HomeMy WebLinkAboutRS03-Redevelopment Agency
.
. IiEl('VELOPMENT AQ&NCY-RLMEST FOR ""-ISSION/COUNCIL Ac:)ON
From: Glenda Saul, Executive Director
t: Redevelopment Agency
Subject: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY -
:n=zRIIlt'2!:Z:l:sUI;=mm:J:Si:J:D~Rf'H=--
ltlU:V=Sffl'=-- AR.ROWHEAD SPRINGS RANCH
~: December 12, 1985
Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council 1Cti0n:
12/2/85 Approved Resolutions 85-500 and 85-501 inducement resolutions continued
approval of Cooperative Agreement with County to December 5, 1985.
12/5/85 Request to approve Cooperative Agreement with the County for the issuance
of Multifamily Bonds for the International Christian Graduate University
continued to 4:00 p.m., December 16, 1985.
Recommended motion: (MAYOR AND (XIH)H COUNCIL)
A. Adopt revised resolution and agreement
".
(
\...
or
ARRmo/HEAD SPRINGS RANCH /for City
Deny request of 11ll;e_Usaal ~ittl4e& Cullll&te-V&1-_1-&1- to enter into
a Cooperative Agreement with the County of San Bernardino for the issuance
of Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds. .
(Staff is still reviewing this request and will make its recommendation on
Monday, December 16, 1985.
B.
If -A- is adopted -- Move that all future appliCations for multifamily II d
n uce-
financing provide for an updated market study of the time of ~~"..~~1_ t
men
in order that Council can be assured that market will be able to
reasonably absorb units proposed. ~ ~ ~ ./
AGENCY TO HAVE 1JPDATE STIlDY PERFORl'lIm ., S' ".-l
AT COST OF APPLICANT Ignature
Contact penon:
Glenda Saul
Phone:
383.5081
4th & County
Supporting data sttached:
YES
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $
NIA
Ward:
Project: H/ A
No adverse Impact on City:
Date:
December 16, 1985
Council No~s:
Agenda Item NO~- 5 .:. .3
.'
(,
.
Below is a recap of the project:
Hame of Developer:
Principals:
Project:
Construction Schedule:
Rental Schedule:
".....
"-
:)
':>
Arrowhead Springs Ranch, a partnership
Steven Douglas, Csapus eruaade for Christ lnt'l
Warner Hodgdon, Project MaDa&er
Approxiutely 1,900 acres - construction of 5,000
apartMnt units
Start -- January 1987
Complete -- Dec_ber, 1990
Studio, 500 units,
1 bedroom, 1 bath,
2 bedroom, 2 bath,
3 bedroom, 2 bath,
$325/11011th
1,250 units, $450/month
2,750 units, $550/aonth
500 units, $600/aonth
o
SUMMARY OF MARKET DEMAND AND suO CONDITiONS FOR APART(") UNliS
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY'S EAST VALLEY MARKET REGiON
(Source, Empire Economics, Joseph Janczyk Ph.D.)
o
;;;;;;;;;====================================================================================================================
Ii il II i
II I i MAXIMUM II SOURCES OF SUPPLY I SCENARIO A I SCENARIO B I SCENARIO C I SCENARIO D
Ii YEAR II MARKET 11-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[
i i I I DEMAND I I Permits/Financed.. ... I Yes I Yes I Yes I Yes I
i I II FOR i I Financed Pr i vate 1 y.. . I No Excess 1 Yes Excess i Yes Excess I Yes T ota 1 Excess I
Iii i APARTMENTS II Induced by County.... I No Supp ly 1 No Supp ly I Yes Supp ly I Yes Supp 1y Supply I
II II II Arrowhead Springs....1 No I No I No i Yes i
1[---------1 [------------1 1----------------------1--------------------------------------------------------------------------1
II II [I I I Iii
II 1985 II 1,149 II 12,635 1.486 i 2.922 1.113 I 3.922 2,113 I 3,922 2,173 I
II 1986 II 1,260 II 12,958 3,184 I 3.273 3,186 I 4,273 5.786 I 4.273 5,786 i
II 1967 II 1.370 II I 1.814 I 342 2,75911,342 5,759 I 660 2.002 6,419 i
i[ 1988 II 1.472 II I 342 I 368 1,65511,368 5.655 I 945 2.313 7.260 I
II 1989 II 1,51311 I 0 I 378 520 11,378 5,52011,0852.463 8,210 i
Ii 1990 II 1,518 II i 0 I 319 011,319 5.382 I 2.310 3.689 10.382 I
II 1991 II 1.523 II I 0 I 381 0 i 1.381 5,240 I 1.381 10.240 I
II 1992 I[ 1.528 II I 0 I 382 0 I 1.382 5.094 I 1,382 10.094 i
II II II I I Iii
II II II I I I I
II Total II 11,332 II I 5,593 I 8.426 116.426 I 5.000
II Ii II I I I I
II II II Iii I
II Notes... I I i I I 2.3 I 4 1 5 I 6,1
II I I II I L I i
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPLANATION OF NOTES,
1. To adjust the multi-familty statistics for condos and small apartment
projects, a factor of 70% was applied to the projected demand for
multi-family units.
2. The Market Supply for 1985 represents buildin9 permits for large
apartment complexes during the January to August 1985 time period.
3. The Market Supply for 1986 represents the units in projects that
have been or will soon be financed but have not yet obtained their
building permits.
4. The proportion of the market demand that ;s expected to be financed
by private sources ( excluding the bond program) is 25%.
5. This represents the units that have been induced but not yet
financed.
Total Units Induced....................
Induced Units Financed.. ..(Oec 1985)...
Remaining Induced Units...............
Probable Attrition Rate.. ...... .... ....
Net Units.....(1961 - 1990)...........
I~et Units.....(Annual1y)..............
12,321
4,157
8.164
50%
4.082
1,020
6. This is taken from the Market Oemand Study by Parnell. Kerr,
and Foster, Table 22 on Page VI-9.
7. This is the Market Supply including Arrowhead Springs.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________!~_llJfJ-~~------------.
c; :L/lft / f'J ./
o
o
1!1
ACCREDITED
<MO_.OO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"
SAN BERNARDINO AREA CUAMBER OF COMMERCE
546 W. 6TH ST. . P,O. BOX 658. SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92402. (714) 885-7515
POSITION STATEMENT
The San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce supports the request for
the San Bernardino City Council to pass on the Campus Crusade for
Christ proposal for a 5000-dwelling apartment complex at Waterman
Canyon. Specifically the Chamber is requesting the City Council
to go ahead with the letter of inducement that will start the pro-
cess for the issue of $350 million in tax exempt bonds to finance
the project. We agree that there are still a number of unanswered
questions. However, most if not all of those questions will be
answered when the project is allowed to begin and a complete
environmental impact study is completed. That process will answer
or allow time to mitigate most concerns - or even to back away
from the project.
,
We believe it is not in the City's best interest to delay the plan
based upon questions and concerns that are impossible to address
without the appropriate studies.
CCAPT
"PRIDE THROUGH UNITY"
CI'C OF SAN BERNARD(::O - REQUOT FOR COUNCIL AcCON
-.
"-'
c
c
75-0264
STAFF REPORT
On December 2, 1985, the Mayor and Common Council approved two inducement
resolutions for Industrial Development Bonds for International Christian
Graduate University. The Council continued action on the Cooperative Agreement
with the county to December 5, 1985. On December 5, 1985, the item was
continued to December 16, 1985, at 4:00 p.m.
The City Administrator was directed to prepare a summary of potential impact to
the City if this project as presented was induced and developed. Attached is
Mr. Matzer's report as well as a memorandum from Agency Counsel addressing
several legal questions. Mr. Briggs has also revised the resolution and form of
agreement.
The project itself contains approximately 1,900 acres - 5,000 multifamily units
are to be constructed, approximately 1,000 will be within the City limits. The
developer anticipates 2,500 being constructed by 1990 and the balance being
built by 1992.
Staff's concern, like that shared by the Council, is the potential overflooding
of the market with multifamily units.
As addressed in the County's report, the County has 7,800 units induced for the
East Valley area. Attached is a summary of our multifamily applicants.
As you can see, 5,378 units have been induced during the two year period 1984-85
of these four issues have closed representing 1,140 units. These units are
currently under construction, some have been complete. Staff anticipates four
additional projects closing the first quarter of 1986, representing an
additional 1,168 units. In summary, approximately 2,308 units should be
available for occupancy before the end of 1986.
There are four issues representing 595 senior citizen's units. Staff believes
two of these issues (342 units) could close in early 1986.
It looks unlikely to staff that the balance of the issues (2,475 units) will be
able to close in the near future. There is always a possibility that they could
close later in 1986 if the state cap for multifamily issues has not been reached.
We have been notified tht the Rostenkowski tax reform bill has not passed. It
is our understanding now, that all multifamily issues will be subject to the
State Cap. The proposed cap for 1986 is $1.5 billion.
All local government, Redevelopment and Housing Authority multifamily issues
will be subject to this same cap. During 1985 only local government
multifamily issues were under this cap. Redevelopment Agencies and Housing
Authorities had no cap.
0182G/SL
12-16-85
CI't': OF SAN BERNARD~ - REQUOT FOR COUNCIL AC:)ON
c
c
c
75.0264
STAFF REPORT
In light of the defeat of this tax reform bill, staff sees no urgency in the
approval of the International Christian Graduate Housing Program. The bonds
will not need to be sold this year.
Empire Economics is currently updating their Multifamily Market Need Report.
Dr. JaRCzyk will be available on December 16, 1985, to address his revised data.
Staff recommends that if the Council approves the Cooperation Agreement with the
county for this issue, a requirement be placed on each new issue, concurrently
with the TEFRA hearing, for an update to Empire Economics Market Study to assure
Council that the market will be able to absorb the units proposed.
Attached is a resolution deli~ered to the office from Economic Develonment
Council for your review.
0182G/SL
12-16-85
c
o
o
J
c
018~/SL
12-16-85
C.'
c
c
o
" \)t THE el,;
,~<;,j r'-~"
N 0 <$" e.,. ,!~
't' nLL ". \
"- -..t-J
<:
.... n-~ 1 .
:E :_- ,~j 1"'-':"'.5
0.- '-...
'3
~
~
<?&i
C I T Y
o F SAN B ERN A R D I
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
. 8512-410
<lk
~
C'
l"
~~
s.:
""
",.
;;;:
,~
. ;\'\~~
'.
," .__.__....-.,;;_._-_.._----_.._-_..._--~-------_...._------------_...._--....-..----. .... ..,
c
c
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and Common Council
John Katzer, Jr., City Administrator~
Impact of Campus Crusade Development
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
December 9, 1985
(6553)
COPIES:
Following is a summary of departmental comments on the poten-
tial impact of the Campus Crusade development. The comments
are based on very limited information since nothing in
writing has been submitted to the various department outlin-
ing the specifics of the proposed development.
POLICE
The Police Department estimates that the development would
have a significant impact on the delivery of police services.
The high density complex would cause higher related traffic
problems and an increase in calls for service.
In maintaining the base ratio of officers per 1,000 to which
the City currently subscribes, it will require an increase of
approximately of 11 additional officers. This factor is
based on the entire development project being annexed to the
City of San Bernardino. In addition to the sworn officers,
the needed equipment and support personnel will increase the
cost accordingly. The department estimates a cost of
approximately $500,000. Once the department receives
information relative to demographics, street configurations
and the precise jurisdictional boundaries, it will be able to
develop a more specific impact analysis.
llBE.
The property being developed is in the 8first in8 district of
City Fire Station 17. At this time, 20' of the property is
in the City limits. Unless the property is annexed, the
County Fire Department will have responsibility for approxi-
mately . 80' of the area. In either case, the City Fire
Department will be impacted. The County Fire Department does
not have an aerial ladder truck and they'do not provide
paramedic service. The City currently sends an engine
c.
o
o
:)
c
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM:
Impact of Campus Crusade
December 9, 1985
Page 2
8512-410
Development
company and an aerial ladder truck to reported structure
fires at the Campus Crusade Hotel.
The Fire Department has prepared impact estimates based on
the City providing fire and medical protection for the entire
project. The estimated population of the project will be
about 12,000 people. This year, the Fire Department will
respond to one emergency call per eleven people in the City.
Assuming that this will hold true in the project, emergency
calls will increase by slightly. more. than .1,000. . per. year.
One or two units resp6ndto medical aid calls and one to
seven units respond to fires depending on the type of call.
The average is two and one-half units per call. The total
increase of unit runs would, therefore, be about 3,00.0 per
year. This means that Engine .7 will be dispatched to three
more calls per day than is current and the unit runs for the
department will increase by more than seven. Response time
for Engine'7 to the Campus Crusade Hotel is now seven
minutes.
c
One gauge that is used in studying fire station location and
associated response times is the number of times an engine is
requested but is not in the station. When this happens the
next closest engine, that is in service, is dispatched.
Response time is usually doubled. A long response time
decreases the chance of controlling a fire while still in the
incipient stage and lessens the chance of successful advance
life support on a pulseless, non-breathing patient.
The population of the project is more than the average
population protected by each fire company today and will
definitely accelerate the need for another station in the
northwest section of the City. An alternative of a
paramedic squad or a two person attack unit at Station .7
would carry the majority of the medical calls leaving the
engine available for fire calls.
More detailed information on water supply, vehicular access
and demographics will aid in making more accurate projections
on fire and medical protection requirements. If it is then
determined that a two-person unit is needed to maintain
adequate fire and medical coverage in the northern section of
the City, the financial impact would be about $275,000 per
year for personnel.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
c
In the area of traffic, the Public
estimated that each mUlti-family unit
Works Department has
generates up to eight
C.,
c
c
c
o
:)
o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8512-410
Impact of Campus Crusade Development
December 9, 1985
page 3
trips per day. A total of 40,000 additional trips per day
could be imposed upon Waterman Avenue by the development.
Waterman Avenue presently has an average daily traffic volume
of 15,000 vehicles. The maximum traffic capacity is 30-
35,000 vehicles per day.
The Planning Department has not received any type of informa-
tion which would identify the area proposed for development.
The planning Director has had an opportunity to discuss the
development with Mr. Hodgdon and to look at the various sites
proposed for development. Without any type of graphic or
display, it is difficult to discuss the impacts which would
be brought about by the proposed development.
c.
o
o
.:)
c
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8512-410
Impact of Campus Crusade Development
December 9, 1985
Page 4
The Planning Department indicates that the project is located
in an area which has been identified as high fire hazard area
and is within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Area. The
proposed site is also located within a flood plain and the
high wind hazard area. Any development within this area
would require, at a maximum,:
An environmental impact report or a
environmental impact report.
2. A revision to the Comprehensive General Plan.
1.
focused
c
3. Zoning to implement the Comprehensive General Plan.
The department anticipates that the preparation of an
environmental impact report for the project could cost
approximately $75,000 to $100,000 and would have to be
prepared by an outside consultant, monitored by the Planning
staff. This would create significant staffing demands on the
department for a minimum of one year and, if the project is
approved and development proceeds, for the next four to five
years.
RDBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Public Services Department estimates that if the entire
project falls within the incorporated limits of the City and
the City accepts dedicated rights-of-way, the Public Services
Department would have responsibility for street maintenance,
easements, trees, sidewalks, sanitary sewer lines, storm
drains, refuse collection and street sweeping. Specific
staffing needs and cost estimates relating to these services
can be prepared once information is provided on the specific
configuration of the development's layout including the miles
of streets.
)WILDING AND SAFETY
The Building and Safety Department pointed out that the San
Andreas Fault runs through the property and that the area is
a high wind and fire area so that buildings would have to be
designed to compensate for these elements. On a short term
basis, the department estimates that plan checking, building
inspection and record keeping would require four personnel
with associated equipment.
c
c
o
o
::)
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: B512-410
Impact of Campus Crusade Development
December 9, 1985
<:: Page 5
nnEVELOPMENT AGEHcr
The Redevelopment Agency indicates that until they receive
additional information, they are unable to estimate the
impact of the development. The Agency is preparing an Agenda
Item for the December 16 meeting and will include staff
comments and concern in the staff report for that meeting.
JMlmd
c
c
CITY OF SAN BEt:NARDIN(b - MEMORANDlOJI
Campus Crusade Multifamily Bond Issue
From Allen fl. Briggs
Sr. Asst. City Attorne
Date
December 9, 1985
To
CSUbjeCI
Steve Marks
Councilman, Fourth Ward
Approved
Date 13.3975
c
In our recent telephone discussions, you raised several issues
which you asked that I address prior to Council action upon
the Campus Crusade for Christ International's multifamily bond
issuance request.
ARBITRAGE: Arbitrage matters are controlled by the Internal
Revenue Code, highly detailed regulations, and a number of
rulings by the Internal Revenue Service interpreting the
statute and regulations. Because of the intricacy of this
issue, I consulted bond counsel Timothy Sabo, who advises that
in this matter, the arbitrage question is of primary concern
to tbe issuing agency (County Housing Authority), the
developer and tbe underwriter, since violation of tbe
arbitrage rulings could cause the bonds to be declared not tax
exempt. Even tbough tbe City itself would not be at risk, Mr.
Sabo outlined tbe issues as being primarily one of whetberthe
development is being pursued in utmost good faitb, and whether
there is a realistic expectation that the project will
actually be built. Indicative of good faith and supportive of
a realistic expectation, or lack thereof, are such matters as
whether the property is owned by the developer1 whether the
developer has requisite plans, development and site approvals1
whether the developer has construction financing lined up
and/or in place1 and the extent of risk to which the Developer
is subjected, e.g., whether all costs of tbe development will
be borne out of bond proceeds, and whetber the developer will
be .at risk- if the development doesn't go tbrough, or if the
developer will bave recaptured all expenses and the like. Mr.
Sabo indicates tbat tbe Developer must bave been substantially
at risk in most cases to pass the arbitrage test. Based on
tbe sketcby information available at tbis point, Mr. Sabo
would not hazard an opinion as to whetber tbe arbitrage
question is of significance in this case. The covenants
promised by Mr. Hodgdon tbat all arbitrage .profits. would go
to tbe County Housing Autbority could ease some concerns, but
also raises issues such as what .expenses. will be allowed to
be paid from interest earned on bond moneys invested before a
determination is made of a profit.
ANNEXATION: Annexation could be made a condition precedent
to the City's agreeing to support tbe program, or could insist
on annexation first. If the area is legally uninbabited (less
tban twelve registered voters), tbe consent of 100\ of the
property owners would make annexation a relatively easy
process. Lou Little, tbe City'S Real Property Engineer, made
c
el'Y Oil '.'MOn
c
o
o
c
Steve Marks
Decembe'r 9, 1985
Page Two
c
a preliminary check with the County Registrar of Voters, and
has been advised that 34 registered voters are on the rolls,
apparently all in the area contemplated for development,
though we have no definitive map as of yet. Whether all of
those persons are still residing there is not presently known.
If twelve or more registered voters are still living in the
area proposed for annexation, they could block any annexation
attempt. If time permits, it might be advisable to insist.
. upon annexation first.
SPECIFIC PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT: The City could, if it chose,
insert in the cooperative agreement with the County the
requirement that before bond proceeds are released from
escrow, the Developer must bave completed a full fledged
specific plan for development. Tbis presumes tbe County would
agree to such a provision in tbe cooperative agreement.
KEEPING PROPERTY ON TAX ROLLS: The City could, if it cbose,
approve tbe cooperative agreement witb a condition precedent
to its delivery being tbat tbe property owners must file witb
the City a covenant running with the land pledging to keep the
property on the tax rolls tbroughout the useful life of tbe
improvements being financed. We believe such a covenant would
be viable and supportable against challenge. Even though Mr.
Hodgdon alleges the property would in any event be on the tax
rolls, the City could not be assured of this without a
covenant because the property could at any time after the
bonds are paid off be converted to a .charitable. tax exempt
use.
AVAILABILITY TO PUBLIC WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION: The City
could, if it chose, include in the resolution approving the
cooperative agreement a condition tbat tbe agreement would not
be executed and delivered unless the developer first delivers
to the City a covenant running witb tbe land obligating tbe
Developer and any successors in interest to keep the property
available for rental by the public at large and without
discrimination in occupancy for tbe estimated useful life of
tbe improvements to be financed by tbe bond issue. If
voluntarily delivered by all owners of tbe land affected, we
believe the covenant would be enforceable.
c
CITY'S BOND ISSUANCE FEE: The l' fee charged by tbe City on
revenue bond ,issues is customarily collected at tbe time tbe
bonds are sold. Mr. Hodgdon requested tbat tbe fee not be
payable until tbe escrow is broken, i.e., after tbe developer
bas everything lined up and is ready to start construction,
and desires to draw upon tbe proceeds of tbe bond issue.
Council must determine wbetber tbe payment of sucb fee sbould
c
c
o
~
c
Steve Marks
DecembeT 9, 19B5
Page Three
c
be so delayed. (The two Christian University inducement
resolutions clearly specify that the l' fee shall be payable
.upon breaching of the escrow., which, for those issues,
should not be delayed the two years or more contemplated for
the multifamily housing issue. Mr. Hodgdon's attorney, Don
Hunt, advises us no escrow may be needed at all for those two
issues.)
CONSULT~NTFEES: Since the County Housing Authority would be
the issuing authority, the City would have no control over
consultant, management or other fees which might be chargeable
against the bond proceeds1 however, the City could express its
concerns to the County Housing Authority, it it chose, or
suggest any appropriate limitations. Presumably, the City
could specify such matters in the cooperative agreement, but
this might be offensive to the County.
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE: Tbe City could, if it cbose, so
condition its approval of tbe cooperative agreement as to
require a firm development scbedule, and perbaps insert in the
cooperative agreement that presentation of sucb a development
schedule would be a requirement which must be satisfied before
issuance of the bonds1 other protections could be built in to
assure that if development did not proceed in accordance with
the schedule, any bond proceeds not yet paid over to the
developer could be used to payoff outstanding bonds following
a determination of default.
c
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: Since this would be a County project
primarily, at least initially, environmental impact
responsibilities should be borne by tbe County. The
cooperative agreement can be amended to include a specific
undertaking by County officials recognizing tbat
responsibility. There is a possibility tbat mere issuance of
the bonds might trigger CEQA responsibilities, and tbat sbould
be the County's responsibility unless annexation occurs first.
We believe Bond Counsel should be asked to specifically
address tbe issue as to whether issuance of bonds, standing
alone, is a .project. requiring environmental review under
CEQA. Mr. Sabo indicated informally to Mr. Prince that there
is a possibility that such could be required, but research
would be necessary to determine if any exemption exists. In
any event, compliance with environmental review provisions
should be clearly mandated, but, at least for that part of the
project outside tbe City, the City bas no responsibility until
it is asked to approve any particular development.
CHURCH-STATE ISSUE: Despite the assurances of Mr. Hodgdon's
attorney, this office bas not yet been furnished with the
c
o
o
:>
c
Steve Marks
December 9, 1985
Page Four
,
c
definitive information and briefs on the issue of church-state
involvement which were promised at the December 2 Council
meeting. Nonetheless, with the covenants which could be built
in to the documents relating to non-discrimination if the
Council so desires, the Council would be assured that the
multifamily housing project would not be for sectarian
purposes, and would thus no church-state issue would arise.
(That issue must still be fully addressed in the Christian
University matters, however, before.we procee~ much furthe~
toward issuance of those bonds.)
TIME CRUNCH: The developer bas stressed the urgency of not
only having this issue 8induced,8 but actually issued and sold
before tbe end of 1985, based, he claims, on the premise that
the so-called 8Rostenkowski8 tax reform bill would require
that all multifamily bonds issued after December 31, 1985,
will be subject to the state .cap,. and that this would make
the proposed $350 million issue almost impossible. The
Rostenkowski bill has been reported out by the Bouse Ways and
Means Committee, and is due to be considered by the entire
Bouse of Representatives during the coming week (December 9-
13). The President has announced suppor~ for both the
Rostenkowski bill and the Republican measure offered as a
substitute, but the 8lukewarm8 nature of the President's
support appears likely to result in no tax reform measure
passing in the Bouse of Representatives, let alone being
enacted into law in the foreseeable future. The risk of delay
thus appears to be extremely minimal.
A form of revised resolution and cooperative agreement to
accomplish most of these purposes has been drafted and is
attached.
~!:1:r
Sr. Asst. City Attorney
ARB:nb
Attach.
c
cc: Mayor
City Administrator
Redevelopment Agency
c
C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
W
21
~
23
24
25
26
,
c
c
~
o
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF ~HE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A ROUSING
FINANCE REVENUE BOND PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH THE HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK ~O EXECUTE AND DELIVER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY, UPON SATISFACTION OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS, A COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
WHEREAS, there is a shortage in the County of San Bernardino
(the .County.) and in the City of San Bernardino (the .City.) of
aecent,'safe .and sanitar~ housing, particularly of bousing
affordable by persons in the lower end of the purchasing
spectrum, and a consequent need to encourage the construction of
bomes, affordable by sucb persons and otberwise to increase the
bousing supply in the County and in the City for such persons,
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority
of the County of San Bernardino (the .Authority.) has adopted its
resolution declaring its intent to engage in a housing finance
revenue bond program (the .program.) pursuant to Chapter 1, Part
2 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code of the
State of California (the .Act.) and to issue bonds pursuant to
the Act to provide funds for the Program, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County bas adopted
its resolution approving the financing of certain multifamily
bousing projects by means of the issuance of multifamily housing
revenue bonds by the Sousing Authority of the County of San
Bernardino, and
I
c
C.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
c
c
o
~
o
Revenue Bond Program and to consent to the operation of that
Program by tbe Authority within the geographic boundaries of tbe
city pursuant to tbe Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO:
SECTION 1. The cooperative Agreement between the Authority
and the City (tbe -Agreement-), a copy of which is attacbed, is
hereby approved, and .tbe Mayor and City Clerk are hereby
. .". . . .
authorized and directed to execute and deliver said Agreement,
for and in bebalf of tbe City, provided, bowever, tbat tbe Mayor
sball witbbold execution and delivery of said Agreement until
sucb time as tbe owner or owners of tbe property upon wbicb tbe
development is proposed sball deliver to tbe City, in form
approved by the City Attorney, eacb of the following documents:
A. An irrevocable consent to annexation of tbe property to
the City, duly executed by all parties baving an ownersbip
16
interest in such land, together with evidence that the number of
17
18 registered voters residing in tbe project area is less than
19
twelve (12), or tbat a majority of the registered voters residing
20 in the project area irrevocably consent to and vaive any rigbt to
21 object to tbe proposed annexation. A one bundred percent (100')
~ request of tbe property owners for annexation to tbe City of San
~ Bernardino sball be provided to City.
24 B. A definitive map of tbe project area providing
25 sufficient detail of parcels of land involved to enable City to
26 ascertain bow many .registered voters, if any, reside in such
27 project area.
28
2
(" .
",'
c
c
o
:>
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C. A covenant running with the land executed by all persons
having an interest in the land granting to the City of San
Bernardino assurance that the property involved shall remain on
the property tax rolls of the County of San Bernardino and
subject to the Obligation to pay property tazes for no less than
the estimated useful life of the development to be financed by
the proposed bond issue, which period of estimated useful life
shall not be fot less' than thirty (30~ y.e~rs after the time eacb
of the improvements contemplated bave in fact been made and
placed upon the tax rolls of the County of San Bernardino.
D. A covenant running with the land executed by all persons
owning an interest in the land and delivered to the City
guaranteeing that the improvements to the land shall be utilized,
throughout their estimated useful life, in such a manner as to
fully comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil
Code Section 51, et seg., and that such premises shall be
available throughout the period of such estimated useful life
without discrimination to all persons no matter what their sez,
race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin may be, and
that no right or privilege relating tbereto sball be conditioned
or affected by a person's sex, color, race, religion, ancestry or
national origin during tbat period.
~be Mayor, witb tbe advice and consent of tbe City Attorney,
is authorized to approve any additions to or changes in the form
of said Agreement which they deem necessary or advisable, their
25
approval of such additions or changes to be conclusively
C 26
evidenced by the ezecution by the Mayor of Baid Agreement as so
27
28 added to or changed. ~he Mayor, with the advice and consent of
3
c
C 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
II
12
13
C 14
15
16
17
18
19 of
20
21
c
o
:)
o
9
10
11
the City Attorney, is further authorized to enter into such
additional agreements with the Authority, execute such other
documents and take such other actions as they may deem necessary
or appropriate to carry out the purposes and intent of this
Agreement or to cooperate in the implementation of the program.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the
day of , 19__, by the following vote, to
wit:
Council Members
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
, 19__.
day
Mayor of the City of San Bernardino
22
Approved as to form:
23
24
25 City Attorney
26
27
28
4
c
c
c
-
'-'
I
I.
c
o
:)
1
2
3
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOUSING AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE
. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (This -Cooperative Agreement-) is
4 hereby made and entered into as of
, 1985, by
5 and between the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF SAN
6 BERNARDINO, a public corporation and body politic of the State of
7 California, (the -Authority-) and the CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a
8 municipal co.rporation loc'ated in .tbe County of San 'Bernardino
9 (the -City-).
10
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined to engage in a
11
12 multifamily rental housing mortgage finance program (the
13 -Program-) pursuant to Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 24 of the
Health and Safety Code of the State of California (the -Act-) to
l4
15 finance construction or mortgage loans for the development of
16 multifamily rental housing projects in the County of San
17 Bernardino, all as provided for in tbe Act: and
18 WHEREAS, the Authority has determined to borrow money to
19 finance the Program by the issuance of revenue bonds (tbe
20 -Bonds-) as authorized by the Act, and
21 WHEREAS, the City is willing to cooperate with the Authority
22 pursuant to its implementation of the Multifamily Rental Housing
23 Mortgage Pinance Program within the corporate boundaries of the
24 City, provided that (1) such cooperation and implementation shall
25 in no way limit tbe City's ability to exercise its own powers and
26 develop its own similar program on other sites, and (2) the City
27 shall retain all normal planning and building approval processes
28 and authority over the Authority program within tbe City's
corporate limits,
1
c.
o
o
:)
c
1 NOW, THEREPORE, in consideration of the ~utual covenants
2 hereinafter provided, the parties hereto agree as follows:
3 Section 1. The words and phrases of this Cooperative
4 Agreement shall, for all purposes hereof unless otherwise
5 defined, have the meaning assigned to such words and phrases in
6 the Act.
7 Section 2. The Authority agrees to use its best efforts to
8 undertake the Program and. iti"ssue .the Bonds therefore as soon as
9 the Authority determines the same to be necessary and advisable.
10 Section 3. The City represents that: (1) The City has
11 heretofore adopted a General Plan for the City which it believes
12 to be in conformance with the provisions of the Planning and
13 zoning Law of the State of California (Government Code Section
14 65000 et seq.), (II) said General Plan includes a Land Use
15 Element and a Housing Element as required by Government Code
16 Section 65302; and (III) the Program and Program Site do comply
17 with said Land Use Element and Housing Element.
18 Section 4. The City agrees that the Authority may make a
19 multifamily rental housing mortgage under the program, and that
20 the Authority may exercise any and all of its powers for the
c
21 purpose of financing a multifamily rental housing mortgage
22 pursuant to the act with respect to the following Project:
23 Developer pro;ect Location
24 Arrowhead Springs Arrowhead State Highway 18
25 Ranch, A California Springs Ranch and Old Waterman
Limited Partnership Canyon Road
26
C 27 Section 5. The City agrees to undertake such further
28 proceedings or actions as may be necessary in order to carry out
2
c
C J
2
3
4
5
6
i
8
9
JO
]]
c
c
o
.:>
o
he terros and the intent of this Cooperative Agreement; and the
ity further agrees to refrain from taking any action which
ould, to its knowledge, tend to adversely affect the rating on
he Bonds to be issued by the Authority pursuant hereto; provided
hat nothing in this Cooperative Agreement shall in any way or
anner be construed to restrain, or in any way limit, the
by the City of its Planning, Land Use, Building Permit,
authority, over any aspect of the Program herein
roposed.
Section 6. Nothing in this Cooperative Agreement shall
revent the Authority or the City from entering into one or more
12 agreements witb other political subdivisions within their
13 respective boundaries, if deemed necessary and advisable to do so
14 by the Autbority or tbe City, nor shall anything in tbis
15 Cooperative Agreement be construed as limiting the exercise by
J6 the Authority or the City of any of their respective applicable
]i powers or authorities.
]8 Section 7. The Autbority agrees that it will impose upon
]9 the developer, and arrange for transmittal to the City after
20 close of bond sale, tbe City's l' fee for bond issuance, less
2J 1/8th of l' to be retained by tbe Autbority, and will further
22 require of the developer, as a condition precedent to closing of
23 tbe bond sale, tbat the developer execute and deliver to City in
24 form suitable for recording the City's customary Covenant Running
25 with tbe Land, waiving any claim or right to density bonus as to
26 the property affected.
27 Section 8. Tbe Autbority agrees that it will bear full
28 responsibility for compliance with the requirements of the
':l
(-.
..,'
c
6
i
8
9
10
1J
12
13
C 14
15
c
o
~
o
1
2
3
4
5
alifornia Environmental Quality Act regarding this project,
nless and until that part of the property affected which is not
urrently within the corporate limits of the City is annexed to
he City. Authority further agrees that, before it approves
elease of the bond proceeds from escrow, a specific plan for
evelopment under state law or under San Bernardino Municipal
ode Chapter 19.79 shall have been completed on the project, and
11 iequ"irements of the st.ate I s environmental qual.lty law and
egulations shall have been fully complied with, or satisfactory
rrangements for such compliance aball bave been made to the
atisfaction of tbe Planning Director of tbe City of San
ernardino.
Section 9. Tbe Cooperative Agreement may be amended by one
r more supplemental agreements executed by the Authority and tbe
ity at any time, except that no such amendment or supplement
]6 hall be made which shall adversely affect the rights of holders
]i f the Bonds issued by the Authority in connection with the
]8 rogram.
19 Section 10. The term of this Cooperative Agreement shall
20 ommence on the date first above written and terminate at the end
21 f tbe origin period for mortgage loans under the loan for tbe
22 rogram.
23 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties bereto bave caused this
24 ooperative Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper
25 fficers thereunto duly authorized, and their Official Seals to
26 affixed, all as of the date first above written.
~ IIII IIII
28
4
(: 0 0 :)
1 CITY Of' SAN BERNARDINO HOUSING AUTHORITY Of' THE
C COUNTY Of' SAN BERNARDINO
2
3 By: By:
.. Mayor
5 ATTEST: ATTEST:
6
7 By: By:
8 City Clerk 'Clerk
9 Approved as to form:
10
11 By:
12 City Attorney
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c
c
5
c
c
c
c
o
:>
o
RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO RECOMMENDING
CERTAIN ACTIONS BY THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO IN CONNECTION
WITH THE ARROWHEAD SPRINGS RANCH PROJECT.
WHEREAS, Campus Crusade for Christ International has
submitted a request to the City of San Bernardino, the County
of San Bernardino, and the Housing Authority of the County
of San Bernardino requesting the issuance of multi-family
mortgage revenue bonds by the Housing Authority of the County
of San Bernardino in connection with the Arrowhead Springs
Ranch Project ("the Project"); and
WHEREAS, this Committee held a Special Meeting on
December 11, 1985, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed
project and its potential impact on the City and County of
San Bernardino; and
WHEREAS, financing of the Project at this time is necessary
due to the potential serious adverse impact on the Project of
pending federal tax legislation to be effective as of
December 31, 1985; and
WHEREAS, this Committee, after reviewing the Project,
has determined that the project could bring substantial
economic benefits to the City and County, as well as providing
a significant contribution for enhancing future economic
development of the City and County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by this Committee as follows:
1. This Committee hereby recommends that in order to
preserve the opportunity for the project to be completed and to
allow sufficient time for required governmental reviews and approvals
c
c
c
,-..
"'"
c
o
:>
of the Project the Mayor and Common Council adopt a resolution
approving the financing of the Arrowhead Springs Ranch project
by the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino and
requesting the issuance of up to $350,000,000 bonds by the
Authority.
2. This Committee further recommends that the Mayor
and Common Council adopt a minute order authorizing transmittal
of a request to the Board of Supervisors of the County of
San Bernardino to hold a TEFRA hearing on the project on
December 16, 1985, and to approve the project following such
hearing in order to enable the Housing Authority to proceed
with the issuance of the bonds.
3. This Committee further recommends that the Mayor
and Common Council proceed with annexation proceedings to
annex to the City the portion of the project currently
located outside the City in the County unincorporated area.
Approved and adopted this 11th day of December, 1985.
Ayes:
Bruce Varner
Gene Wood
Ron Skipper
Denny Shorett
Wesley Jefferson
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
None
Councilwoman Esther Estrada
Councilman Dan Frazier