The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Main-Pier Main-Pier Phase II Project REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION RH 91-34 Date May 28, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members d S122- Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Dir C0#J Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Director Subject: CONFIRMATION OF AGENCY RELOCATION OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAIN-PIER PHASE 1I PROJECT AND WAIVER/REFUND OF RENTS Consistent with Council Policy? M Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Four tenants within the Main-Pier Phase II project site have requested that the Redevelopment Agency provide them relocation assistance. The City Attorney analyzed each tenant's circumstances on a case by case basis and has rendered a legal opinion stating that tenants are not eligible for relocation benefits.. RECOMMENDATIONS: I Staff recommends the following actions be taken: 1. Accept and file the City Attorney's opinion dated April 15, 1991 (as attached) stating the Redevelopment Agency has no legal obligations to provide relocation assistance to said tenants. 2. Waive and/or refund rents from November 1, 1990 through January 14, 1991 paid and past due in the amount of $9,429.16 for the Agency's tenants that previously occupied 408 1/2, 408A, 408 & 410 Pacific Coast Highway. ANALYSIS: For the past seven years, the Agency has been attempting to put together a mixed use development for the two blocks bordered by Main and 6th Streets, Pacific Coast Highway, and Walnut Avenue commonly referred to as Main-Pier Phase II. The Agency has acquired a majority of the property within the site, and has been negotiating with the remaining property owners and various developers in an attempt to put together an Owner Participation Agreement/Disposition and Development Agreement for this proposed mixed use project. To date no agreement has been fully executed and approved, although an OPA with Abdelmuti Development Company is scheduled for consideration on Tuesday, May 28, 1991. Concurrently, Agency staff is negotiating the terms for an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Coultrup Development and the Main Street property owners. No 5/85 RCA RH 91-34 May'28, 1991 Page two Meanwhile, in a non-related action on December 11, 1990 the City's building officials were forced to declare Mr. Abdelmuti's building at 101 Main Street "unsafe to occupy" due to loose and a falling bricks from the facade of the building and was therefore vacated and closed. Mr. Abdelmuti's tenants Jack's Surf & Sport and Cagney's by the Sea were occupying this structure. Mr. Abdelmuti, the operator/owner of Jack's decided to relocate into his storefront located at 111 Main Street adjacent to his other Jack's at 113 Main Street. Mr. Abdelmuti owns both properties at 111 & 113 Main Street. Moving Jack's to 111 Main Street necessitated Leia's Beach store having to relocate as well. Ms. Leia Cha, the owner/operator of the Beach store requested Agency relocation benefits, but staff informed her that it did not appear that she was eligible given she was not relocating due to any action taken by the Agency. The City Attorney confirmed this in her opinion dated April 15, 1991. Ms. Cha relocated directly across the street to 120 Main Street. Mr. Mike Ali the owner/operator of Cagney's by the Sea also requested Agency assistance and was also informed that he was not eligible for relocation assistance. Further, on January 14, 1991 a burglar/arsonist set a fire which gutted Larry's T-Shirt Shop at 408 Pacific Coast Highway. This fire also extended through the attic of 408A, 408 1/2, and 410 Pacific Coast Highway causing extensive electrical and smoke damage to these stores making them inoperable. The Redevelopment Agency owns all of these properties. On March 18, 1991 the Agency decided not to invest additional monies for the repair of these structures and authorized their demolition. Demolition was completed on May 21, 1991. Larry's T-Shirt Shack (408 PCH), Touch-of East (408A P.CH),:and T-Shirt Fantasy (408 1/2 PCH) are all owned and operated by Mike. Chainni. -Mr. Chainni has..also requested relocation assistance, but he too is not eligible for the:reasons :outlined in the City Attorney's opinion. Diane DeChellis, owner of Things For. Your Head (410 PCH), has requested and been denied relocation benefits.for the same.reasons. In a good faith effort to provide some economic assistance to lessen the devastating impact the fire imposed on these business operators that were tenants of the Agency, staff is recommending the Agency waive all rent payments past due and refund all rents received from November 1, 1990 through January 14, 1991 (date of fire) as outlined below. January '91 to November 1990 December 1990 1/14/91 Fire 408 1/2 PCH T-Shirt Fantasy $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 433.33 408 A PCH Touch of East 675.00 675.00 292.50 408 PCH Larry's T-Shirt 1,200.00 1,200.00 520.0 Shack Subtotal $ 2,875.00 $ 2,875.00 $ 1,245.83 Total $ 6,995.83 (past due) 410 PCH Things For Your $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 433.33 (past due) Head Total $ 2,433.33 Grand Total $ RCA IZH 91-34 May 28, 1991 Page three The tenants in 408 1/2, 408A and 408 PCH are in arrears in the full amount of $6,995.83, therefore, as a result of this action the past due rent would be waived, but they would receive no refund. The tenant at 410 PCH as a result of this action would have the $433.33 past due rent waived and receive a $2,000 refund. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not waive and/or refund rents and direct staff as is appropriate. FUNDING SOURCE: E-TM-ED-810-610-00 ATTACHMENTS City Attorney's Legal Opinion dated April 15, 1991. MTU/BAK/KBB:jar 9054r 1 . J� ` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' R14 +,. • � INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH - bi To Barbara Kaiser From Gail Hu � �%V4f4;Vj Director of Economic City Att%% Development Date AD Subject Relocation Benefits April 15 , 1991 Opinion QUESTION : What , if any, relocation benefits are certain tenants in Main Pier Phase II entitled to receive from the Redevelopment Agency? ANSWER : None . DISCUSSION : Statutes : California Government Code Section 7260 et seq . , as interpreted by the cases hereinafter cited, provides that a pre-acquisiton tenant may lose status as a "displaced person" when other eviction actions eclipse the agency acquisition as the direct cause of the tenant ' s displacement . A business ' s eligibility to receive relocation assistance and benefits turns upon that business meeting the definition of a "displaced person. " Government Code Section 7260 (c) ( 1) (b) provides that a business will constitute a displaced person if it moves from real property as a direct result of a displacing activity ( i . e,. , rehabilitation, demolition or other displacing activity) under a program or project undertaken by a public agency, when that agency determines that the displacement is permanent . S 7260 (c) makes a business eligible as a displaced person not only upon the acquisition of real property by a public agency but also upon a business ' s receipt of a written notice of intent to acquire the property for a project undertaken by the agency. A business will not qualify as a displaced person if its " right of possession" at the time of moving arises after the date of the public agency' s acquisition of the real property. New provisions state that a business which has occupied the real property for the purpose of obtaining assistance under the Act will not qualify as a displaced person. (§ 7260 (c) (2) (B) (3) ) Barbara Kaiser April 15, 1991 Page 2 Neither will a business (other than a business that was an occupant of the property at the time it was acquired) which occupies already acquired property for a period "subject to termination when the property is needed" for the program or project . (S 7260(c) (2) (B) (4 ) ) Case Law: Section 7260 (c) now provides that a business constitutes a displaced person if it moves as a direct result of acquisition, written notice of intent , or some displacing activity. This means that where a business ' s departure from acquired property is not directly related to the acquisition or displacement activity by the agency, that business will not be considered a "displaced person" for purposes of the Act . Requiring that a person ' s displacement be a direct result of an agency' s activity is consistent with case law dealing with a commercial holdover tenant ' s eligibility to recover relocation benefits . In Superior Strut & Hanger Co . v . Port of Oakland ( 1977) , 72 Cal .App . 3d 987 ; 140 Cal .Rptr . 515 , the tenant occupied a building acquired by the Port for the purpose of developing it into a marine terminal facility. Until such time as development would begin, the Port elected to continue renting the property to the tenant . Thereafter, the tenant was offered a substitute location for lease by the Port , which the tenant accepted, executing. a lease for this location and commencing plans to construct a new building thereon . However , due to an error in the description of the property provided by the Port , the tenant was unable to vacate the acquisition property until seven months after the expiration of the lease . Although the Port served the tenant with "Thirty Days Notice Terminating Tenancy" immediately upon expiration of the lease, the Port took no further action, except to urge the tenant to move at the earliest possible date and require the tenant to execute a promissory note for damages suffered by the Port as a result of the tenant ' s delay in vacating the property. Following its move to the substitute location, the tenant filed a claim for damages against the Port in excess of $100 , 000, as the result of relocation costs incurred in vacating the former property. The Port argued that the tenant was not a "displaced person" required to relocate because of the Port ' s acquisition of the property, but a mere tenant required to move as the result of a notice to vacate given by a landlord to a tenant in the ordinary course of terminating that relationship . The court rejected the Port ' s argument , stating it was clear that Barbara Kaiser April 15, 1991 Page 3 the "acquisition of the property for public use was .the triggering event in the tenant ' s relocation. " It likewise rejected the Port ' s contention that in. leasing the property to the tenant for an interim period, the tenant lost its status as a "displaced person. " The court reasoned that since the tenant ' s original possession was lawful , its continued possession beyond the expiration of the lease merely converted the possession to a tenancy at sufferance and, unless the Port took some action to render the possession tortious , the tenant was presumed to continue under lawful title . The key to the court reaching this conclusion was the fact that the Port had taken no action to remove the tenant following expiration of the lease, but on the contrary indicated that the tenant could stay on and in fact billed the tenant for rent owed for occupancy during the holdover period, which the tenant paid . In a subsequent case with a fact pattern similar to Superior Strut , the court reached a different conclusion . In Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . v . Richmond Redevelopment Agency ( 1986) , 178 Cal .App . 3d 435 ; 223 Cal .Rptr . 728 , the Agency acquired property upon which the plaintiff leased a portion for its marine construction business . The plaintiff ' s lease was in effect at the time of the Agency' s 1977 acquisition and had an expiration date of March 31 , 1980 . Beginning in 1979 ,_ the plaintiff met with the Agency in an effort to negotiate an agreement permitting it to' continue occupying the property beyond the scheduled expiration of the lease . However , the plaintiff was unwilling to pay increased rent or to waive its relocation benefits , and no mutually acceptable agreement was reached . On March 31 , 1980 , the plaintiff had not vacated the property and the following day tendered the amount of monthly rent it had been paying under its previous lease . The Agency declined to accept the rent , and instituted an action for unlawful detainer . Before the unlawful detainer action was tried, the plaintiff vacated . The plaintiff subsequently filed a claim for moving expenses with the Agency in excess of $2 , 000 , 000 ; the claim was denied by the Agency and upheld by the Agency' s. board of appeals . Plaintiff then sought a writ of mandate and brought an action for declaratory relief . At trial , a judgment was entered directing issuance of a writ requiring the Agency to set aside its decision denying relocation benefits to the plaintiff , and the Agency appealed . The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ' s decision, stating that the crucial issue in determining eligibility for relocation benefits is whether there is a causal connection between the acquisition by the public agency and the r Barbara Kaiser April 15, 1991 Page 4 displacement which brings into play the provisions of the Act . In distinguishing the present case from Superior Strut and Albright , supra , the court discerned the following rule emerging : A tenant holding under a lease which has not expired at the time property is acquired for public use, and who continues lawfully in possession of the premises after termination of the lease, will qualify as a "displaced person" under § 7260(c) . Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . at 445 . The court found the plaintiff did not qualify as a displaced person" because the cause of the plaintiff ' s departure from the acquisition property was neither the Agency' s acquistion of the property nor an order from it to vacate, but .the plaintiff ' s unlawful possession of the premises after expiration of its lease . Superior Strut stands for the proposition that a business occupying a property at the time it is acquired and, with the permission. of the acquiring agency, remaining on the property post-acquisition until the expiration of its lease, will normally retain its status as a "displaced person"upon the non-renewal or non-extension of that lease by the agency. However, Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . demonstrates that a business can lose its status as a "displaced person" if its unlawful possession of acquisition property after expiration of its lease supplants the agency' s acquisition of the property or other displacing activity as the direct cause of .the business ' s departure . Superior Strut and Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . both concerned businesses occupying acquisition property pursuant to a lease; neither case directly addressed the situation where a business occupies acquisition property on a month-to-month tenancy. The two situations are analogous , however . The month-to-month tenant will become a "displaced person" upon vacating the property at the end of its tenancy. The direct cause of such tenant ' s move will not be deemed to be the . non-renewal of the tenancy, but the underlying acquisition of the property or other displacing activity. However, should an agency permit a pre-acquisition month-to-month tenant to continue in occupancy post-acquisition and that tenant subsequently fails to pay rent or vacate upon notice, the action the agency commences to remove such tenant will eclipse the acquisition as the direct cause of the tenant ' s displacement and such tenant will lose its status as a "displaced person. " Barbara Kaiser ' April 15, 1991 Page 5 i APPLICATION: THE BEACH STORE On 4/8/91 Mr-. Abdelmuti , the landlord, reported to me that as of December 1990 and January 1991 his tenant Ms . Leia S . Cha had failed to pay the rent due on her lease dated 3/2/86 and ending 3/30/91 . Mr . Abdelmuti stated that he used the original deposit to replace the rent of December 1990 , and requested that Ms . Cha pay the delinquent rent, which she failed to do . On March 1, 1991, Ms . Cha abandoned the premises and moved to Uri Gati ' s building across the street , according to Mr . Abdelmuti . In December 1990 , Mr . Adams sent a letter to Mr . Abdelmuti that the building was "unsafe to inhabit . " The Cha lease transmitted on 4/2/91 provides at Section 1 of the addendum that, " In the event landlord must renovate this building to conform with the city earthquake code ordinance, tenant upon 30 days notice, shall remove all merchandise . . . and this rental agreement shall be immediately terminated and no compensation shall be due tenant from the landlord. " Accordingly, the abandonment and termination of. the "rental agreement" which was directly caused by Mr . Adams ' notice in December of 1990 is the actual and proximate cause of tenant ' s move, not any displacing activity by the public agency. Such business is therefore not a "displaced person" entitled to benefits under the Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . analysis . CAGNEY' S BY THE SEA On 4/8/91 Jeff Oderman, Mr . Abdemuti ' s attorney, advised me that Mr . Hassan Ali and Mike Ali , tenants of the Abdelmuti building, were given a Notice of Termination and Notice to Quit for failure to : 1) pay taxes , 2) provide evidence of insurance, 3) pay rent, and the fact that the city "condemned" the building as unsafe . Cagney' s was, at that time, on a month to month tenancy because the parties never reached agreement on a new rent . Accordingly, a 30-day notice was also sent to the Ali ' s to terminate the tenancy. Barbara Kaiser April 15, 1991 Page 6 Therefore, the direct cause of the required displacement can be successfully attributed to the failure to perform by the tenant and the unsafe building conditions , rather than any displacing activity by the agency. The business is consequently not a "displaced person" entitled to relocation benefits within the meaning of the Government Code provisions cited above . LARRY' S T-SHIRT SHOP TOUCH OF EAST T-SHIRT FANTASY According to a memo from Dan Brennan dated 4/9/91 , "Mr . Gosney had no written agreements with tenants . " Such tenants were sent a letter from Mr . Brennan ' s office, "confirming the rents they were currently paying . " (Brennan memo of 4/9/91) The letters in the Gosney file established a "month-to-month" tenancy at a stated rental and further provide that no relocation assistance will be available upon "moving from the premises . " We understand that on 1/14/91 , "an arsonist set a fire which gutted Larry' s T-Shirt Shop (408 Pacific Coast Highway) . The fire also extended through the attics of 408A, 408 1/2 and 410 Pacific Coast Highway, causing extensive damage to electrical wiring of these stores . " The agency has been requested to approve demolition rather than repair of the fire damage and the matter was approved (7-0) on 3/18/91 for demolition. As in Peter Kiewet Sons ' Co . the cause of the tenant ' s departure from the acquisition property was neither the agency' s acquisition of the property nor an order from it to vacate due to the acquisition, but the arsonist ' s fire which rendered the building unsafe . We believe that although the business may have been a "displaced person" by remaining on the property post-acqusition until the expiration of the lease, such business lost its status as a "displaced person" because the arsonist 's fire serves to supplant the agency' s acquisition of the property as the direct cause of the business ' s departure . Thus, no relocation benefits should be paid . Insurance benefits, if any, may provide relief to the tenant . Barbara Kaiser April 15 1991 Page 7 THINGS FOR YOUR HEAD This business was located at 410 Pacific Coast Highway and suffered due to the same fire mentioned above . Accordingly, the same analysis as above would yield the result that the fire caused the displacement and not the agency. CONCLUSION: No relocation benefits are due based upon statutory and case law relative thereto because none of the terminations were directly caused by the agency, but rather by: 1 . Abandonment and automatic termination of the rental agreement due to unsafe building conditions in the case of The Beach Store, 2 . Tenant ' s failure to perform and unsafe building conditions as to Cagney' s By The Sea , 3 . An arsonist ' s fire as to Larry' s T-Shirt Shop, Touch of East and T-Shirt Fantasy and Things For Your Head . GAIL HUTTON City Attorney REQUEST FOR CITY . COUNCIL ACTION RH 91-34 Date July 29, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members \ / Submi ed by: Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Director Prepared y: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Econ is Development Directo Subject: CONFIRMATION OF AGENCY RELOCATION OBLIGATIONS IN HE MAIN—PIER PHASE 11 PROJECT AND WAIVER OF RENTS Consistent with Council Policy? ;4 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of)[Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions;Attachments: STATEMENT F SUE: Four tenants with the Main—Pier Phase II project site have requested that the Redevelopment Age y provide them relocation assists e. The City Attorney analyzed each tenant's circumstknces on a case by case basis nd has rendered a legal opinion stating that tenants are not eligible for relocatio• benefits. Staff is requesting City Council consideration of a waiver of rents past du RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends the following actions b taken: I. Accept and file the City At rney's opinion dated April 15, 1991 (as attached) stating the Redevelopment gency has no legal obligations to provide relocation assistance to said tenants 2. Waive any rents past ue fro November 1, 1990 through January 14, 1991 in the amount of $7,4 for the A�ency's tenants that previously occupied 408 1/2, 408A, 408 & 410 P cific Coast Highway. ANALYSIS: For the past seven y ars, the Agency has been attempting to put together a mixed use development for t e two blocks bordered by Main and 6th Streets, Pacific Coast Highway, and Wal ut Avenue commonly referred to as Main—Pier Phase II. The Agency has acquired a ajority of the property within the site, and has. been negotiating with the remaining p operty owners and various developers in an attempt to put together an Owner Parti pation Agreement/Disposition and Development Agreement for this proposed mi d use project. To date o agreement has been fully executed and ap roved, although an OPA with Abdelmuti Development Company was approved by the Ag cy. Concurrently, Agency staff is negotiating the terms for a Disposition and Dev opment Agreement with • Coultrup Development and the Main Street property owners ursuant to an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement approved by the Agency on July 16, 1991. r PIO 5/85 RCA RH 91-34 July 29, 1991 Page two Meanwhile, in a non-related action on December 11, 1990 the City's building officials were forced to declare Mr. Abdelmuti's building at 101 Main Street "unsafe to occupy" due to loose and a falling bricks from the facade of the building and was therefore vacated and closed. Mr. Abdelmuti's tenants Jack's Surf & Sport and Cagney's by the Sea were occupying this structure. Mr. Abdelmuti, the operator/owner of Jack's decided to relocate into his storefront located at III Main Street adjacent to his other Jack's at 113 Main Street. Mr. Abdelmuti owns both properties at 111 & 113 Main Street. Moving Jack's to III Main Street necessitated Leia's Beach store having to relocate as well. Ms. Leia Cha, the owner/operator of the Beach store requested Agency relocation benefits, but staff informed her that it did not appear that she was eligible given she was not relocating due to any action taken by the Agency. The City Attorney confirmed this in her opinion dated April 15, 1991. Ms. Cha relocated directly across the street to 120 Main Street. Mr. Mike Ali the owner/operator of Cagney's by the Sea also requested Agency assistance and was also informed that he was not eligible for relocation assistance. Further, on January 14, 1991 a burglar/arsonist set a fire which gutted Larry's T-Shirt Shop at 408 Pacific Coast Highway. This fire also extended through the attic of 408A, 408 1/2, and 410 Pacific Coast Highway causing extensive electrical and smoke damage to these stores making them inoperable. The Redevelopment Agency owns all of these properties. On March 18, 1991 the Agency decided not to invest additional monies for the repair of these structures and authorized their demolition. Demolition was completed on May 21, 1991. Larry's T-Shirt Shack (408 PCH), Touch of East (408A PCH), and T-Shirt Fantasy (408 1/2 PCH) are all owned and operated by Mike Chainni. Mr. Chainni has also requested relocation assistance, but he too is not eligible for. the reasons outlined in the City Attorney's opinion. Diane DeChellis, owner of Things For Your Head (410 PCH) has requested and been denied relocation benefits for the same reasons. Staff is recommending the Agency waive all rent payments past due in the amount of $6,996 for Mr. Chainni and $433 for Ms. De Chellis. This will provide some assistance to the tenants to facilitate their move to other locations since they are ineligible for relocation benefits. In addition, it is not cost effective for the Agency to take actions to collect these rents. The City Council has, in the past, waived rents for other downtown businesses and currently does not have any contracts with these property owners. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not waive rents and direct staff as appropriate. FUNDING SOURCE: None required ATTACHMENTS City Attorney's Legal Opinion dated April 15, 1991. MTU/BAK/KBB:jar /V 9054r K0 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AC_T-ION 7�3d RH 91-34 Date Ju y 29, 1991 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Direct �- Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Economic Development Director Subject: CONFIRMATION OF AGENCY RELOCATION OBLIGATIONS IN THE MAIN-PIER PHASE II PROJECT APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL Consistent with Council Policy? GQ Yes [ ] New Policy or Excepti n '7 'a.9 IR- Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative iTY CLrn STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Four tenants within the Main-Pier Phase II project site have requested that the Redevelopment Agency provide them relocation assistance. The City Attorney analyzed each tenant's circumstances on a case by case basis and has rendered a legal opinion stating that tenants are not eligible for relocation benefits. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends acceptance and filing of the City Attorney's opinion dated April 15, 1991 (as attached) stating the Redevelopment Agency has no legal obligations to provide relocation assistance to said tenants. ANALYSIS: For the past seven years, the Agency has been attempting to put together a mixed use development for the two blocks bordered by Main and 6th Streets, Pacific Coast Highway, and Walnut Avenue commonly referred to as Main-Pier Phase II./ The Agency has acquired a majority of the property within the site, and has been negotiating with the remaining property owners and various developers in an attempt to Out together an Owner Participation Agreement/Disposition and Development Agreement for this proposed mixed use project. To date no agreement has been fully executed and approved, although an OPA with Abdelmuti Development Company was approved by the Agency. Concurrently, Agency staff is negotiating the terms for a Disposition and Development Agreement with Coultrup Development and the Main Street property owners pursuant to an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement approved by the Agency on July 16, 1991. .mil r KC V " cep « C-Nj PIO 5/85 RCA RH 91-34 July 29, 1991 Page two Meanwhile, in a non-related action on December 11, 1990 the City's building officials were forced to declare Mr. Abdelmuti's building at 101 Main Street "unsafe to occupy" due to loose and a falling bricks from the facade of the building and was therefore vacated and closed. Mr. Abdelmuti's tenants Jack's Surf & Sport and Cagney's by the Sea were occupying this structure. Mr. Abdelmuti, the operator/owner of Jack's decided to relocate into his storefront located at III Main Street adjacent to his other Jack's at 113 Main Street. Mr. Abdelmuti owns both properties at III & 113 Main Street. Moving Jack's to III Main Street necessitated Leia's Beach store having to relocate as well. Ms. Leia-Cha, the owner/operator of the Beach store requested Agency relocation benefits, but staff informed her that it did not appear that she was eligible given she was not relocating due to any action taken by the Agency. The City Attorney confirmed this in her opinion dated April 15, 1991. Ms. Cha relocated directly across the street to 120 Main Street. Mr. Mike Ali the owner/operator of Cagney's by the Sea also requested Agency assistance and was also informed that he was not eligible for relocation assistance. Further, on January 14, 1991 a burglar/arsonist set a fire which gutted Larry's T-Shirt Shop at 408 Pacific Coast Highway. This fire also extended through the attic of 408A, 408 1/2, and 410 Pacific Coast Highway causing extensive electrical and smoke damage to these stores making them inoperable. The Redevelopment Agency owns all of these properties. On March 18, 1991 the Agency decided not to invest additional monies for the repair of these structures and authorized their demolition. Demolition was completed on May 21, 1991. Larry's T-Shirt Shack (408 PCH), Touch of East (408A.PCH), and T-Shirt Fantasy (408 1/2 PCH) are all owned and operated by Mike Chainni. Mr. Chainni has also requested relocation assistance, but he too is not eligible for the reasons outlined in the City Attorney's opinion. Diane DeChellis, owner of Things For Your Head (410 PCH) has requested and been denied relocation benefits for the same reasons. The City Attorney has determined that the Redevelopment Agency has no legal obligations to provide relocation assistance to any of the tenants. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Direct staff as appropriate. FUNDING SOURCE: None required ATTACHMENTS City Attorney's Legal Opinion dated April 15, 1991. MTU/BAK/KBB:jar 9054r �• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION f NE:NTINGTON SEACN To Barbara Kaiser From Gail HU�� j Director of Economic City Attot Development Date Subject Relocation Benefits April 15 , 1991 Opinion QUESTION : What , if any , relocation benefits are certain tenants in Main Pier Phase . II entitled to receive from the Redevelopment Agency? ANSWER : None . DISCUSSION : Statutes : California Government Code Section 7260 et seq . , as interpreted by the cases hereinafter cited , provides that a pre-acquisiton tenant may lose status as a "displaced person" when other eviction actions eclipse the agency acquisition as the direct cause of the tenant ' s displacement . A business ' s eligibility to receive relocation assistance and benefits turns upon that business meeting the definition of a "displaced person . " Government Code Section 7260 (c) ( 1) (b) provides that a business will constitute a displaced person if it moves from real property as a direct result of a displacing activity ( i . e . , rehabilitation , demolition or other displacing activity) under a program or project undertaken by a public agency, when that agency determines that the displacement is permanent . § 7260 (c) makes a business eligible as a displaced person not only upon the acquisition of real property by a public ageric:y but also upon a business ' s receipt of a written notice of intent to acquire the property for a project undertaken by the agency . A business will not qualify as a displaced person if its " right of possession" at the time of moving arises after the date of the public agency ' s acquisition of the real property . New provisions state that a business which has occupied the real property for the purpose of obtaining assistance under the Act will not qualify as a displaced person . (§ 7260 (c) (2 ) (B) (3 ) ) Barbara Kaiser April 15 , 1991 Page 2 Neither will a business (other than a business that was an occupant . of the property at the time it was acquired) which occupies already acquired property for a period " subject to termination when the property is needed" for the program or project . 7260 (c) ( 2) (B) (4 ) ) Case Law: Section 7260 (c) now provides that a business constitutes a displaced person if it moves as a direct result of acquisition, written notice of intent , or some displacing activity . This means that where a business ' s departure from acquired property is not directly related to the acquisition or displacement activity by the agency, that business will not be considered a "displaced person" for purposes of the Act . Requiring that a person ' s displacement be a direct result of an agency ' s activity is consistent with case law dealing with a commercial holdover tenant ' s eligibility to recover relocation benefits . In Superior Strut & Hanger Co . v . Port of Oakland ( 1977) , 72 Cal . App . 3d 987 ; 140 Cal . Rptr. . 515 , the tenant occupied a building acquired by the Port for the purpose of developing it into a marine terminal -facility. Until such time as development would begin, the Port elected to continue renting ,the property to the tenant . Thereafter , the tenant was offered a substitute location for lease by the Port, which the tenant accepted , executing a lease for this location and commencing plans to construct a new building_ thereon . However , due to an error in the description of the property provided by the Port , the tenant was unable to vacate the acquisition property until seven months after the expiration of the lease . Although the Port served the tenant with "Thirty Days Notice Terminating Tenancy" immediately upon expiration of the lease , the Port took no further action, except to urge the tenant to move at the earliest possible date and require the tenant to execute a . promissory note for damages suffered by the Port as a result of the tenant ' s delay in vacating the property . Following its move to the substitute location, the tenant filed a claim for damages against the Port in excess of $100 , 000 , as the result of relocation costs incurred in vacating the former property. The Port argued that the tenant was not a "displaced person" required to relocate because of the Port ' s acquisition of the property, but a mere tenant required to move as the result of a notice to vacate given by a landlord to a tenant in the ordinary course of terminating that relationship . The court rejected the Port ' s argument , stating it was clear that - 5 r 1 Barbara Kaiser April 15 , 1991 Page 3 r- the " acquisition of the property for public use was the triggering event in the tenant ' s relocation . " It likewise rejected the Port ' s contention that in leasing the property to the tenant for an interim period , the tenant lost its status .as a "displaced person . " The court reasoned that since the tenant ' s original possession was lawful , its continued possession beyond the expiration of the lease merely converted the possession to a tenancy at sufferance and , unless the Port took some action to render the possession tortious , the tenant was presumed to continue under lawful title . The key to the court reaching this conclusion was the fact that the Port had taken no action to remove the tenant following expiration of the lease , but on the contrary indicated that the tenant could stay on and in fact billed the tenant for rent owed for occupancy during the holdover period , which the tenant paid . In a subsequent case with a fact pattern similar to Superior Strut , the court reached a different conclusion . In Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . v . Richmond Redevelopment Agency ( 1986) , 178 Cal : App . 3d 435 ; 223 Cal . Rptr . 728 , the Agency acquired property upon which the plaintiff leased a portion for its marine construction business . The plaintiff ' s lease was in effect at the time of the Agency ' s 1977 acquisition and had an expiration date of March 31 , 1980 . Beginning in 1979 , the plaintiff met with the Agency in an effort to negotiate an agreement permitting it to continue occupying the property beyond the scheduled expiration of the lease . However , the plaintiff was unwilling to pay increased rent or to waive its relocation benefits , and no mutually acceptable agreement was reached . On March 31 , 1980 , the plaintiff had not vacated the property and the following day tendered the amount of monthly rent it had been paying under its previous lease . The Agency declined to accept the rent , and instituted an action for unlawful detainer . Before the unlawful detainer action was tried , the plaintiff vacated . The plaintiff subsequently filed a claim for moving expenses with the Agency in excess of $2 , 000 , 000 ; .the claim was denied by the Agency and upheld by the Agency ' s board of appeals . Plaintiff then sought a writ of mandate and brought an action for declaratory relief . At trial , a judgment was entered directing issuance of a writ requiring the Agency to set aside its decision denying relocation benefits to the plaintiff , and the Agency appealed . The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ' s decision, stating that the crucial issue in determining eligibility for relocation benefits is whether there is a causal connection between the acquisition by the public agency and the ';.. Barbara Kaiser _ April 15, 1991 Page 4 displacement which brings into play the provisions of the Act . In distinguishing the present case from Superior Strut and Albright , supra , the court discerned the following rule emerging : A tenant holding under a ,lease which has not expired at the time property is acquired for public use , and who continues lawfully in possession of the premises after termination of the lease, will qualify as a "displaced person" under § 7260 (c) . Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . at 445 . The court found the plaintiff did not qualify as a displaced person" because the cause of the plaintiff ' s departure from the acquisition property was neither the Agency ' s acquistion of the property nor an order from it to vacate, but the plaintiff ' s unlawful possession of the premises after expiration of its lease . Superior Strut stands for the proposition that a business occupying a property at the time it is acquired and , with the permission of the acquiring agency, remaining on the property post-acquisition until the expiration of its lease , will normally retain its status as a "displaced person" upon the non-renewal or non-extension of that lease by the agency. However , Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . demonstrates that a business . can lose its status as a "displaced person" if its unlawful Possession of acquisition property after expiration of its lease supplants the agency ' s acquisition of the property or other displacing activity as the direct cause of the business ' s departure . Superior Strut and Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . both concerned businesses occupying acquisition property pursuant to a lease ; neither case directly addressed the situation where a business occupies acquisition property on a month-to-month tenancy. The two situations are analogous , however . The month-to-month tenant will become a "displaced person" upon vacating the property at the end of its tenancy . The direct cause of such tenant ' s move will not be deemed to be the non-renewal of the tenancy, but the underlying acquisition of the property or other displacing activity . However , should an agency permit a pre-acquisition month-to-month tenant to continue in occupancy post-acquisition and that tenant subsequently fails to pay rent or vacate upon notice, the action the agency commences to remove such tenant will eclipse the acquisition as the direct cause of the tenant ' s displacement and such tenant will lose its status as a "displaced person . " 1 Barbara Kaiser April 15 , 1991 Page 5 APPLICATION : THE BEACH STORE On March 1 , 1991 , Ms . Cha abandoned the premises and moved to Uri Gati ' s building across the street , according to Mr . Abdelmuti . In December 1990 , Mr . Adams sent a letter to Mr . Abdelmuti that the building was "unsafe to inhabit . " The Cha lease transmitted on 4/2/91 provides at Section 1 of the addendum that , " In the event landlord must renovate this building to conform with the city earthquake code ordinance , tenant upon 30 days notice , shall remove all merchandise . . . and this rental agreement shall be immediately terminated and no compensation shall be due tenant from the landlord . " Accordingly, the abandonment and termination of the " rental agreement" which was directly caused by Mr . Adams ' notice in December of 1990 is the actual and proximate cause of tenant ' s move , not any displacing activity by the public agency . Such business is therefore not a "displaced person" entitled to benefits under the Peter Kiewit Sons ' Co . analysis . CAGNEY ' S BY THE SEA On 4/8/91 Jeff Oderman, Mr . Abdemuti ' s attorney, advised me that Mr . Hassan Ali and Mike Ali , tenants of the Abdelmuti building , were given a Notice of Termination and Notice to Quit for failure to : 1) pay taxes , 2) provide evidence of insurance , 3 ) pay rent , and the fact that the city "condemned" the building as unsafe . Cagney ' s was , at that time , on a month to month tenancy because the parties never reached agreement on a new rent . Accordingly, a 30-day notice was also sent to the Ali ' s to terminate the tenancy. . l r Barbara Kaiser April 15, 1991 Page 6 Therefore , the direct cause of the required displacement can be successfully attributed to the failure to perform by the tenant and the unsafe building conditions , rather than any displacing activity by the agency. The business is consequently not a "displaced person" entitled to relocation benefits within- the meaning of the Government Code provisions cited above . LARRY ' S T-SHIRT SHOP TOUCH OF EAST T-SHIRT FANTASY According to a memo from Dan Brennan dated 4/9/91 , "Mr . Gosney had no written agreements with tenants . " Such tenants were sent a letter from Mr . Brennan ' s office , "confirming the rents they were currently paying . " (Brennan memo of 4/9/91) The letters in the Gosney file established a "month-to-month" tenancy at a stated rental and further provide that no relocation assistance will be available upon "moving from the premises . " We understand that on 1/14/91 , " an arsonist set a fire which gutted Larry ' s T-Shirt Shop ( 408 Pacific Coast Highway) . The fire also extended through the attics of 408A, 408 1/2 and 410 Pacific Coast Highway, causing extensive damage to electrical wiring of these stores . " The agency has been requested to approve demolition rather than repair of the fire damage and the matter was approved (7-0) on 3/18/91 for demolition . As in Peter Kiewet Sons ' Co . the cause of the tenant ' s departure from the acquisition property was neither the agency ' s acquisition of the property nor an order from it to vacate due to the acquisition , but the arsonist ' s fire which r.endered the building unsafe . We believe that although the business may have been a "displaced person" by remaining on the property post-acqusition until the expiration of the lease , such business lost its status as a "displaced person" because the arsonist ' s fire serves to supplant the agency ' s acquisition of the property as the direct cause of the business ' s departure . Thus , no relocation benefits should be paid . Insurance benefits , if any, may provide relief to the tenant . n Barbara Kaiser April 15, 1991 Page 7 THINGS FOR YOUR HEAD This business was located at 410 Pacific Coast Highway and suffered due to the same fire mentioned above . Accordingly, the same analysis as above would yield the result that the fire caused the displacement and not the agency. CONCLUSION : No relocation benefits are due based upon statutory and case law relative thereto because none of the terminations were directly caused by the agency, but rather by : 1 . Abandonment and automatic termination of the rental agreement due to unsafe building conditions in the case of The Beach Store , 2 . Tenant ' s failure to perform and unsafe building conditions as to Cagney ' s By The Sea , 3 . An arsonist ' s fire as to Larry ' s T-Shirt Shop , Touch of East and T-Shirt Fantasy and Things For Your Head . GAIL HUTTON City Attorney � F l J� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH /-zs-9e AIGICI M47 i4!�? COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Honorable Mayor/Chairman & Michael T. Uberuag To City Council/Agency Members From City Administrator MAIN—PIER PHASE IT DEVELOPMENT January 28, 1991 Subject Date Two proposals were submitted in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Main—Pier Phase II: Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation and Main—Pier II Property Owners Association in conjunction with the Coultrup Development Corporation. The Coultrup proposal includes property owners Mulligan, Johnson, Cracchiolo, Bagstad, Mase, Draper, Alfonso and Geilim. Excluded are owners Abdelmuti, Lane and Wood/Sarabee. The Pollack proposal does not include any property owners at this time. Both developers have been requested to make presentations regarding their proposals to the City Council at the January 28, 1991 special work session on redevelopment. Enclosed for City Council review are several pertinent sections of both the Coultrup and Pollack proposals as submitted. The proposals are currently being evaluated by city staff, legal counsel and Kathe Head of Keyser Marston. Staff*plans to prepare a recommendation for City Council consideration at the meeting of February 19, 1991 as to whether to accept one of the proposals for negotiations or reject all proposals and issue a new RFP to the development community. MTU/BAK:jar 8401r w rT f� 'T7 SHELDON L. POLLACK CORPORATION 429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 • 213.394.9800 `a1 COMPANY BACKGROUND The Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation is a national company specializing in all types of institutional, commercial and industrial projects. Originally founded prior to 1954 as an architectural-engineering company, it quickly grew to be one of the nation's largest designers and builders of office buildings, shopping centers, hospitals, medical buildings, United States Post Office structures, hotels, large residential projects and industrial complexes, coast to coast. Many years ago, the phrase "TOTAL CONCEPT" was developed to describe the company's activities in three primary areas: 1. Architecture and Engineering 2. Construction 3 . Financing Subsequently, and primarily as a result of the intense need for total professional services, this concept has been expanded to provide additional services including: 1. Land Use Studies/Entitlement Procurement 2. Site Analysis 3 . Property Development 4 . Leasing 5. Property Management 6. Specific services for our medical-related clients, housed under the Health Facilities Systems division. 7 . Redevelopment 8 . Management of Toxic and Hazardous Material Sites We invite you to call any of our former clients identified in our accompanying brochure. We are among the leading companies in America in providing on-budget pricing, on-time completion and client satisfaction. t 6, SHELDON L. POLLACK CORPORATION 429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 • 213-394.9800 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I . Development Description & Conceptual Plan A. Commercial (Block One City) First Floor 30,500 square feet Second Floor 22,000 square feet Third Floor 8,250 square feet Fourth Floor 8,250 square feet 69,000 square feet First Level (Subterranean) 45,000 square feet Second Level (On Grade) 26,000 square feet Third Level (Above Grade) 26,000 square feet 93,000 square feet SHELDON L. POLLACK CORPORATION 429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401 • 213-394.9800 Commercial Site It is the intention of the developer and this plan that all the commercial will be owned and operated by the existing owners. The developer will guarantee the construction and permanent loan for all the existing owners. Whichever existing owners are not willing to participate, the developer will purchase their properties at $65 . 00 per square foot. It is the intention of the developer to purchase the city owned land at $65 . 00 per square foot and to develop and construct a three level parking facility at developer's expense on the commercial site. The developer will request that the Agency approve an Inducement Resolution for purposes of providing Tax Exempt Bond financing. This will be a bond of approximately $3,000,000 with no monetary participation by the City or Agency required. The parking structure will be a for fee public facility. Such parking fees will be consistent with local parking standards . The developer requests the City portion tax increment from both the Commercial and Residential projects for 20 years as well as relief from certain City building fees . SHELDON L. POLLACK CORPORATION 429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 • 213.394.9800 Cost Land $ 5,000,000 200 Parking @ $9,000 space 1,800,000 Unit Cost @ 124,750 sf @ $63/sf 7,860,000 Common Area: 22 ,000 sf @ 700,000 Landscape: $25 @ sf 250,000 Common Area Amenities (lap pool, 925,000 jacuzzi, gym) ------------ $ 16,535,000 Engineering Architectural @ 5% 650,000 Construction Supervision/Overhead @ 8% 1,035,300 On-Site: Demolition, Hookups, Grading & Export 200,000 Off-site: Curb/Gutter 250,000 Soft Cost: Interest: 1 . One Year Construction Cost @ 60% 1,640,000 2 . 18 Month Sales Carry @ 50% 1,930,000 Fees 690,000 Legal/Title 125,000 Insurance 30, 000 Security 60,000 Development Fees 1,050,000 ------------ $ 7,660, 100 $ 24, 195,300 SHELDON L. POLLACK CORPORATION k! 429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401 • 213-394-9800 By this proposal, the developer will post a Letter of Credit in the event of 150% of the appraised value of all third party parcels not included in our proposal and purchase said City owned property at $65. 00 per square foot. The developer will commit to a minimum 15% equity contribution based upon total development costs. Enclosed is a copy of the development agreement that has been offered to the property owners . There will be two separate parking facilities . Each one will satisfy the parking requirements for its respective commercial and residential component. The commercial parking facility will be managed by a third party professional parking company. It will be open to accommodate the business enterprises and the times will be dictated by tenant needs . It is anticipated that the facility will open at +/- 8:00 a.m. and close at 1:00 a.m. It is not anticipated there will be shared parking. Valet parking may occur, based again on tenant needs and uses . SHELDON L. POLLACK CORPORATION 429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401 • 213-394-9800 7x HUNTINGTON BEACH Unit Mix: Unit Total Number Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. A - 3 story 2 2,600 5,250 B - 1 level 2 2,000 4,000 C - 2 story 6 1,750 10,500 D - 2 story 35 1,500 52,500 E - level 35 1,500 52,500 ---- -------- -------- 80 9,350 124,750 ---- -------- -------- ---- -------- -------- Fees @ 80 units 1,560 -square feet average School @ 1.58 sq. ft. 2,465 197,200 Park & Recreation 2, 164 173, 120 Sewer - City 150 12 ,000 Sewer - County 2,280 182,400 Water 72 5,760 Drainage 141 11,280 Misc . Fees (Zoning, CUP, 15,000 planning) ------- -------- 7 ,019 596,760 ------- -------- ------- -------- Average Sale Price: $275,000 - $290,000 23,200,000 Sellout (2,088, 000) Less 9% ------------ 21, 112 ,000 NET SHELDON L. POLLACK CORPORATION 429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD • SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 • 213.394.9800 Organization The Pollack Investments & Development Fund, a California Limited Partnership. The managing general partner will be California Properties Fund, a Real Estate Investment Trust (statement enclosed) . The General Contract and partner for the entire project will be the Sheldon L. Pollack Corporation (resume enclosed) . They have developed several projects for the principals and are one of the largest general contractors in California. At no cost to the commercial property owners, the developer is making available the services of Mr. Tom Love, resume enclosed, who will assist in the site development and leasing activities for the additional tenant space. Organization and Management Approach Introduction Coultrup Development Company has organized and will manage a comprehensive development team for the Main Pier Phase II project. Some of the finest talent available has been assembled to master plan Main Pier Phase II. This team is comprised of Coultrup Development Company, Block 104 and 105 property owners, local business people, knowledgeable consultants, the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Redevelopment Agencies and those groupsa and individuals which may greatly contribute to the subject project. Basic management structure to be as follows: - Coultrup Development Company to act as master developer and coordinator of entire Main Pier Phase II project. - Coultrup Development Company will interact with all private groups, public agencies and consultants. - Coultrup Development Company will process all planning, maps and permits with the proper agencies. \ - Coultrup Construction Incorporated will serve as general contractor if the team so determines or will serve as a project analysis over the selected contractor. - Coultrup Development Company will provide via their joint venture partner all equity and construction financing arrangements required for the project. - Coultrup Development Company will oversee all sales, lease-up management. The Main Pier Phase II Property Owners Association will continue to aggressively work with Mike Abdelmuti and Jim and Vicki Lane to satisfy their requirements and bring them on board a completely integrated team to master plan the Main Pier Phase II project. The major consultants and team members assembled for this project are: Main Pier II- Property Owner Association Members. . . . . . . . . . . . Block 104 & 105 Property Owners Bissell Architects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Architect The Keith Companies . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .Civil Engineer Stratatech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Soils Engineer Martin Structural Design, Inc . . . . . . . . . . .Structural Engineer Five Star Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Commercial Lease-up Coast Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Condominium Sales JohnBelsher. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney 1 Art Knowlson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney / Barry Ross. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Attorney PROJECT DESCRIPTION City Blocks #104 and 105 - a master-planned super block. With the combined Blocks 104 and 105, we will provide all required parking for the entire project, in addition to mechanical and other public utility services. First Phase - Block 104 - Will be a master-planned building which will include the demands of the marketplace and the needs of the property owners all within the parameters of the Specific Plan and Request For Proposal. Includes new retail, commercial/office, as well as existing businesses. Second Phase - Block 105 - A master-planned building which will consist of 140 ocean front condominiums and townhouses. Includes all required amenities, parking requirements, storage space and appropriate open space. The Worthy historical site has been carefully studied and a plan will be finalized to work sensitively with and around this location. DATA A) LAND USE 1. M.P. II is 6 gross acres or 4 .7 net acres (from P. F.P. pg. 3) 2. F.A.R. calculation (from Specific Plan pg. 98, 4 . 5.03) Maximum density allowed 3 .5 Formula used is 3. 5 x gross acres or 3 .5 + net acres 6 acres + 3.5 x 43, 560 sf = 914,760 sf or 4.7 net acres x 3.5 + 43,560 sf = 716,562 sf Proposed project submittal: Commercial = 50, 134 + (2) 24 , 355 = 98, 844 sf Residential = 140 units x 1, 000 sf average = 140, 000 sf Total = 238,844 sf or 330 of allowable F.A.R. 3 . Allowable residential unit density - 35 units per gross acre (from Specific Plan pg. 98 , 4 . 5. 03) . Allowed - 35 x 6 gross acres = 210 units Actual - proposed 140 units or 660 of allowable density Land Use cont. 4. Maximum land coverage - 60% and 50% (from Specific Plan pg. 99, 4.5.05) . Block 104 - fronting Main Street = 60% Block 105 = 50% Block 104 - net sf = 240 x 350 = 84 , 000 sf 60% coverage = 50,400 sf Actual coverage = 50, 134 sf (Note: Commercial building only, does not include parking structure) Block 105 - net sf = 240 x 350 = 84, 000 sf 50% coverage = 50,400 sf Actual coverage = 41,400 sf (Note: Calculated by 36 units x 1, 000 sf + 15%) 5. Maximum building height Specific Plan pg. 99, 4. 5.04 = 6 stories RFP = 55 ' - 0" Specific Plan pg. 70, 4. 2. 04 a) additional 10 ' ht. for roof line features, architectural features, mechanical equipment and b) 14 , additional for elevator equipment. 6. Sidewalk width on Pacific Coast Hwy. and Main Street (Specific Plan pg. 51, paragraph 3 "relative intimacy") 7. Open space (pg. 100, 4.5. 10) - 10% of net site Public Plaza at Main Street - minimum 1,000 sf (Specific Plan pg. 100,4 . 5. 10) actual = 1, 200 sf Block 105 - open space court - plaza = 11, 300 sf Total - provided = 12,500 sf Total - required = 10% x 152, 994 sf = 15, 300 sf 8 . Common open space -Block 105 open space plaza = 11, 300 sf 9 . visitor-serving commercial Description re: Specific Plan pg. 97, 4 . 5. 01 Note: The entire street or a minimum of 1/3 (33%) of total floor area. Project floor area per formula = Residential = 41,400 sf Commercial = 50, 134 sf plus commercial parking structure above grade, resulting- in 50% visitor-serving occupancy on site. A. Parking Requirements Formulas taken from Huntington Beach Planning Department and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. Parking Requirements cont. 1. Residential lbr units - 1 1/2 cars 2 & 3 br units - 2 1/2 cars Average of above = 2 1/4 cars 2. Commercial Retail - 1/200 Office - 1/250 3. R.A.R. _ -20% B. Block 105 - Residential 140 units x 2 1/4 = 315 cars C. Block 104 - Commercial 1st floor retail = 50,134 sf 50,134 sf - 1/200 = 251 cars Less R.A.R. 20% = 251 - 50 = 201 cars 2nd floor = Retail 24, 355 sf - 1/200 = 122 cars Less R.A.R. 20% = 98 cars 3rd floor = 24,355 sf 75% office = 18,266 sf - 1/250 = 73 cars 25% retail 6, 089 sf - 1/200 = 30 cars Total = 103 cars Less R.A.R. 20% = 82 cars Block 104 total = 201 + 98 + 82 = 381 cars total Subterranean Parking Calculations 1. Site 350 105 5th 104 = 560 x 350 = 4 . 5 net acres (not 4. 2 not 4 . 7 as in RFP) 240 80 240 560' x 350' (less setback all around) = 540 x 330 540' x 330" = 178,200 sf (less worthy historical property) - 117.5 x 100 = 11, 750 sf * 178,200 - 11,750 sf = 166, 450 gross sf 166,450 gross sf - 2,240 (residential storage units) 65 cubic ft (16 sf) - 1,000 mechanical/ electrical 800 (4 vertical circulation locations) - 7, 360 (4 vehicular ramps @16% slope 1: 6 and 91ht. = 1, 840 sf each) 147,690 net sf x 2 levels ( 295,380 4450 per car = 656 parked cars /coultrup.mpd 1 PROJECT COST ANALYSIS MAINPIER II- BLACK 104 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA COSTS ----------------------- LAND *See Footnote $6,934 ,405 DIRECT DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION & 'GRADING $625, 000 PARKING GARAGE (168, 000 SQ FT @ $20/SQ FT) $3,407, 000 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (98, 844 SQ FT @ $48/SQ FT) $4, 744 , 000 OFFSITES $450, 000 ONSITES $180, 000 LANDSCAPING $375, 000 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS (87, 100 SQ -FT @ $25/SQ FT) $2, 178,000 FIELD OVERHEAD $595, 000 $12, 554, 000 INDIRECT j PLAN DEVELOPMENT $500, 000 LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, TAXES & INSURANCE $575, 000 DEVELOPER & CONSTRUCTION FEES $685, 000 FEES & PERMITS $290, 000 MARKETING & LEASE UP $650, 000 $2,700,000 FINANCING FEES & CLOSING COSTS $332 , 000 CONSTRUCTION LOAN INTEREST (11.5% x 28 MONTHS) $3 , 568 , 000 $3, 900, 000 ----------------------- TOTAL $26, 088, 405 CONTINGENCY- 4% $1, 043, 536 GRAND TOTAL $27, 131, 941 *City property of 36,837 s. f. @ $65 per s. f. and third party acquisitions @ $4,550,000. i 1 PROJECT COST ANALYSIS MAINPIER II- BLOCK 105 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA COSTS ----------------------- LAND *See Footnote $4,920, 560 DIRECT DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION & GRADING $525, 000 PARKING GARAGE (144, 500 SQ FT @ $20/SQ FT) $2,890,000 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (163,416 SQ FT @ $70/SQ FT) $11,439, 102 OFFSITES $575,000 ONSITES $230, 000 LANDSCAPING $500, 000 FIELD OVERHEAD $1, 159, 000 $17,318,102 I M t�RECT PLAN DEVELOPMENT $550, 000 LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, TAXES & INSURANCE $595, 000 DEVELOPER & CONSTRUCTION FEES $919, 855 FEES & PERMITS $600,000 MARKETING & LEASE UP $1,582, 000 $4 , 246, 855 FINANCING FEES & CLOSING COSTS $374, 000 CONSTRUCTION LOAN INTEREST (11. 5% x 28 MONTHS) $4,030, 000 $4 , 404, 000 --------- ------------- TOTAL $30, 889, 517 CONTINGENCY- 4% $1, 235, 581 GRAND TOTAL $32, 125,098 *City property of 52, 624 .5 s. f. @ $65 per s.f. and third party acquisition @ $1,500,000 J PROJECT VALUE AND OPERATING PROFORMA MAIN PIER PHASE II RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL SPACE. . . . . . . . . . . . .80,578 Square Feet Scheduled gross rent($2.,50: (71,000 s.f. rentable) $2, 130, 000 Less: Vacancy(5%) (106, 500) Effective gross income: $2 , 023,500 Less: Expenses (141, 645) (5% management, 2% replacement) Net Operating Income $1,88.1,855 Capitalization rate 8.5% Retail/Commercial Value $22, 139, 470 OFFICE SPACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18,266 Square Feet Scheduled gross rent($1.70 (16,100 s.f. rentable) $328, 440 Less: Vacancy(5%) ( 16,422) :.r Effective gross income $312,018 Less Expenses: ($4.2 s.f. management, cleaning, mis) Total Expenses: ( 76, 7171 Net Operating Income $235, 301 Capitalization rate 8. 5% Office Value $2,768, 247 CONDOMINIUMS 140 units - average sales price $282, 378 Value $39,532,975 Total Project Value $64,440,692 `1/coultrup.mp2 i COULTRUP Development Company January 9, 1991 Ms. Barbara Kaiser City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. .92648 RE: Response letter to City Dear Barbara: Your letter of January 9, 1991 requests that Coultrup Development Company ("Coultrup") provide you with further financial information. Coultrup recently retained a new accounting firm who is working on our financial reports. We are anticipating we will have current financial reports by Friday, January 18, 1991. Per .your request, the financial reports will be messengered to Kathe Head the same day they are received. In the above-referenced letter, you also requested specific information regarding City/Agency participation in the Main-Pier Property Owners ' proposed project. Attached is a printout showing the breakdown of financial responsibility envisioned by Coultrup. Although Coultrup has invested $60, 000 to date of its own funds in this project, the ultimate, plan will not be determined for some time. Please bear in mind that these numbers are very preliminary. The financial concept itself is yet to be discussed with you or other Agency or City representatives. Coultrup proposes that the City/Agency will have to put little, if any, cash into the project beyond proceeds of the sale of City land on blocks 104 and 105 advanced by Coultrup. Should it become necesary to do so, Coultrup expects the City/Agency to use its best effort to secure funds from CDBG, bond sale revenues, or other sources. In the event the City/Agency is unsuccessful in securing said funds, Coultrup may advance money in addition to the purchase price necessary to complete the project. The City/Agency will reinvest the lion's share of the proceeds of the sale of the City property into construction of a parking structure on block 104, for the benefit of the public and local merchants. Thereafter, the City will control, maintain and rent the parking structure. The City/Agency will also reinvest some of the proceeds in offsites and site preparation, including demolition. Coultrup will convey the parking structure on: block 104 back to the City/Agency. by a long- 13001 Seal Beach Boulevard • Suite 300 • Seal Beach, California 90740 • (213) 430-8118 • Fax (213) 598-1577 term lease at nominal costs.. The form of the conveyance or lease may depend on the need to maximize real property tax revenue to the Agency. Revenues from taxes attributable to the entire project and revenues from the parking structure on block 104 will accrue to the City/Agency. The property owners on block 104 will have identified rights to the use of the parking structure for customers and employees. The proposed project provides that all property owners on blocks 104 and 105 will participate. Coultrup will make every effort toward this end. In the event third party acquisition becomes necessary, Coultrup may advance amounts for acquisition to the- City/Agency. The City/Agency will be responsible for additional costs beyond $65.00/s.f. for such acquisition, to be repaid to Coultrup over time. This suggested repayment may be made out of property tax increment.,- --parking structure . revenues, or other revenues generated from the project. Similarly, in the event offsites, parking structure - construction or other City/Agency obligations exceed .the land payment from. Coultrup, Coultrup will advance the necessary funds and accept a note from the City/Agency, payable from property tax increment, parking structure revenues, or other revenues generated from the project. The major advantage of our proposal is that the City/Agency does not need to acquire the property of the 13%. property owners already on our team. Also, you have a local qualified developer- who is working well with the property owners and a_-:qualified . financial partner- with current investment experience with Coultrup in the City of Huntington Beach ready to move forward on this project now. This is undoubtedly the least expensive opportunity the City/Agency will ever have to accomplish their goals on these two blocks including two completely redeveloped blocks, convenience parking, owner/merchant participation, and a "village" concept. We look forward to working with you as this project progresses. Please call at anytime should you have any questions regarding these matters. Sincerely, Vs Coultrup dent/ ru /Devel m�nt Company JTC/kf kathy/L)CITY.MP2 INCOME BLOCK 104 36,837 x $65 = $2,394,405 BLOCK 105 52, 624 x $65 = $3,420,560 (City property only. No payment for alleys. ) $5,815,030 EXPENSES OFFSITES BLOCK 104 (Est. only) $ 450, 000 BLOCK 105 (Est. only) $ 575, 000 DEMO, EXCAV, GRADING. BLOCK 104 (Est. only). $ 625,000 BLOCK 105 Coultrup to pay $ -0- PARKING GARAGE BLOCK 104 LEVELS -1 & -2 $3,407, 000 *LEVELS ON GRADE $ 585, 000 *LEVELS +1 $ 293, 000 BLOCK 105 Coultrup to pay $ -0- RELOCATION COSTS ? TOXIC SOILS CLEAN UP ? pc( u I S 17-1d/v <oSTS ? TOTAL EXPENSES $5,935, 000 TOTAL CITY COST <$ 119,970> OTHER POSSIBLE INCOME TO CITY/AGENCY CONDO SALES REVENUE PARKING GARAGE BLOCK 104 - using Kaiser/Marsten's figure of $3,550 capitalized value per space for the Third Block West project, we feel these figures are easily valid for a first block parking structure. SALES, PROPERTY AND BED TAX REVENUES GENERATED BY THE PROJECT * This entire item may be deleted depending on final uses approved by the City/Agency. terri/MPCOST/l/9/91 REQUEST FOR REDEYE_ LOPME -AGENCY ACTION APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL RH 90-35 19� November 5, 1990 CITY CLLRK e Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and dtp% opment Agency Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Director Prepared by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Ecommic Develo�amPazt# MIN-PIER. PHASE II RHWEST FUR PROPOSAIS (Ti=-MY E}I< MIS Subject: IRLIIN-PnR IUMEVE 0PNEUr PRaTE)Cr AIM Consistent with Council Policy? pQ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding.Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: SrATE14ENT OF ISSUE: Property owners within the Main-Pier Phase II project have requested that they have an additional thirty (30) days to respond to the Request for Proposes _ issued by the Agency. -+ z m n IaDOOMMENDATICK: 2-+m L� Co �,-<c,m Staff reccmiends the extension of the existing deadline of November 26, 1990 a-m m to December 26, 1990. ANALYSIS' co � 0 On September 17, 1990, the Agency authorized staff to prepare and issue a Request for Proposals for the Main-Pier Phase II project to the property owners (see Attachment 1) . The deadline for submittal (November 26, 1990) , was outlined under Selection Procedure on Page .6 of the RFP (see Attachment 2) . In a letter dated September 29, 1990, (Attachment 3) , Mr. Abdelmuti and Mr. Iane have requested thirty (30) additional days to prepare their proposal. In a continuing effort to give the property owners every reasonable opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the Main-Pier Phase II project, staff is recammerding a thirty (30) day extension. ALTERNATIVE AC.'rIC N: 1) Do not grant a thirty (30) day extension to the original submittal date. FUNDIW3 SOURCE: 1) None required as a result of this action. 1) Staff Report of September 17, 1990 2) Selection Procedure on Page 6 of RFP 3) Letter of Request from Property Owners NIU/BAWI BB:1p , PI O/1/85 REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION PH 90-29 Date September 17, 1990 Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Michael T. Uberuaga, Executive Director Submitted by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Econamic Development Prepared by: AiJIUCRIZATION TO PREPARE AMID ISSUE ITT FUR PROPOSAIS FUR Subject: TWO-EMCK, MD=�-4USE E VEMPM Mr FUR TM MAIlN-PIER PEASE II F a= Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: SrATEMEW OF ISSUE: Previous negotiations for the design and redevelopment of the Main-Pier Phase II project (bounded by PC:H, Walnut Avenue, Main& Sixth Streets) with the prior developer and property owners were not successful. In order to move forward, staff reommnends that a new RFP with specific development parameters be issued to all Main-Pier Phase II property owners. 1) Direct staff to prepare and issue a Request for Proposals for the redevelopment of a two-block, mixed-use project for the Main-Pier Phase II site to the Main-Pier Phase II property owners with a sixty (60) day time period within which to submit proposals. 2) Receive, accept, and file the attached tentative Action Plan outlining the direction and process staff will proceed with. ANALYSIS Since May of 1988, Agency staff, consultants, and the developer, Griffin/ Related Properties (G/RP) have worked closely with the property owners to design a plan for Block 1 that the property owners would approve, and in which, the Agency could afford to subscribe to economically. In January of 1990, these negotiations culminated into a plan conditionally approved by the property owners ]mown as Plan "B-3.n After analyzing the cost of the "B-3" plan, it was determined that the cost of owner participation for this approach would not be feasible. The analysis performed by Keyser Marston Associates indicates that over the life of the project, the cost benefit of this approach to the Agency, net of all. returns, would be approximately -$16,000,000. PI O/1/85 Shortly before Griffin's ENA was to expire (February 20, 1990) , Mike Abdelmuti brought in a developer (Stephen Cloobeck) as his partner with a proposal that they develop Block 1 and G/RP develop Block 2. Staff informally negotiated the terms of an ENA with both developers, providing for the two of them to collectively put together a development proposal and financing package, however, said negotiations did not culminate into the execution of an ENA. At this time, staff is requesting to prepare and issue a new RFP with specific development parameters to the Main-Pier Phase II property owners for the purpose of giving them another opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the project site. As indicated on the attached tentative Action Plan, staff will have analyzed, (in approximately ten (10) weeks) , all proposals submitted and bring back to the Agency either a rendition to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the property owners) who have submitted a viable proposal or to request that the RFP process be opened up to all interested parties. ALTERNATIVE ACirIONS 1) Direct staff to issue the attached REP to all property owners as well as to all interested developers. 2) Negotiate with the property owners for the rehabilitation of their existing buildings. FUNDING SOURCE: Any associated costs will come out of the existing Redevelopment Appropriations. 1) Request for Proposal 2) Tentative Action Plan MIU/BAWFBB:lp Waterfront Phase 2 - 500-room luxury hotel, construction anticipated to begin in spring of 1991. Pierside Restaurants - 40,000 sq.ft. of restaurant pads and 14,000 sq.ft. of beach-related retail with surface and subsurface parking; construction anticipated to begin in spring of 1991. North of Pier Parking Structure - 675-space parking structure, valued at $10 million; construction anticipated to begin in spring of 1992. For further information, refer to Attachment No. 2 (Fact Sheets) . SEIECrION PROCEUM Eight copies of all proposals, including development concepts are to be submitted to Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency: attention Michael T. Uberuaga, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Post Office Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92648, by 4:00 PM, on Monday, November 26, 1990. Agency staff will review all proposals received and evaluate each proposal based on the developer's response to each element outlined in this document, and the proposal's compliance outlined within the Development Parameters section of this document. Tentative Selection Schedule: Agency issues Request for Proposals September 26, 1990 Pre-submittal conference (to be announced) October _, 1990 Proposal submittals due November 26, 1990 Agency staff reviews submittals November 27, 1990 Agency ccamittee reviews submittals December 3, 1990 Agency considers approval of staff recommended proposal/developer December 17, 1990 Agency enters into a Negotiation Agreement with selected developer for a period of thirty (30) days to prepare December 17, 1990 an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement Agency considers approval of Exclusive Negotiation Agreement February 4, 1991 Note: Any and all pre-develcpmient costs incurred as a part of submitting a proposal including, but not limited to, architectural work, option money, etc., are solely those of the developer, and therefore, the developer will hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency for any such costs. 6 Sept. 29,' 1990 Mr. � Keith Bohr Project manager, phase II Main St. Office, Redevelopment Dear Keith: As several of the property owners meet with developers/ builders for the Phase II project, it is becoming clear that we will need an extension of time -- at least 30 days additional to complete discussions and planning. May we have an -extension .uritil. December 219 1990? Additionally, we need to obtain all information about toxins and environmental problems- .in the entire two block area of Phase II. Included should be the various soil test. documenation, responsibility for clean up, and levels of chemicals -- speciffically oil and . gasoline deposits. These will be most helpfull. Would you please respond in writing with regard .to the time extension. Thank You. i e Abde ti James A. Lane P.S . Please send up two additional copies of the RFP for Phase II. cc : Barbara Kaiser REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL RH 90-29 19 September 17,1990 Date Honorable Chairman and Ag CLF R r✓ Submitted to: Michael T. Ubervaga, Executive Directo ��_ _ Submitted by: Barbara A. Kaiser, Deputy City Administrator/Econanic Developmentv�� Prepared by: }►r �amr TO PREPARE AND ISSUE RIQUEST FM PROP06AIS Fit Subject: TWD-BU K, RISE DEVELOPME Nr F1CR THE PHASE II PIU= Consistent with Council Policy? M Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: SI'ATIIMERI! OF ISSUE: Previous.negotiations for the design and redevelopment of the Main-Pier Phase II project (bounded by. PCH, Walnut Avenue, Main & Sixth Streets) with the prior developer and property owners were not successful. In order to move forward, staff recamends that a new RFP with specific development parameters be issued to all Main-Pier Phase II property owners. CHAT: 1) Direct staff to prepare and issue a Request for Proposals for the redevelopment of a two-block, mixed-use project for the Main-Pier Phase II site to the Main-Pier Phase II property owners with a sixty (60) day time period within which to submit proposals. 2) Receive, accept, and file the attached tentative Action Plan outlining Cie direction and process staff will proceed with. =i z m ANALYSIS: n S rn< Since May of 1988 en staff, consultants and the deyelo N ;> m y Agency per, Griffin/ `� ;p Related Properties (G/RP) have worked closely with the property owners to design a plan for Block 1 that the property owners would approve, and in which, the Agency could afford to subscribe to economically. In January of c= 1990, these negotiations culminated into a plan conditionally approved by the property owners known as Plan "B-3." After analyzing the cost of the "B-3" plan, it was determined that the cost of owner participation for this approach would not be feasible. The analysis performed by Keyser Marston Associates indicates that over the life of the project, the cost benefit of this approach to the Agency, net of all returns, would be approximately -$16,000,000. 1 PI O/1/85 Shortly before Griffin's IINA was to expire (February 20., 1990) , Mike Abdelmuti brought in a developer -(Stephen Cloobeck) as his-partner with a proposal that they develop Block 1 and G/RP develop Block 2 '-Staffinformally negotiated the terms of an ENA with both.developers;: providing-for the two of..-them to ;- collectively put together a development proposal=and -financing package, however, said .negotiations did not culminate into the execution of an ENA.- At this time, staff is requesting to prepare and issue a new RFP with specific development parameters to the Main-Pier Phase II property owners for the purpose of giving them another opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the project site. As indicated on the attached tentative Action Plan, staff will have analyzed, (in approximately ten (10) weeks) , all proposals submitted and bring back to ' the Agency either a recommendation to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the property owner(s) who have submitted a viable proposal or to request that the RFP process be opened up to all interested parties. ALTERNATIVE ACTICIS 1) Direct staff to issue the attached RFP to all property owners as well as to all interested developers. 2) Negotiate with the property owners for the rehabilitation of their existing buildings. FUNDING SOURCE Any associated costs will come out of the existing Redevelopment Appropriations. A-TDkCHMENTS: T. Tentative Action Plan MIU/BAK/KBB:lp f :a ACTT PLAN A MAIN--PIER PHASE U WEEK OF: September 4 Agency Study Session - Agency reviews; staff reccnunendations: 1) Issue RFP to property owners only 2) Issue RFP to public, if necessary 3) Elimination of Resolution No. 48 Agency Meetirw - Considers approval of Property Owner RFP Transmit Property Owners' RFP to property owners November 5 Deadline for RFPs (60-day response time) Staff review of Proposals) Meet with Agency Ccmunittee and developers for proposal presentations followed by questions and answers November 12 Meet with Agency Cc mnittee to review staff rec=T ended proposal/developer December 3 Achy Meetira - Agency considers approval of: . Staff reccamnerxled developer/proposal; . EN A, with approved property owner/developer (180 days to negotiate) ; or . Staff reccnmTndation that the RFP be issued to public (refer to Action Plan B) 1991• May 21 Planning Comnissicn Meeting - Commission considers approval of: . Certification of EIR . Conditional Use and Coastal Development Permits June 3 Agerxy Meeting - Agency considers approval of Disposition and Development Agreement ACTION PLAN B NI<J PIM PRASE II WEEK OF: December 3, 1990 Meetira - Agency considers approval of: 1) Staff reccmmenlation to issue RFPs to all interested developers; mail out RFPs to all interested developers 1991• March 4 Deadline for RFPs (90-day response time) March 11 Staff review of proposals March 18 Meet with Agency Committee and developers for proposal presentations followed by questions and answers March 25 Meet with Agency Committee to review staff recommended proposal/developer April 15 Amy Meetirw - Agency considers approval of: • Staff recur mended developer/proposal . E A with approved developer (180 days to negotiate) September 16 Plarmug Comisssion Meeting - Commission considers approval of: • Certification of EIR . Conditional Use and Coastal Development Permits October 7 &BMW Meetira - Agency considers approval of Disposition and Development Agreement