Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-RDA Item AGE~."'A ITEM INFORMATION SUM' \RY GENERAl.INFORMAnON: Subjec\ CL I~t= Q. ~e"L ~ ASSOC./ATE'5 Author A<1-W Ward I Project Area C C BudgetAuthoriIY. En 34~r Committ.. Fling Detes 1I/'i1/H9 II {-t!/K? CommiasionlCouncil /I M hr II/ZlJ /~7 CLEARANCES: Ve. HlA IIJ AacoIrIling ~D_, Meeting Dates Funding Requirements N /11 RDA MANAGEMENT REVIEW: ~~I ~~>> -- ~ 6' Date 'l-Zo-~ //-t9.P-N II J'to , CITY DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: Dale 8y ( DepL By DepL o o 6Q o [i] City Administrator Dale I.)..,JQ .}! RDA Committee recomm.ndBtlon INFORMATIONAL DATA FORWARDED TO CITY DEPARTMENTs/COUNCIL OFFICES: Sent to Mayor's Office Council Ward Council Ward Council Ward Council Ward Department Department By Date COMMENTS/CONCERNS: Include pertinent comments Ind concerns of offices Ind persons Clearing the IUmmary, such IS controversial Issues, time constraints Ind funding complications. Indicate dates when action must be taken. RDA -174 REV. 6-29-89# q Redevelopment Agency · City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street, Fourth Floor. San Bernardino, California 92418 (714) 384-5081 FAX (714) 888-9413 Pride ~ ~e~ JANUARY 4, 1989 CLIFF R. CAREL & ASSOCIATES - DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action: 12/20/82 Resolution 4432 authorized DDA. 03/03/83 Amendment; Resolution 4459. 05/07/84 Request for assistance in construction of storm drain; referred to Staff for review. 11/27/84 Approval, in concept, of Second Amendment. 02/04/85 Approved Resolution 4717 authorizing Second Amendment. 06/15/87 Received and filed briefing paper. 12/04/89 Community Development Commission continued the matter to 01/08/90. (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION) Recommended Motion: That the Commission table the matter. Respectfully Submitted, l ing Executive Director Supporting data attached: YES Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Project: CCE Commission Notes: RT:GW:sm:2596H Agenda of: January 8, 1989 Item No. Redevelopment Agency STAFF REPORT It is recommended that the Commission table the matter pending further negotiations regarding the opinion received from Agency Counsel as well as discussions held on January 3, 1990 with Cliff R. Carel & Associates. " " CITY OF SAN BE.RNARDINO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATT'ORNEY JAMES F. PENMAN City Attorney January 3, 1990 Opinion No. 90-1 10.39 TO: Robert J. Temple, Acting Executive Director RE: Design of Off-Site Improvements ISSUE On behalf of the Community Development Commission you have asked if Cliff R. Carel & Associates is responsible to engineer the removal of the Third Street Bridge under the disposition and Development Agreement or if that is a responsibility of either the Agency or the City. CONCLUSION Normally the developer engineers required off-site improvements such as the Third Street Bridge, and there is nothing in the record on this project which would transfer that responsibility to the Agency or the City. ANALYSIS On February 2, 1983, the Agency and Cliff R. Carel & Associates entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") regarding the development of certain property within the City of San Bernardino, a portion of which fronts on Third Street near the fire station. This development was to consist of various multi-family housing units to be constructed in four phases. On March 4, 1983, the parties entered into a First Amendment to allow incremental payment to the developer as work progressed. On February 5th, 1985, the parties entered into a Second DAB/ses 1 CITY HALL 300 NORTH 'D' STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418 (714) 384-5355 "-, 4 . TO: Robert J. Temple, Acting Executive Director RE: Design of Off-Site Improvements Page 2 Amendment which revised the completion dates for the various phases, clarified that there are, in fact, five phases, provided for increased Agency participation and identified those remaining off-site improvements which would be reimbursable by the Agency. In addition the Second Amendment excused the nonperformance by the parties to that time. '" Other amendments were discussed and drafts prepared but no agreement reached. Portions of the project were completed but portions remain unfinished including phase IV. I also understand that by tacit agreement some of the development was delayed pending the completion of the City's new General Plan. Although neither the DDA or either of the Amendments mention the removal of the Third Street bridge, it is anticipated that such removal will be imposed as a condition of development since to appropriately develop the site ingress and egress will be required at the bridge location. On at least one occasion, when discussions were held as to a further amendment of the DDA and the assignment of the remainder of the development to a new developer (Norsa, Inc.), the Agency discussed the possibility of its removing the bridge, but this was never incorporated into an actual agreement. Since the DDA and its amendments are silent as to the bridge there is also no discussion as to which party must engineer it. However the narrative attached to Exhibit 0 as adopted by the Second Amendment contains the following language relation to Phase IV: "Start of Off-Site construction is proposed to be on or near December 1, 1986; or 30 days after the City of San Bernardino approves plans and issues required permits, whichever comes first. Completion is projected to require not more than 3 weeks." (emphasis added) The implication, of course, is that the City is to approve plans and not prepare them. The general practice is that when off-site public improvements are required of a developer, he will prepare the plans to City specifications and have them reviewed and approved by the City prior to actual construction. Certainly circumstances could exist due to the complexity of a project or its relation to other pending city projects that the City would DAB/ses 2 TO: Robert J. Temple, Acting Executive Director RE: Design of Off-Site Improvements Page 3 rather do the engineering itself. In conversations with the City Engineer I am advised that this is a relatively simple project and that there is no reason that the City would desire to do the work itself. " " Respectfully Submitted, ~~J Sr. Asst. City Attorney Concur: JAMES F. PENMAN t ) ~7~ ~ty Attorney CC: W.R. HOlcomb, Mayor Marshall Julian, City Administrator Council Members Shauna Clark, City Clerk Craig Graves, City Treasurer AS/ses 3