AHA2006/03/07
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING
March 7, 2006
The Anaheim Housing Authority met in regular session.
PRESENT: Chairman Curt Pringle, Authority Members: Richard Chavez, Lorri Galloway, Bob
Hernandez and Harry Sidhu
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager David Morgan, City Attorney Jack White, and City Clerk Sheryll
Schroeder.
A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority was posted on March 3,
2006 at the City Hall outside bulletin board.
Chairman Pringle called the regular meeting to order at 5:50 P.M. in the Council Chambers of
Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS: No comments offered during the joint Council/Redevelopment
Agency/Housing Authority public comment session related to the Anaheim Housing Authority.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Authority member Sidhu removed Item NO.5 for further discussion. Authority Member
Hernandez moved to approve the balance of the consent calendar, seconded by Authority
Member Chavez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Chairman Pringle, Authority Members: Chavez,
Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - O. Motion carried.
6. Approve acceptance of the grant and authorize the Executive Director, or her
AHA designee, to implement a program to provide homeownership counseling to Section 8
clients.
7. Approve the Housing Authority meeting minutes of December 6,2005.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR:
5. Approve and authorize the Executive Director to execute i) an Exclusive Negotiation
3963 Agreement between the Anaheim Housing Authority and Jamboree Housing Corporation,
3964 ii) the Options to Lease between the Anaheim Housing Authority and Jamboree Housing
3517 Corporation, iii) the Amended and Restated Cooperation Agreement between the
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, the Anaheim Housing Authority and the City of
Anaheim to allow for the development of affordable housing sites and iv) the preliminary
site plans. (Refer to Redevelopment Agency Item #2 and City Council Item #25.)
ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES
March 7, 2006
Page 2
Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, reported staff recommended entering into an
exclusive right to negotiate with Jamboree Housing Corporation. She stated the Housing
Authority had issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in July 2005 for the three sites acquired as
part of remnant parcels from the freeway widening. Over 300 developers were notified, two
workshops were held prior to developers submitting proposals and nine proposals were received.
Of those, four developers were chosen as the most qualified and invited to be interviewed by a
panel consisting of staff and consultants; Ms. Stipkovich did not participate as a panelist. As a
result of those interviews and the proposals submitted, Ms. Stipkovich stated staff had
recommended entering into an exclusive right to negotiate with Jamboree Housing for all three
sites. She added Council was also being asked to approve an option to lease on two properties
to give the developer an opportunity to submit for the March round of tax credits. Lastly, she
indicated Council would be approving very preliminary site plans needed for the tax credit
application. Specific details worked out in the final site plans would return to Housing Authority
for approval as well as any final lease agreement or disposition and development agreement.
Authority Member Sidhu questioned whether the three parcels should be discussed separately or
must be taken as a whole relating his question to the exclusive negotiation recommendation and;
the City Attorney responded the matter could be discussed as a whole or as three separate items
even though one of the sites contained conditions. He added it was not uncommon to have
several conditions on a property before culmination of an agreement.
Authority Member Sidhu asked for background on the decision to select Jamboree Housing
Corporation. Ms. Stipkovich responded the panel had interviewed and reviewed four developers
and ranked Jamboree the as having the best economics and requiring no additional subsidy from
the City. She added Jamboree also had the least amount of debt being placed on the property
which translated to higher rent for the Housing Authority and in addition, staff believed
Jamboree's site planning and type of project proposed was better than the other offers. Authority
Member Sidhu indicated he had reviewed the projects carefully and expressed his concern that
some of the developers were offering underground parking which he believed was less costly to
construct and were also providing other amenities. Ms. Stipkovich indicated the underground
parking had been reviewed with the developer proposing two levels of subterranean parking
which was extremely expensive and had a much higher debt service which would mean lower
rent to the Authority without more units. Authority Member Sidhu felt there would be blight and
security issues with parking above grade compared to below grade and that the site would lend
itself to more landscaping. He also indicated other developers had offered larger unit sizes
compared to the Jamboree proposal. Ms. Stipkovich indicated the Jamboree proposal was off by
2 or 3 bedroom units but she believed that would be changed in order to get the maximum State
tax credits. Authority Member Sidhu asked if there was any reason for Jamboree to do all three
projects and that he had recalled discussion of last year to bring in profit and non-profit groups
and open up the doors of the City to all developers. Ms. Stipkovich responded each site was
looked at separately and if it was felt that one developer had a better proposal on one of the sites,
staff would have recommended another developer. She added looking at the economics, the site
planning, and the amount of affordability, staff believed Jamboree's proposal was best. She
added it was also more efficient dealing with one developer, one set of attorneys and one set of
consultants but emphasized if staff had thought there were better proposals on the other sites,
they would have recommended differently.
Chairman Pringle asked if the RFP contained language that a developer could respond to one
site rather than offer proposals on all three sites. Ms. Stipkovich indicated it was clear there was
no requirement to respond to all of the properties in the RFP.
~
ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY MINUTES
March 7, 2006
Page 3
Authority Member Chavez asked what would happen if Jamboree did not receive the tax credits
for the project. Ms. Stipkovich stated she was recommending the negotiation agreement go
through the next round of tax credits in July to give Jamboree a better opportunity to receive
credits. She stated if tax credits were not awarded, staff would regroup and return to the Housing
Authority with another recommendation or to consider other alternatives.
Authority Member Hernandez moved to approve Item No.5, seconded by Authority member
Chavez. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Chairman Pringle, Authority Members: Chavez, Galloway,
Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - O. Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 6:10 P.M, with no further business, Chairman Pringle adjourned the Anaheim Housing
Auth~.Pity .
/ . ! i ./ ',-
"'-~~ ~~- <.,..... -
Sheryll Schroeder, CMC
Secretary t Anaheim Housing Authority
. 1