no further force or effect, without the need for any further notice or writing to the City. Paul, to assist you in your processing of this Proposal and in an effort to give you a brief understanding of why Guardian is making this Proposal, I am providing the following background information. Guardian Savings and Loan is a $525 Million Dollar institution primarily engaged in the generation and sale of single family residential loans, with seven branch offices and ten loan production offices located throughout the entire State of California. Currently, Guardian is headquartered in several buildings near the intersection of Warner and Bolsa Chica Avenues in the City of Huntington Beach, with approximately 200 employees housed in these facilities to conduct the administrative business of Guardian. For the calendar year 1988, Guardian is projecting an After Tax Profit of approximately $20,OOOp000.001 thereby making it one of the most profitable financial institutions in the U.S. With regard to Charter Centre, on August S, 1988, Guardian purchased Charter Centre from Mola Development Company. The purpose of the acquisition was to provide a first-class home for our company, and to enable us to house our headquarters staff all under one roof. We are excited by the dynamics of the Centre and the potential such a move affords to us and are pleased that we were able to remain in Huntington Beach in order to facilitate our needs. One of the vital reasons behind our decision to acquire Charter Centre was the potential for the satisfaction of our future growth needs through the development of the under- developed lands which presently adjoin the Centre. Guardian is, at this time, projecting a growth in its headquarters work force of more than 50% over the next few years. To accommodate these additional people (while retaining the integral integrity achieved by our initial move into the Centre) , the ability to secure ownership of the surrounding and adjoining lands, and the ability to receive approval to develop it out to meet the needs of Guardian, the Centre and the community, are opportunities that can provide a win--win situtation for all. Thus, the reason for our Proposal . Mr. Paul Cook September 2, 1988 Page : 3 Therefore, fulfilling this dream of the future, and in anticipation of the City' s cooperation in bringing that dream to fruition, Guardian has undertaken to lay the foundation of cooperation, support and flexibility in working with the adjoining landowners to explore ways in which their concerns and needs can be met through amicable means. To date, the Senior Executive staff of Guardian has met with two of the three adjoining landowners (Mr . Len Lichtner and Mrs. Pat Lilly) , and has made substantial inroads to the satisfaction of mutual desires in just one meeting. Mr. Lichtner is agreeable to the future development plans of Guardian (please see the enclosed preliminary design concept drawings) and is to get back with Guardian in the near future with the economic needs he will require in order to help accommodate that development. Mrs. Lilly is presently looking for properties with a real estate broker, and has agreed in concept and paramaters to a tax-deferred exchange with Guardian. Thus, with the City" s approval of the Proposal, only Mr . Phil Zisakis' land would be an open issue. However, Guardian will be speaking with Mr . Zisakis and is amenable to relocating Mr . Zisakis' business to other property in the surrounding area which possibly would have more square footage or land area in order to accommodate the current and future needs of Mr. Zisakis' company. As you review our attached preliminary development plans please keep in mind the following positive benefits such a development can bring to the Centre and the community: 1) the tax revenue generated by the proposed completion of Charter Centre (in a fashion similar to that proposed by Guardian) will increase by over 400% from that generated by the present uses of the properties owned by the City, Mr. Lichtner, Mrs. Lilly and Mr . Zisakis: and 2) completion of the Centre as a cohesive unit will allow Guardian to address the traffic circulation issue which exists within the Centre, and the purported parking congestion issue thought to exist within the Centre; and 3) completion of the Centre, under the eye and direction of Guardian, will ensure that the project brings an enhanced image to the entire Centre and the surrounding community; and 4) by having Guardian as a large employer/user of the facilities (rather than an off-site investor) a concern for regular maintenence becomes even more prevalant and again will add to the vibrancy of the Centre; and Mr. Paul Cook September 2, 1988 Page ; 4 5) by allowing Guardian to develop the remainder of the Centre it may be possible to add development refinements, such as a direct access walkway from the proposed new parking structure to the Holiday Health Spa; and 6) as an employer of more than 200 employees, and a projection of doubling that number in the next ten years, a significant added amount of revenue will be generated for the City through the influx of more families into the City as a result of their employment with Guardian. Paul, you can see that the opportunities afforded by our Proposal and the build-out of Charter Centre are to ourselves, the City and the community in general, vast and promising. We hope you share the excitement we feel about these possibilities and ask that you calendar this Proposal for the September 19, 1988, City Council meeting. We will be present to address the Council and answer their questions, and would further appreciate your assistance in providing each Council member with a copy of this letter, the Proposal and the preliminary design concept drawings. Again, that you for taking your time to listen to our plans, and for your assistance in fulfilling those dreams. Respectfully, rr R. ay Vice i nt, General Counsel LRD/m bcc; Stan Uchizono S TO AC' 26, r.SS.,f?`! ITS ACCURACY OR ASSUMES ANY P 9A 1V 165-36 142-19 t 1 FOR OTHER USES NOT TO SE REPA CEO 'V COPYRIGH r ORANGE COUNTY ASsk..O�QA to o AVENUE ? zs 25 t � 79v 3e t �2 sg'r PAR. I r Q w I g 1 1 � I ► ti Lr.�.so 4;33 � �,� � r 1 � 1 ti� ��z• 1+ " � ' I • izsss�' ass:• � ° o � 10 M r 1 r 7! 33' M Q _ 81 _ 6 41 7� ,'-„ IpQR 7 h •PAR.6 j ! % p ALLEr) 4_� n,°! 1 IS °p _. 16 a 71 ' 3 ' t ' moo O PAR. O 364 3) I 1 I v P. 04 .33 72 98 h PQR 8 ���J+J 13 �� a f C. 68 ..-f00, 7�L,1I r I � � I}�+n l �= 1g y^''�'� PQR.S h � ..r Nk �{�� 2.758 AC � AVENUE 7 rN w2.r4' rl-eb 41.N rd 14 11425' �T n M � L r-+ LOT J Tzs i lao LOT 1 M 11 ' q 14 1 lye r R. �� a ` 'a as'� Is as So- M PAR. 4 2 if. h .,s so•� � '� a 22 g � id' 247.oa n t' —i - c� rn C N p =tip ;cr2 13 PAR.J LOT:?4eSr 14175' C-ixm 0 o-3 21 SIB• ��CC�- cfi Q �9.• ''"' BLK A .opt P.M. /Z1.34 cn�p Zr c a ,s9os' PAP, 3 I I� i % c'y�-tiCf]cnrinS* .;Or 9 /9A 4C` O CD .y � ' 7' iac19• LCT a.ts• C p q=C�-,rn PAR. 2 sa' r-:r 3 lotP.N. l00.9 ` i rv.� `J .rsas• rps• Z�. ,N Q CB• s u' c/) O� -s-1 Cm • ; v e 5 IV 1es-1 NO 36 0 o cV;a cl a zoCll> 4 !97 .. Q r to r +' i3• 4.3' a Y ti Q AVENUE -o N ~ NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 165 PAGE 36 SHOWN IN CIRCLES "EXHIBIT A" COUNTY OF ORANGE ' NATIONAL AUTO GLASS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT-- SECOND AND FINAL PHASE ' I i 11 li i [Depiction of National Auto Glass--Phase I] OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CHARTER CENTER SUB-AREA AUGUST 9, 1988 4 a � J W V INTRODUCTION This proposal for the development of properties presently owned by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") near the corner of Beach Boulevard and Cypress Avenue is made by Phil Zisakis at the verbal request of Agency staff.1/ Mr. Zisakis has attempted to tailor this proposal in a fashion consistent with assumptions communicated to Mr. Zisakis by staff in the course of recent meetings. Among those assumptions are the following: 1. Staff desires the development to include vehicular access from Cypress Avenue, midway between its intersection with Beach Boulevard and with Elm Street northerly to the middle of the Charter Center Sub-Area of the Oakview Redevelopment Project (the "Charter Center Sub-Area") and also from Cypress Avenue near its intersection with Beach Boulevard northerly to the property owned by the Lichter family. 2. The development is to be consistent in design with the existing new development within the Charter Center Sub-Area. 3. The Agency desires to complete construction of a development at this location within 18 to 20 months. In July of 1988, the developer and Agency completed Phase I of the relocation of National Auto Glass Company, the construction of a small shop with a 1250 square foot footprint adjacent to the Walker Parcel. This structure (Phase I) is completely inadequate for the maintenance (much less expansion) of National Auto Glass Company. Phase II will provide adequate service bays, inventory storage area and office space and permit the on-going expansion of National Auto Glass Company to at least twice its present gross sales. In order to meet standard lender requirements and ensure the financial success of the project, 40% of the new construction will be leased out to other commercial establishments. The City's revenue's will be measurably increased from the resultant sales and property taxes. The developer believes that each of these criteria has been met. Moreover, the proposal would complete the relocation of National Auto Glass Company, a Beach Boulevard business owned by the developer, to a location and a structure of adequate size, thereby permitting commercial activity fully insulated from surrounding residential properties and presenting a stylish, contemporary frontage for Beach Boulevard, consistent with the See the attached Site Map for the specific location of the properties which are the subject of this proposal, referred to herein as the "Walker Parcel" and the "Robinson Parcel". W -1- 7 design of other structures in the Charter Centre development. The development would also integrate a lot with substandard frontage on Beach Boulevard (the Walker Parcel) , consistent with City standards and desires. W y Ml W VM v -2- W SITE MAP : V) i E LICHTER . . N {L1 k� WALKER V � .. ROBINS A 387 r . i /�j PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE 1 W IDENTIFICATION OF DEVELOPER The developer, Phil Zisakis, is the sole proprietor of National Auto Glass Company, a Huntington Beach business with annual gross sales of over $400,000, owned and operated by the developer since 1975 at 17204 Beach Boulevard. Recently the business relocated across the street to 17131 Beach Boulevard, adjacent to both of the Agency-owned parcels of property which are the subject of this development proposal. The developer's address is: Phil Zisakis c/o National Auto Glass Company 17131 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, California 92647 (714) 842-2525 W V rr► W W -4- WI II DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE The property which is the subject of this proposal includes two parcels of property near the northwest corner of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Cypress Avenue. The two parcels are referred to as the "Walker Parcel" and the "Robinson Parcel" and are depicted on the Site Map included in the Introduction. The Walker Parcel has an area of approximately 18,624 square feet. The Robinson Parcel has an area of approximately 6,739 square feet. The developer proposes to consolidate 10,905 square feet of the Walker Parcel and 3,369 square feet of the Robinson Parcel with a 5,136 square foot parcel owned by the developer (the "Zisakis Parcel") . The development site will comprise approximately 19,410 square feet. The development site is within the Charter Center Sub-Area of the Oakview Redevelopment Project, created by action of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach by adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project in November, 1982. w w w w w -5- III DEVELOPER'S PREVIOUS OWNER PARTICIPATION In July of this year (1988) the developer completed the construction of Phase I of a sales and installation facility to house National Auto Glass Company on the Zisakis Parcel. The process of relocation of the business began in 1979 with the acquisition of the Zisakis Parcel. Agency staff, beginning in 1982 (and City officials prior to Agency involvement) encouraged the developer to consolidate the Zisakis Parcel with the adjacent Walker Parcel to achieve a unified development along Beach Boulevard, consistent with development aims for the Charter Center Sub-Area. The Agency later requested that the Robinson Parcel also be included in an integrated development. After efforts by the developer (and later by the Agency) to acquire the Walker and Robinson Parcels were stalled, preventing the developer from constructing a full-size commercial shop, the developer obtained approval of the City Council to build Phase I of the shop on the Zisakis Parcel. The Zisakis Parcel was purchased at a cost of $58,500, or approximately $11.20 per square foot. Including that purchase price, the developer has invested $360,000 in the development of the Zisakis Parcel. A cost breakdown is provided in the attached Table 1. Included within this figure is approximately $55,000 in off-site improvements, $172,000 in on-site construction costs and $97,500 in land acquisition costs, plans and land preparation costs. In addition to actual investment in the Zisakis Parcel the developer has also incurred substantial carrying costs between 1979 and 1987, when construction began. Those costs amount to over $84,000, representing lost rentals on the Zisakis Parcel and $41,000 in rent increases at the developer's former location. See Table 1. Only $167,000 of the total investment by the developer in the Zisakis Parcel has been financed. The rest has been personally contributed by the developer. The Agency has not '�' contributed, as yet, to the development of the Zisakis Parcel or the associated off-sites installed by the developer. u -6- v The structure on the Zisakis Parcel has a floor area of approximately 2450 square feet, with a ground floor footprint of approximately 1250 square feet. It is designed to accommodate expansion to both the Walker and the Robinson Parcels. The structure is depicted in the photographs attached to this section of the proposal. The ground floor of the structure is comprised of a small office and a work area large enough for two vehicles. The top floor is devoted to storage (primarily inventory) . By comparison, the developer's former location had 1200 square feet of enclosed storage and office area and 2500 square feet of outside work area. Notwithstanding substantial investment by the developer to date, Phase I does not effectively relocate the developer's business, much less offer any opportunity for growth. v +v -7- COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF ZISAKIS PARCEL w Construction,Costs Land acquisition $ 58,500 Demolition and clearance 40000 Permits and plans 35,000 w On--site improvements 172,000 Off-site improvements Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, Edison poles, telephone lines, pave-out of Beach and Cypress, fire hydrant installations ��L000 Total Construction Costs 324,500 opportunity and Carrying Costs Lost rentals (after purchase of Zisakis Parcel) 43,000 Rent increases at former location (since 1981) 41,000 Total Opportunity Costs 84,000 Total Development Costs $408,500 W V Y.r V hr �8- V IV PREVIOUS AGENCY INVOLVEMENT since the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project in November of 1982, the Agency and the City have expressed a desire for a development which would consolidate the Walker Parcel (and later the Robinson Parcel) with the Zisakis Parcel. The primary reasons for this desire are (1) the fact that the Charter Center Sub-Area calls for do consolidation of parcels and (2) the Walker Parcel, with a Beach Boulevard frontage of just 48 feet, has been labeled by Agency staff as a "remnant parcel". City standards require that developments along Beach Boulevard have minimum frontages of 60 feet. No In November of 1982, the Agency entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with Mr. Zisakis for the purpose of consolidating the Zisakis Parcel with the Walker Parcel into a single integrated development. Agency staff wrote at that time: "The attached negotiation agreement is the first step IV needed . to encourage Mr. Zisakis to expand his development proposal to incorporate both [the Zisakis and the Walker] parcels. . . By incorporating both sites into an overall development program, the full develop- ment potential of the area will be realized, the maximum property values will be retained, and the 60 overall area will be enhanced by this project." Memorandum from Charles W. Thompson to the Redevelopment Agency, dated November 4, 1982. On November 5, 1984, the City Council approved the construction of the building now standing on the Zisakis Parcel. 60 The minutes of that meeting reflect that Mayor Kelly requested that the Agency staff "work with Mr. Zisakis through the redevelopment process to make the situation viable." Both Mr. Zisakis and the Agency sought then, as now, to consolidate the Zisakis Parcel with the Walker Parcel. `' A few months later, the Agency acquired both the Walker and the Robinson Parcels. Both parcels were purchased for approximately $20.00 per square foot. Terms expressing the Agency's intent to convey these two parcels to Mr. Zisakis for the purpose of consolidation with the Zisakis Parcel were ki conveyed by Agency staff to Mr. Zisakis by letter dated August 29, 1985. J -9- J In May of 1986 the Agency requested that Mr. Zisakis submit a plan for the development of a hypothetical consolidated parcel comprised of the Zisakis Parcel, the Walker Parcel, the Robinson Parcel, the Lichter family property and two other lots fronting on Elm Street. Letter to Mr. Zisakis from Pat Spencer, dated May 9, 1986. Since that time the Agency staff has determined not to include the Lichter or the Elm Street properties in the hypothetical consolidation. Moreover, Agency staff indicates that the westerly one-half of the Robinson parcel should be reserved for a future parking structure. w w v rr -10- v k4lwo V DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT a A. Overall -Concept The development will be a single structure of a three-story height, integrated with and similar to the existing structure on the 2isakis Parcel, as depicted on the floor plans and elevations submitted concurrently herewith. The building will be of stucco w construction with an architecturally designed metal roof, custom solar green glass panels and matching Mediterranean green, powder-coated aluminum framing around doors and windows. The building will feature special lighting effects, similar to the effects achieved for the existing National Auto Glass Company structure (depicted in the photo on the cover page of this proposal) . The facade of the building is designed to reflect the design theme for the Charter Centre development. Although the building is completely surrounded by . commercially-zoned property, all intrusive impacts from the installation and repair operations will be minimized by all- enclosed work areas made possible by a drive-through design featuring existing entrances on Beach Boulevard and Cypress Avenue. All work areas will be in the rear of the building. Even the trash enclosure is fully enclosed, featuring a roll-out bin behind a commercial door facing Cypress Avenue. Parking will be available in the front of the building along Beach Boulevard (consistent with Agency design preferences for the Charter Center Sub-Area) , inside the building itself and also along the rear of the building, with the second and third . floors cantilevered over parking spaces. The parking spaces in the rear will be screened from Cypress Avenue. The parking spaces in the rear (approximately 9 spaces) will also be offered during evenings to other commercial businesses in the Charter Center development, in particular the Holiday Health Spa, consistent with planning guidelines for the Charter Center Sub- Area. Access to other areas of the Charter Center Sub-Area is another significant feature of the building's design. A 30-foot access along the western side of the building will permit free traffic flow from Cypress to the interior of the Charter Center Sub-Area. A 27-foot access road will also run along the front of the building, permitting access to the property owned by the Lichter family. Parking for approximately 11 vehicles for the `f commercial businesses within the development will be provided between this 27-foot access road and Beach Boulevard. The developer will grade and pave both these access roads. is —11— v r B. Building §pecifications The proposed building has a designed area of 15,050 square feet. When coupled with the existing building on the Zisakis Parcel (2,450 square feet) the entire development will be 17,500 square feet. The first floor of the development (including the existing building) has an area of 6,930 square feet. The second floor of the development (including the existing building) has an area of 8,470 square feet. The third floor of the development has an area of 2,400 square feet. The height of the proposed building (and the existing structure) will be uniform at three stories, although only two floors will be constructed in the rear of the building to accommodate a 12 foot high first floor working area. C. Land use The primary use planned for the development is to accommodate the existing and anticipated expansion of National Auto Glass Company. Consistent with standard lending requirements, approximately 40% of the floor area added by Phase II will be leased out to retail and other commercial establishments. There will be no professional office use in the development. The first floor will be largely devoted to a glass installation area, a retail sales desk and a display area, all devoted to National Auto Glass Company. Twelve foot ceilings throughout much of the first floor will permit servicing of oversize campers and RVs. There will be room for eight service bays, which will also contribute to satisfaction of the parking requirements for the development. The developer will lease 1250 square feet of the first floor for a retail commercial business. This retail commercial store will have a frontage on Beach Boulevard of approximately 25 feet. The developer is currently negotiating for the leasing of this space with several potential lessees, including an antique furniture business, a realty office and several insurance sales companies. Most of the second floor (approximately 5000 square feet, including 1200 square feet within the existing building) will be devoted to National Auto Glass Company storage, inventory and office needs. Approximately 3400 square feet of the second floor will be leased out to one or more commercial tenants. The entire third floor, which will feature views on to Beach Boulevard and Cypress Avenue, will be leased out to one or more commercial tenants. -12- w D. c ess a ds a arking There will be a 30-foot driveway running north-south from „ Cypress Avenue along the western edge of the proposed buildings, bisecting the Walker Parcel and connecting to other development in the interior of the Charter Center Sub-Area. The Beach Boulevard facade will be separated from Beach Boulevard by a 13 foot landscaping strip, 17 feet of parking spaces and a 30 foot driveway connecting Cypress Avenue with the Walker Parcel and the Lichter property. Frontage along Cypress Avenue, up to the existing building, will be landscaped to a depth of several feet, as depicted on the plans accompanying this proposal. Total area devoted to landscaping is approximately 1,600 square feet. Although the access roads will be graded and improved by the developer, the access roads will actually either remain in Agency ownership or be dedicated back to the Agency. Developer will agree to maintain the access roads, through a reciprocal easement agreement or other mechanism desired by the Agency. A total of 27 parking spaces are provided in the development. A calculation of parking requirements generated from City tables would indicate that the development would require 38.75 spaces, based upon 1250 square feet of retail and 16,250 square feet of commercial. This figure should be reduced by three factors, however. First, nearly 5,000 square feet of the project will be devoted to storage (including inventory) . City parking requirements for areas devoted to storage are one space per 5,000 square feet. Secondly, the Charter Center Sub- Area will provide parking for businesses within its boundaries once the anticipated parking structure is completed. Finally, there is street parking available on both the Beach Boulevard and Cypress Avenue frontages. A determination will have to be made by staff as to whether a parking exception will be required for the development. if one is required, it appears that the development would qualify. E. Deyel9Prent Team The development will be constructed by Phil Zisakis, as an w owner-builder. Mr. Zisakis constructed the existing National Auto Glass Company building. The architect will be John Cowles, AIA. Mr. Cowles designed the existing National Auto Glass Company building. The project manager will be Larry Nelson. Mr. Nelson managed the construction of the existing National Auto Glass Company building. -13- TABLE NO. 1 COST OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE ZISAKIS PARCEL Construction Costs Land acquisition $ 58,500 Demolition and clearance 4,000 Permits and plans 35,000 On-site improvements 172,000 Off-site improvements Curbs, gutters, sidewalks, Edison poles, telephone lines, -pave--out of Beach and Cypress, fire hydrant installations 0-999 Total Construction Costs 324,500 QgAortunity and Carrying Costs Lost rentals (after purchase of Zisakis Parcel) 43,000 Rent Increases at former location (since 1981) 41,000 Total Opportunity Costs 84 ,000 Total Development Costs 408,500 w -14- v i PHOTOGRAPHS I e° q � ,," IDJ �xMI, .., M v , 5 j ut � •�"cat� �� Yr, #J d Ertl s k a VI. PRO FORMA--COST OF DEVELOPMENT AND INCOME PROJECTIONS The following tables show the projected cost of development, income to the developer and income to the City and the Agency. ,w TABLE-2 COST OF DEVELOPMENT I. Total Estimated Cost of the Development r, LAND: Purchase of portion of Walker and Robinson Parcels needed for footprint of the building -- 7220 sq.ft. x $20 per sq.ft. $ 144,400 CONSTRUCTION 4W 15,500 sq.ft. x $84 per sq.ft. (includes off- sites) 1,306,000 FINANCING AND OTHER Financing Permanent - 3 points 461,000 Construction -- 6 mo. 40,000 Professional fees 20,000 Total Other Costs 106.000 TOTAL COST OF PROJECT $1,'556,400 -16- wr DEVELOPER INCOME PROJECTION (Each of first five years of development) NATIONAL AUTO GLASS CO. $40,000 net after-tax income per year based upon 1988 sales data--expected to more than double $ 80,000 LEASE OF RETAIL SPACE 1,250 sq.ft. at $2 per sq. ft. 30,000 LEASE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE 5,820 sq.ft. at $2 per sq.ft. 140,000 INCOME BEFORE DEBT SERVICE $2500000 DEBT SERVICE $1.6 mill @ 12% w/ 30-yr. amort. 200,000 INCOME BEFORE DEPRECIATION $ 50,000 -17- w TABLE 4 AGENCY AND CITY INCOME PROJECTION (Each of first five years of development) SALES TAX REVENUE National Auto Glass Co.--$24,000 sales tax paid annually $ 4,000 Other retail business(es) 2,000 Other commercial business(es) 2,000 PROPERTY TAX REVENUE Existing building assessed @ $240,000 2,400 Phase II projected assessment « @ $1.3 million 13 ,000 TOTAL PROJECTED INCOME $23,400 v v %0 V -18- v VII. FINANCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT CAPABILITY v A. peveloper's F isting Business The developer's primary business, National Auto Glass Company, nets $40,000, after-tax income per year on $400,000 annual sales. The developer has owned National Auto Glass Co. since 1975. The developer owned Johnson Glass in Huntington Beach between 1971 and 1978, and Beverly Auto Glass National Glass Co. in Montebello from 1966 to 1973. The developer has several significant clients, including the following: Automobile Club of So. Calif. Farmers Insurance State Farm Insurance Safeco Insurance Twentieth Century Insurance Numerous local auto dealerships National Auto Glass Co. has no outstanding debt. It presently has an inventory of $40,000, doubled since its move this year from its former Beach Boulevard location. The business has goodwill estimated at $300,000. Phase II facilities will permit the business to expand from its primary emphasis on auto glass installation and sales to general commercial/residential installation and sales--primarily in new construction. With the anticipated increase in storage capacity, the business will also be able to enter into the wholesale market for glass products generally. The anticipated expansion of National Auto Glass Company is not expected to displace local businesses as virtually all wholesale and new construction glass businesses in the area are presently located outside of the City of Huntington Beach. B. Developer's_ Refergnces %0 The developer lists the following financial, personal and business references: Security Pacific Bank 19022 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach %W 963-3619 (Linda Smith) a -19- l✓ .° Beach Savings Bank 18350 Mt. Langley St. , Suite 209, Fountain Valley 962-8100 (Collette Harly) Assemblyman Nolan Frizzelle Assemblyman, 69th District Automobile Club of So. California Huntington Beach office 848-2227 (Klaus Goedecke) Farmers Insurance Fountain Valley office 964-7000 (Bill Keigan) C. pevelooer's-,hffiliations Huntington Beach Growth Management Committee " Calvary Chapel D. DeveloRer'sAssets The following assets will be used to secure construction and permanent financing for the development: OUTST. APP. NET PROPERTY DEBT. VALUE VALUE Commercial Building 17131 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach 166FOOO 400FOOO 234, 000 Commercial Rental 611 5th Street Huntington Beach 80,000 500,000 4200000 410 Commercial Rental---4-plexes valley Circle Huntington Beach 320,000 900,000 580,000 Residence 16351 Tufts Lane Huntington Beach 135,000 350,000 215,000 Business (goodwill) National Auto Glass Co. 290,004 Total Assets 701,000 2,450,000 1,749,000 -20- v %o Vliz. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF PERFOPMANCE w SEPTEMBER 5, 1988 SELECTION OF DEVELOPER BY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SEPTEMBER 6, 1988 PLANNING STAFF COMMENCES PROCESSING OF SUBDIVISION MAP DEVELOPER FILES FOR PARKING EXCEPTION AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT (IF NECESSARY) . DEVELOPER ALSO SUBMITS MAILING LABELS FOR ADJACENT PROPER IES (IF NECESSARY) AGENCY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FILES LETTER OF AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPER TO APPLY FOR ENTITLEMENTS DEVELOPER PROVIDES $20,000 GOOD FAITH DEPOSIT TO BE DEPOSITED BY AGENCY UPON OPENING OF ESCROW OCTOBER 10, 1988 PLANNING STAFF ADVERTISES NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IF REQUIRED) W NOVEMBER 10 1988 PLANNING STAFF NOTICES BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS HEARING FOR NOVEMBER 9, 1988 NOVEMBER 21 1988 PLANNING STAFF ADVERTISES PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING ON PRECISE PLAN OF STREETS FOR NOVEMBER 151 1988 NOVEMBER 4, 1988 DEVELOPER SUBMITS SIGNED DDA NOVEMBER 7, 1988 AGENCY STAFF ADVERTISES FIRST NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL ON DDA FOR NOVEMBER 21, 1988 NOVEMBER 9, 1988 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CONDUCTS HEARING ON PARKING EXCEPTION NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENTITLEMENTS APPROVED) (IF REQUIRED) NOVEMBER 10, 1988 DEVELOPER COMMENCES WORKING DRAWINGS NOVEMBER 10, 1988 AGENCY COMPLETES SOILS TESTS —21— NOVEMBER 141 1988 AGENCY STAFF ADVERTISES SECOND NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL ON DDA NOVEMBER 15, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION CONDUCTS PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NEW PRECISE PLAN OF STREETS NOVEMBER 21, 1988 AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL CONDUCT JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NEW PRECISE PLAN OF STREETS DECEMBER 1, 1988 ROUGH GRADING PERMIT ISSUED BY CITY TO DEVELOPER (SUBJECT TO DEVELOPER SUBMITTAL OF PLAN BY NOVEMBER 28, 1988) JANUARY 1, 1989 DEVELOPER PROVIDES AGENCY EVIDENCE OF LOAN COMMITMENT JANUARY 151 1989 ESCROW CLOSES w+ JANUARY 18, 1989 BUILDING PERMIT ISSUES FEBRUARY 1, 1989 CONSTRUCTION BEGINS SEPTEMBER 30, 1989 COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION v rr -22- SYILD% A07, �.It� !1' Its .._. ,--_. . . ._ ._._ -... . _ t i< - -•---- ---- .--� _y�=mot �..-*-�-- - - - _ ` �� .. -- _ .. •..r ww caw w.-�•./ . ' -� r -� � I s,.. .rp,�,..e•r. I I S I PROPOSED a �I I RSPM,/CewC. U � 1 Mrl>ri• CT N� O � 7• ........a..aar.,a d o ,. ...,&. ..,..,.. � I MI iN•A■4aMM• � , tie • a uiw+ssarf+s � . .. Jrs�� ,o �_1,�,�/��//�.f'• %i/,,•ice•; _ .J . � �%. � . '�'• �/ � // / � - LYfQ£SS a*VrNV! yiLINITF I`15,�.. LAH hA!*0 rf i rA Ail�A 1 +1 5!f \ 1 I CVPRESA STREET ELEVATIONO3 _ rI r _ L L " BEACH BLVD. E!FvATION �n ris MIS j, j& CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 -4� OFFICE OF REDEVELOPMENT May 9, 1986 Mr. Leonard E. Lichter 171 l l Beach Boulevard, Suite 212 Huntington Beach, California 92647 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Dear Lenny, The city of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has recently acquired two (2) parcels, either adjacent to or in close proximity to, property owned or controlled by you. Since .you previously expressed an interest in expanding or developing onto adjacent properties, the Redevelopment Agency.is requesting development proposals for these recently acquired as well as the remainding parcels located between the Charter Centre complex to the north, Cypress Street to the south, Elm Street to the west, and Beach Boulevard to the.east. It would be the Redevelopment Agency's desire to obtain development proposals which offer the highest and best.use of the site and which are of similar development quality and of a comparable level of investment as that requested by Charter Centre. Attached is a parcel configuration map which shows the approximately 1.7 acre site for which development proposals are being solicited by the Redevelopment Agency. These proposals should reflect utilization of the total area delineated and not necessarily be constrained to existing ownerships. It is the staff's objective to submit development proposals, complete with an economic analysis and cost pro forma, to the Redevelopment Agency lty no later than July 7, 1986. If you desire to participate in a development proposal, please contact me at 536-5582 for specific development objectives and criteria. Sincerely, (fat Spender,"Program Manager Housing do Redevelopment PS:Ip Attachment 2412h Telephone (714)536-5582 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' Z0f30 MAIN STRET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF REDEVELOPMENT May 9, 1986 .tiler. Frank hiola Mola Development Corporation 9072 Adams Huntington Beach, California 92646 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA w Dear Frank, The city of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has recently acquired two (2) parcels, either adjacent to or in close proximity to, property owned or controlled by you. Since you previously expressed an interest in expanding or developing onto adjacent properties, -the Redevelopment Agency is-requesting development proposals for these recently acquired as well as the remainding parcels located between the Charter Centre complex to the north, Cypress Street to the south, Elm Street to the west, and Beach Boulevard to the east. It would be the Redevelopment Agency's desire to obtain development proposals which offer the highest and best use of the site and which are of similar development duality and of a comparable level of investment as that requested by Charter Centre. Attached is a parcel configuration map which shows the approximately 1.7 acre site for which development proposals are being solicited by the Redevelopment Agency. These proposals should reflect utilization of the total area delineated and not necessarily be ccnstrained to existing ownerships. It is the staff's objective to submit development proposals, complete with an economic analysis and cost pro forma, to the Redevelopment Agency by no later than July 7, 1986. If you desire to participate in a development proposal, please contact me at 536-5582 for specific development objectives and criteria. Sincerely, Pat Sponcer, Program !Manager Housing be Redevelopment PS# Attachment 2k12h Telephone (714)536.5582 :. LAO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92W OFFICE OF REDEVELOPMENT May 9, 1986 1r. Philip Zisakis 16351 Tufts Lane Huntington [leach, California 92647 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - OAKVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Dear Phil, The city of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Ager.cy has recently acquired two (2) parcels, either adjacent to or in close proximity to, property owned or controlled by you. Since you previously expressed an interest in expanding or developing onto adjacent properties, the Redevelopment Agency is requesting development proposals for these recently acquired as well as the remainding parcels located between the Charter Centre complex to the north, Cypress Street to the south, Elm Street to the west, and Beach Boulevard to the east. It would be the Redevelopment Agency's desire to cbtain development proposals which offer the highest and best use of the site and which are of similar development quality and of a comparable level of investment as that requested by Charter Centre. Attached is a parcel configuration map which shows the approximately 1.7 acre site for which development proposals are being solicited by the Redevelopment Agency. These proposals should reflect utilization of the total area delineated and not necessarily be constrained to existing ownerships. It is the staffs objective to submit development proposals, complete with an economic analysis and cost pro forma; to the Redevelopment Agency by no later than July 7, 1986. If you desire to participate in a development proposal, please contact me at 536-5582 for specific development objectives and criteria. Sincerely, Pat Spicer, Program Manager HouVfig & Redevelopment PS:lp Attachment 2412h Telephone (714) 536-5582 �Jl�R�1l=R AV,6WVE f.T Lllo�-*71 I V � J�fJ4`yL�LQP�`f.EiirL..h�'IVC�'__GYI/d/�A�'•' (� .. +'r+ .•�esr:`+•y:; '•' ..] w3;i—•-.pia • — ^ '• ,• ..• ti ,� •J ' ►+ , 36 7=' N IONAL AUTO GLASS Co. 17204 BEACH BOULEVARD • HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92647 • (714) 842-2525 HUNTINGTON BEAM September 9, 1985 [}EVE4;=�•�y' "'`%-• SEP 0 �w Board Of zoning Adjustments: Building Department: ilun�I�� :r� E3e��'3• • �1��u DeveloFment Services: . I am requesting and asking for an extension on the appeal granted by the City Cuincil on September 17, 1984 on use pemdt #84-34 and on conditional exception #84-25A and B with findings and conditions. I ha.re been and I_`_presently working u-ith the redevelopment agency in trying to aquire the aiaeent property so that we can develcpe the whole parcel. Thank You Phil Zisakis