Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> ���-3 <br /> is a strong candidate who has demonstrated the ability to create affordable housing and to <br /> create a land use mix that accommodates both for-sale and rental housing. <br /> FCH has discussed the site with staff several times over the past two years. It was the <br /> T partnering with Habitat that enabled them to develop a concept that integrated for-sale housing <br /> with rental units on the site, in accordance with City wishes. During this time perioc!, other <br /> developers, namely Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAF�) and Core Develo��ment <br /> Corporation also discussed plans for the site but determined the pr�ject mix of ownership and <br /> rental housing was not feasible. Very recently, another developer expressed interest, but was <br /> waiting for the RFP to be issued in order to submit a proposal. <br /> Staff and Keyser Marston Associates met with FCH to review the economic issues related to an <br /> ERN. Issues related to density, parking requirements, the inclusion of efficiency units, tile retail <br /> component, high construction costs and the City/Agency processes were discussed. FCH is in <br /> the process of revising the proposal based upon the discussion. <br /> Request for Proposals <br /> During the past year a number of developers have expressed interest in developing the site. It <br /> is one of the few vacant sites available. If desired, the Agency can issue a request for proposal <br /> (RFP) to ensure that all interested developers have the opportunity to submit a proposal on the <br /> site. FCH will have the ability to submit a proposal as well and compete with other developers <br /> at that time. The RFP would request developer qualifications, project description, development <br /> time frames, preliminary designs and site plan, key tenant commitments, if any, and financing <br /> capacity and funding requirements. <br /> If the Council wanted all or a higher percentage of ownership units vs. rental units, then it could <br /> be specific in the RFP and we would find out if anyone is prepared to build a project with a <br /> different mix. <br /> Should the Agency decide to issue an RFP, the timeframe for the process to select a developer <br /> is approximately three to fo�r months. This time frame allows up to three weeks to prepare the <br /> RFP; two weeks for public noticing requirements; one month for the acceptance of proposals; <br /> two weeks to one month to interview and recommend a developer; and, fwo weeks to one <br /> month for the Redevelopment Agency Board consideration. <br /> The RFP process provides the City the opportunity to review several proposals that meet City <br /> policies and objectives. It would also provide for comparisons of the range of subsidy, if any, <br /> that may be required to make the project a reality. Some assurance would be provided that the <br /> proposal selected was competitive. The disadvantage of issuing an RFP, however, is the four <br /> months of lag time for the process. While it is very likely that other developers will express <br /> interest in developing this site, it is unknown whether they will be able to offer a competitive <br /> proposal. <br /> Replacement Housing Requirements <br /> The purchase of this site included federal funds from both the CDBG and HOME programs, as <br /> well as redevelopment housing set-aside funds. The City/Agency demolished four low-income <br /> units when it cleared the site, triggering a federal requirement to replace the units one-for-one <br /> �" within three years from the date of demolition. Additionally, under the HOME program, the new <br /> units should be constructed within five years from the date funding is committed to the project. <br /> As was done with the Rolison Road site, the City can discuss the situation with HUD and <br />