08/19/1986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'. . Associates was so much lower than the other developers, Mr. Tancredi stated that he felt it was probably due to the fact that he would not to have to buy soil, which would cost approximately $6 per yard, to comply with the requirements for raising the site to meet the flood plain standards, adding that he would be constructing an apartment complex in September which would require excavation thus providing adequate soil for the La Bonita site. In response to reservations expressed by Agency Member Acosta regarding the fact that there was a unit mix which included two-bedroom units in the KSE proposal, the Project Manager stated that the RFP did not specify a unit mix but left that up to the developer. Mr. Acosta stated further that he did not feel that the two-bedroom units would be marketable in the La Bonita area. In response to further questions from Agency Member Acosta regarding the amenities listed on the scoring sheet, the Project Manager stated that the amenities were taken from the proposals which the developers had initially submitted. Agency Member McGuigan stated that, in her opinion, all three proposals were very good and that the Agency was fortunate to have them. She then moved that the Redevelopment Agency: 1. Certify KSE Development, CTNC Associates and Posilovich Enterprises as developers for the La Bonita site; and . Grant KSE Development a gO-day Exclusive Right to Negotiate for the residential development of the La Bonita site. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Johnson. 2. Agency Members McGuigan, Johnson and Young all expressed the opinion that the width of the streets was a most important issue because it would prevent the overcrowding of parked cars, and that the use of stucco for the exteriors of the homes was preferable because of lower maintenance costs. They also approved of the KSE proposal because it called for the closure of Kraft and Morningside Streets, adding that they felt the KSE Development proposal had a more pleasing streetscape because the garage doors were not so prominent. . Agency Member Acosta stated that he disagreed with some of the comments and that, based on his experience with construction activities in the area of development, he felt that buyers did not look at the width of the street before considering the amenities afforded inside the home, adding that people were impressed by the square footage of the rooms. He pointed out that the question of square footage was most important in the valuation of the investment made in a home. Agency Member Luxembourger stated that motion because of the wider streets he would support the and the more attractive 7 lJ