HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-11-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LEGAL (2)AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: November 12, 1996
City Manager
Item to be presented by:
George Caravalho
SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LEGAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT: Redevelopment Agency
Recently the City of Santa Clarita solicited requests for qualifications from firms experienced
in the area of redevelopment to provide special legal services. As a result of this request eight
proposals from qualified firms were received. Based on a review of the eight firms in relation
to the stated criteria presented in the request for qualifications, this listing was then reduced
to four for interview purposes.
On October 21, 1996 Mayor Pro Tem Clyde Smyth, Council member Jan Heidt and City
Manager George Caravalho participated in a series of interviews with the final fours firms. As
a result of the extensive interview process and reference checks, it is now recommended that
the firm of Brown, Winfield and Canzoneri now be retained as legal counsel for the Newhall
Redevelopment Agency. Brown Winfield and Canzoneri was found to have extensive experience
in redevelopment particularly in the areas of redevelopment plan formation, implementation
and adoption. This includes strategic planning, survey area delineation, blight analysis,
environmental review, coordination with taxing entities, general redevelopment law
compliance, affordable housing development and litigation.
All references contacted praised Brown, Winfield and Canzoneri and confirmed that they are
highly responsive, innovative and provide an exceptional level of service to their clientele.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors authorize the Executive Director/City
Manager to negotiate and enter into a contract with Brown, Winfield and Canzoneri in an
amount not to exceed $65,000 for the remainder of the 1996/97 fiscal year for redevelopment
services as outlined in the proposal submitted by Brown, Winfield and Canzoneri.
ATTACHMENTS
The request for qualifications as well as Brown, Winfield and Canzoneri's formal proposal are
on file with the City Clerk.
APPRQ ED '
j
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOR NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
INVITATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
TO: Prospective Legal Firms,
DATE: August 21, 1996
SUBJECT: Request for Qualification (RFQ) for Legal Services for Redevelopment
Agency.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction
IL Background
III. Scope of Work
IV. Request For Qualification Requirements
V. Organization of The Proposal
VI. Submittal Evaluation
I. INTRODUCTIG..i
The City of Santa Clarita, located in the center of the Santa Clarita Valley, lies
approximately 35 miles northwest of ,the Los Angeles Civic Center. Current
municipal boundaries encompass 42 square miles of land, situated primarily on the
valley floor and lower reaches of the surrounding canyons. The current population
for the City is approximately 129,000 persons.. Newhall is one of several sub-
communities contained within the incorporated City of Santa Clarita. The City of
Santa Clarita is requesting a Statement of Qualifications (S.O.Q.$) from legal firms
experienced in redevelopment to assist in developing and adopting a
redevelopment plan and legal strategy for the Newhall Redevelopment Agency.
II. BACKGROUND
Following the completion of a "Citizen Participation Program" for Old Town
Newhall, a staff 'Newhall Revitalization Task Force" was. established to begin
implementation of several 'short-term recommendations, including various
infrastructure improvements, and the opening of a community Youth Center.
As a next step, a Revitalization Strategy for Newhall was developed with the
assistance of the urban design firm of Freedman, Tung, and Bottomley which
conducted a comprehensive public workshop process to identify/discuss and make .
recommendations on the following revitalization strategy issues: 1) identification of
development standards and guidelines, 2) identification of an economic role/niche,
3) circulation and streetscape design, 4) parking analysis, and 5) a financing strategy
for project implementation. Specific action items were identified for short-term
implementation. The planning process was conducted in an open environment of
citizen involvement and participation over the course of eighteen months.
Among the identified action items, was the development of a redevelopment project
area to finance the recommended strategy in a timely manner (five years or less) and
within the requirements of AB 1290. A project area is currently under study by the
City's Redevelopment Consulting firm of GRC Redevelopoment Inc. (GRC).
Firms are encouraged to contact Michael Haviland at (805) 255-4369 or Alex Vasquez
at (805) 255-4352 to discuss particulars of the work product requirements.
III. SCOPE OF WORK
The City is currently in the process of adopting a redevelopment plan for the
Community of Newhall in light of the recent revitalization strategy that was
conducted in a public workshop forum by an urban design firm. The firm of GRC has
been retained as consultants to assist in critical components of the plan such as:
*Finalizing project area boundaries using existing data and the proposed project
area size recommended by the Old Town Newhall Revitalization Strategy process.
-Drafting the Redevelopment Project Area Plan consistent with state statute,
including AB1290.
*Finalizing financial projections and financial feasibility analysis.
*Preparing documents for CEQA compliance.
*Preparing all necessary mapping and legal descriptions.
-Coordinating with other affected local taxing jurisdictions as needed.
-Coordinating closely with the City Council, Project Area Committee,
Redevelopment Commissioner and other committees and boards as needed.
*Drafting materials for necessary ordinances and resolutions and deliver to Agency
legal counsel.
-Submitting materials to the county assessor and other authorities as needed.
However, at this time it is also necessary to retain legal counsel to assist and advise the City
on specific items relating to legal strategy and compliance with California Redevelopment
law, specifically AB 1290. The firm selected shall work at the direction of the City, yet in
partnership with the Redevelopment Consultant. Specific work to be performed includes:
• Developing legal strategy which addresses stakeholders concerns
• Ensuring Redevelopment Project area plan is legally defensible
• Ensuring that all processes are consistent with California Redevelopment Law
• Ensuring CEQA compliance
• Preparing and or reviewing all ordinances and resolutions
• Coordinating with the City Council, Redevelopment Agency Board of
Directors, Commission and other boards and committees as needed
• Attendance at meetings of Redevelopment Agency. and Redevelopment
Commission as directed.
IV. REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
A. Criteria for Request for Qualifications
Primary consideration will be given to the relevant project experience,
technical competence, and creative ability of the firms (as described in their
qualifications) and the firm's ability to work closely with City staff and the
Consultant team. The City reserves the right to reject all
qualifications/proposals that are deemed to be inappropriate and/or
inadequate.
Several of the most qualified firms will be asked to present their
qualifications and strategy to this project before a committee. From that
point, a single firm will be selected to negotiate a contract for City Council
review.
The contract will be awarded only to a responsible firm as an independent
firm. In order to qualify as a responsible firms, a prospective firm must meet
the following standards as they pertain to this Request for Qualifications:
1. The firm must have adequate technical and financial resources for
performance, as well as adequate equipment, or have the ability to
obtain and to manage such resources and equipment as required during
the performance period of the proposed contract.
2. The firm must have the necessary experience, organization, technical
qualifications, skills, and facilities, or have the ability to obtain and to
manage them (including any subcontractor arrangements).
3. The ium must have a satisfactory record of con. actual performance and
success in the area of redevelopment.
4. The firm must be an Equal Opportunity Employer.
5. The firm must be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award
under all applicable laws and regulations.
6. The firm must covenant that they have no conflict of interest in the
undertaking of this work product. Such covenant would state that
neither the firm nor any officer thereof, has any interest, nor shall acquire
any interest, directly or indirectly, which will conflict in any manner
with the performance of the work product. The firm must further
covenant they have not contracted with nor is the firm performing any
services directly or indirectly for, any. developer and/or property
owners (individuals, firms, partnerships, etc.) owning property in the
City, and must also covenant that the firm shall provide no service nor
enter into any contract with any such developers or property owners for
the duration of this work product without the written consent of the
City.
7. The Offeror must be able to maintain a minimum coverage of $1,000,000
in professional errors and omissions coverage with a comprehensive
general liability and property damage insurance covering all operations
hereunder of Offeror, its agents and employees, including but not
limited to premises and automobile with minimum coverage of $1
million combined single limits. Evidence of such coverage, in the form
of a'certificate of insurance and policy endorsement which names the
City of Santa Clarita, its officers, employees and agents as additional
insured shall be submitted with the proposal.
B. Evaluation and Selection Process
Criteria for Proposal Acceptance
1. Primary consideration will be given to the general appropriateness of the
proposal for the project, the technical competence and creative ability of the
consultants (as described in the proposal) and the firm's ability to work
closely with City staff. The City reserves the right to reject all proposals that
are inappropriate, inadequate, or incomplete.
2. The Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development, with
staff assistance, will evaluate all proposals for completeness, adequacy, .
technical competence and the suitability of the consultant. Selection of a
firm will be based on the content of the written proposal received by the
team (additional materials may submitted, but may not be considered in the
firm selection process). The selected firm will be notified by letter of the
selection.
3. Said policy or policies shall provide for thirty (30) days written notice to the
City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita of cancellation or material change.
4. The Offeror shall carry workers' compensation insurance in the statutory
amount and the employer's liability coverage. Evidence of such insurance is
to be furnished to the City of Santa Clarita in a manner described above.
4
C. City Response to Statement of Qualifications
One original and six (6) copies of the Statement of Qualifications must be
received by the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department
no later than September 27,1996.
All proposals as well as any modifications, received at this office after the
hour and date specified above will not be considered.
Submit Statement of Qualifications to:
Kenneth Pulskamp
Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development
City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Boulevard
Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
D. Limitations
1. The City reserves the right to extend the time allotted for the Statement
of Qualifications, to examine verbally the bidder in person, and to
request a best and final offer, should the City deem that it is in its best
interests to do so.
2. This Statement of Qualifications does not commit the City to award a
contract, or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the
qualification/proposal. The City reserves the right to accept or reject
any or all qualifications/proposals received as a result of this request, to
negotiate with any qualified firms, or to cancel this Statement if
Qualification in part or in its entirety. The City may require the selected
firm to participate in negotiations, and to submit such technical, price, or
other revisions of their qualifications/proposals as may result from
negotiations.
V. ORGANIZATION OF THE PROPOSAL
The organization of the scope of work proposed is described in this section of the RFQ. This
format must be followed by all potential consultants.
Introduction
A letter of interest, introduction and description of the proposal shall be provided. The
format of the introduction is at the discretion of the consultant. (Maximum 1 page)
Qualifications of the Organization - (Include in the following order):
(Maximum 3 pages)
• A Statement of Qualification (SOQ)
• A brief company history of comparable work
• A list of at least five projects similar in scope. Include references and phone
numbers of agency individuals responsible for the five projects listed above.
• Resumes of key personnel who will be assigned to the City of Santa Clarita.
• A fee schedule with hourly billing rates for personnel, by classification.
• List of other current clients and staff assigned.
• List of available staff and assignments for each person.
Plan of Studv/Scone of Work
Describe the work program. Explain the proposed strategy approach that addresses the
specific issues identified. Provide a description of the relationships between these activities.,
Include an explanation of any division of work proposed between your firm, the Consultant
and the City. (Maximum 3 pages).
Personnel Equipment and Facilities
Describe the activities of the designated team leader supporting personnel. Provide a
resume for each person named, including their qualifications (education and experience),
and their relationship and cost to the proposed project activities. (Maximum 3 pages).
Statement of Offer and Signature
The proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the consultant and shall
contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is a firm offer for a 60 -day period, and
shall contain a statement that the proposed work will be performed at the rates set forth.
(Maximum 1 page)
VI. SUBMITTAL EVALUATION
Qualifications will be initially screened and ranked on the basis of the following
conditions:
*Experience
*References
*Approach to the work
*Responsiveness
.&a %Aq,da .kh
RESPONSE TO
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA'S
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION
FOR
LEGAL SERVICES
FOR THE
NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Submitted by
BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI, INC.
300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, California 90071
Phone (213) 687-2100
Fax (213) 687-2149
Dated: September 27, 1996
I
VIA MESSENGER
Mr. Kenneth Pulskamp
Assistant City Manager/Director of
Community Development
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Proposal for Legal Services -- Newhall Redevelopment Plan
Dear Mr. Pulskamp:
I am pleased to present on behalf of Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. this Statement
of Qualifications and proposal for legal services in connection with processing of the proposed
Newhall Redevelopment Plan, as described in the August 21, 1996 RFQ you forwarded to my
partner, Ken Brown. Ken would be the lead attorney for this assignment if we were to be
selected, but he is out on vacation and has asked me to. finalize the proposal in his absence.
I. INTRODUCTION.
As described. in greater detail below, Ken has been among the leading redevelopment
lawyers in Southern California redevelopment lawyers for well over 30 years and Tom Winfield
and I have been involved in redevelopment for over 25 years. We have been involved in every
aspect of redevelopment plan adoption and implementation, including plan adoption under the
new A.B. 1290 rules and limitations.
Incidentally, we have a long-standing and excellent working relationship with your project
consultant, GRC; in particular, we have worked with Brice Russell and Ernie Glover of that firm
extensively in San Dimas and Monterey Park, where we have served as contract City Attorney
and Redevelopment Agency Counsel for many years.
With a keen understanding of the opportunities and challenges presented by redevelopment
as well as the tools available to make redevelopment work in your community, we look forward
BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI
INCORPORATED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CALIFORNIA PLAZA
300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE. SUITE 1500
J. KENNETH BROWN
_ TELECOPIER:
THOMAS F. WINFIELD 111
L05 ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-312S
(213) 68]-2149
ANTHONY CANZONERI
TELEPHONE:
VICKI E. LAND
'
JAMES C. CAMP
(213) 687.2100
STEVEN ABRAM
DENNIS S. ROY
MARK W. STERES
FILE NO:
KATHARINE ARAUJO MILLER
CHRISTOPHER NORGAARD
September 27, 1996
DIRECT DIAL NO:
C. GEOFFREY MITCHELL
SCOTT H. CAMPBELL
JOSHUA C. GOTTHEIM
DONALD P. RIES
MUIRA K. SETHI
SETH I. WEISSMAN
JOHN H. HOLLOWAY
RAFAEL E. ALFONZO
SONYA L. KARPOWICH
VIA MESSENGER
Mr. Kenneth Pulskamp
Assistant City Manager/Director of
Community Development
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Re: Proposal for Legal Services -- Newhall Redevelopment Plan
Dear Mr. Pulskamp:
I am pleased to present on behalf of Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. this Statement
of Qualifications and proposal for legal services in connection with processing of the proposed
Newhall Redevelopment Plan, as described in the August 21, 1996 RFQ you forwarded to my
partner, Ken Brown. Ken would be the lead attorney for this assignment if we were to be
selected, but he is out on vacation and has asked me to. finalize the proposal in his absence.
I. INTRODUCTION.
As described. in greater detail below, Ken has been among the leading redevelopment
lawyers in Southern California redevelopment lawyers for well over 30 years and Tom Winfield
and I have been involved in redevelopment for over 25 years. We have been involved in every
aspect of redevelopment plan adoption and implementation, including plan adoption under the
new A.B. 1290 rules and limitations.
Incidentally, we have a long-standing and excellent working relationship with your project
consultant, GRC; in particular, we have worked with Brice Russell and Ernie Glover of that firm
extensively in San Dimas and Monterey Park, where we have served as contract City Attorney
and Redevelopment Agency Counsel for many years.
With a keen understanding of the opportunities and challenges presented by redevelopment
as well as the tools available to make redevelopment work in your community, we look forward
PROPOSAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES, Page 2
to providing the best possible representation for you on the most cost-effective basis.
II. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FIRM.
The firm consists of approximately 20 lawyers in one downtown Los Angeles office,
loosely organized into Municipal, Real Estate and Litigation practice groups. Since the early
1970's we have been involved in every aspect of redevelopment plan formation and
implementation (both pre- and post-A.B. 1290), including strategic planning, survey area
delineation, blight analysis, environmental review, coordination with taxing entities, plan
adoption, general redevelopment law compliance (annual reports, AB 1290 implementation plans,
analysis of agency duties -and powers, Political Reform Act compliance, Housing Fund
administration, etc.), litigation (including eminent domain, inverse condemnation suits, plan
adoption challenges, and environmental liability actions), land disposition and project
development (including OPAs and DDAs), and affordable housing development (including HUD -
sponsored Section 202 and 811 projects).
We have worked in both suburban settings such as Cerritos and historic downtown
settings such as San Dimas, Oxnard and Monterey Park
For additional detail concerning the qualifications of the firm, please refer to Attachment
"A", Selected Summary of Public Agency Client Relationships and Other Relevant Experience,
and Attachment "B", Firm Resume.
III. BRIEF HISTORY OF COMPARABLE WORK.
As City Attorney and Redevelopment Agency Counsel for cities including Cerritos, San
Dimas, and Monterey Park, and as Special Redevelopment Counsel for numerous agencies
including the L.A. County CDC, the Oxnard Redevelopment Agency, and the Long Beach
Housing Development Company, the firm provides legal support for a full spectrum of
redevelopment activities on a regular basis.
Over the past 20 years, we have been involved with dozens of redevelopment plan
adoptions, mergers and amendments. Specific examples of comparable work are presented
in the following section of this proposal. For additional detail, please refer to Attachment "A",
Selected Summary of Public Agency Client Relationships and Other Relevant Experience.
IV. SPECIFIC PROJECT EXPERIENCE AND REFERENCES.
A. Cerritos. The redevelopment agency in Cerritos, where Ken Brown has been
the City Attorney and Agency Attorney for the past 30 years, is one of the most successful
agencies in the state, having transformed this once -blighted city into one of. the most
economically vital communities in Southern California while at the same time providing a highly
livable and desirable living environment for its many residents. Ken and the firm have overseen
adoption and implementation of two redevelopment project areas established in the early 1970's
and now encompassing more than 2,500 acres. We represented the Agency in connection with
the development of the Los Cerritos Mall in 1971, which was one of the first and most successful
regional shopping malls to be developed through the redevelopment process. Since that time we
PROPOSAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES, Page 3
have handled numerous redevelopment projects for the Agency, including the Cerritos Auto Mall
which again was one of the first and continues to be one of the most successful auto malls in the
country. Finally, we negotiated and documented all disposition and development agreements and
ground leases for Cerritos Towne Center, a 120 -acre redevelopment project with over 1,000,000
square feet of office buildings, a 400 -room hotel, a 40 -acre regional retail development and an
Agency -owned community theater.
CONTACT: Mr. Sherman Kappe, Mayor; Mr. Art Gallucci, City Manager and Executive
Director; Mr. Dennis Davis, Assistant City Manager (301) 860-0311.
B. Oxnard. We are currently acting as special counsel to the City of Oxnard and the
Oxnard Community Development Commission in connection with the processing of a new project
area encompassing approximately 2,000 acres. We are involved in all aspects. of the planning
and plan adoption process under the post-A.B. 1290 rules, including to date. providing legal
review and support for survey area selection, environmental review, project area committee
determination, extensive coordination with local school districts, conducting economic interest
reviews for applicable City officials and obtaining -advice from the FPPC, and formulating the
preliminary plan.
We have also worked with the Agency in projects to revitalize the downtown area
including the establishment of Oxnard Heritage Square which is a downtown commercial
rehabilitation project involving a square city block and the relocation of approximately 12 historic
buildings which are owned by private individuals in a planned -unit development format on a
common site, including retail, office and public uses.
Finally, as noted in F. below, we successfully defended a County litigation
challenge to one of the Agency's project area adoptions.
CONTACT: Gary Gillig, Esq., Oxnard City Attorney (805) 385-7483; Mr. Richard Maggio,
Oxnard Community Development Director, (805) 385-7407.
C. San Dimas. We have represented this Agency for the past 12 years in connection
with numerous retail and commercial ventures, including the recently completed San Dimas
Station, which is a 100,000 square foot specialty retail center. Again, as with the Cerritos
Redevelopment Agency, we have been involved in all aspects of providing redevelopment legal
services, real estate transactions, construction and public works, redevelopment plans, litigation
legal services, and eminent domain. For instance, we have negotiated and drafted owner
participation agreements, disposition and development agreements, easements, and other real
estate transactional documents. We have advised the Agency with respect to hazardous waste
liability, state and federal abatement procedures and the California Environmental Quality Act.
1, We have been actively involved in utilizing redevelopment tools in San Dimas'
historic downtown area, including a project which will convert an obsolete hardware store housed
in a two-story building into a reconfigured store expanding into the first floor of an adjacent
building while creating an affordable housing project on the second floor of the reconfigured
adjoining buildings.
r�
LJ
PROPOSAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES, Page 4
We have prosecuted a nu Ker of eminent domain actions to successful conclusion,
�.' including one particularly difficult ac J on involving a cement batch plant.
CONTACT: Mr. Donald L. Pruyn City Manager and Executive Director (909) 394-6200.
D. Monterey Park. In Monterey Park, where I am City Attorney and Agency
Counsel, we have been lead counsel for several major redevelopment project area adoptions and
amendments, and are currently involved in the.planning stages for a merger of two existing
project areas in order to enhance the agency's options for productive re -use of a federal
Superfund site currently undergoing remediation. We have been involved in an extensive and
complex effort for the City and its Redevelopment Agency that included a much needed
expansion of redevelopment project areas coordinated with obtaining voter approval of a
community designn plan incorporatin findings of a city-wide design, traffic and economic study.
This project was unique in that the City was experiencing declining sales tax revenues in
commercial development in the face of escalating land values. We were successful in obtaining
"buy -in" and cooperation from the County of Los Angeles at a time when most project area
adoptions were being challenged.
In terms of implementing redevelopment actions we have been involved in the
RFQ/RFP process, and in negotiating and documenting disposition and development agreements
with developers for retail/commercial centers which have been successfully completed and
opened. We have also been involved in working with both CDBG and redevelopment programs
for the Downtown Merchants. One of those projects involved the condemnation of an existing
shopping center involving two fee owners and approximately 35 tenants. We reached
compromised settlement agreements with both property- owners and all of the tenants, thus,
avoiding the uncertainty and expense of trial.
In the affordable housing area we have negotiated with a developer to construct
approximately 75 low-income senior citizen housing units using the HUD 202 program are in
the exclusive negotiating period on a second project and are going through the RFP phase on a
third project.
CONTACT: Mr. Fred Balderrama, Mayor; Mr. Chris Jeffers, City Manager and Executive
Director (818) 307-1257.
E. Los Angeles County Community Development Commission. In connection with
our representation of the Los Angeles County CDC we have been involved in such matters as
implementation of legislation authorizing the transfer of housing set-aside funds from the City
of Industry to the L.A. County CDC, to preparing documentation for the disposition of and
construction financingfor a 10 unit low-income condominium resale project. We have also
handled development of a 22 unit low-income senior rental housing project with construction
financing provided by a conventional construction loan, and permanent financing provided by a
combination of local government funds, a loan from the California Housing Finance Agency, and
the sale of low income housing credits.
CONTACT: Mr. Carlos Jackson, Executive Director (213) 890-7400; Lloyd W. Pellman, Esq.,
Senior Assistant County Counsel (213) 974-1904.
PROPOSAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES, Page 5
F. Plan Adoption Litigation. Although the redevelopment plans we have helped client
agencies to process have not been subject to litigation, we have successfully defended and
prosecuted litigation relating to plan adoptions. Our first assignment for the City of Oxnard was
to successfully defend its Southwinds redevelopment project from a legal attack by the County
upon its adoption in 1984. More recently, we prevailed as special counsel in litigation brought
on behalf of the County of San Luis Obispo in overturning a redevelopment plan adopted by the
small seaside community of Grover Beach. While it is generally not our practice to be on the
side of taxing entities attacking redevelopment plans, this litigation brought on behalf of a
longstanding client gave us a unique and valuable perspective on areas of vulnerability and the
need for careful attention to legal requirements throughout the plan adoption process.
CONTACT: Gary Gillig, Esq., Oxnard City Attorney (805) 385-7483; Mr. Richard Maggio,
Oxnard Community Development Director, (805) 385-7407; Jac Crawford, Esq., Assistant
County Counsel, County of San Luis Obispo, (805) 781-5400.
V. KEY PERSONNEL FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT.
Ken Brown, myself and Joshua Gottheim would be the principal attorneys for work
performed for this assignment. We will work with you to structure the most lean and cost-
effective staffing for each aspect of the assignment.
., .
• J. Kenneth Brown: Western Reserve University (L.L.B. 1961), practicing law for
35 years, admitted to the California bar in 1961. Mr. Brown is presently and has been the
Cerritos City Attorney since 1965 and the San Dimas and La Canada Flintridge City Attorney
since 1977. While a member of another.law firm, he was the Lawndale City Attorney from
1966 through 1972. He has also been City Attorney for the cities of Norwalk (20 years), Signal
Hill (10 years) and has been Redevelopment Counsel for these and other cities for the same
number of years. In addition, he serves as Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Housing
Authority and Community Development Commission and General Counsel to the Independent
Cities Risk Management Authority, a joint powers authority which provides liability, property
and workers compensation coverage for 30 cities.
• Anthony Canzoneri: University of California at Los Angeles (J.D. 1972),
practicing law for 24 years, admitted to the California bar in 1972. Mr. Canzoneri has more
than 20 years' experience representing cities and redevelopment agencies in California, including
longstanding representation of redevelopment agencies in the cities of Cerritos, San Dimas, Bell
Gardens, Oxnard and Monterey Park (where Mr. Canzoneri has served as City Attorney and
Redevelopment Agency Counsel for the past 8 years).
Mr. Canzoneri is a frequent public speaker on redevelopment and development
topics, and is actively involved with the California Redevelopment Association ("CRA"). He has
held a seat on the CRA's Political Action Committee Steering Committee since the Committee
was established.
• Joshua C. Gottheim: Boalt Hall School of Law (J.D. 1989), practicing law for
6 years, admitted to California bar in 1989. Mr. Gottheim has been practicing with the firm for
seven years, primarily in the areas of CEQA, redevelopment, real estate and land use. His
PROPOSAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES, Page 6
substantial litigation and transactional experience in the redevelopment field includes:
Mr. Gottheim is a member of the CRA's Affordable Housing Task Force, and was
featured panelist at the CRA's 1994 Financial Reporting Seminar in Lakewood, California.
VI. FEE SCHEDULE. Services to the Redevelopment Agency would be provided at hourly
rates tied to the experience level of the attorney or paralegal, under the following schedule:
Paralegal/Law Clerk
$ 75.00
Attorney (1-3 years' experience)
$100.00
Attorney (4-6 years' experience)
$125.00
Attorney (7-9 years' experience)
$150.00
Attorney. (10+ years' experience)
$175.00
These billing rates are substantially below the firm's normal rates for private sector
clients, in recognition of the public nature of the work. The foregoing rates are subject to
periodic review and adjustment per the terms of the fee agreement to be entered into between the
firm and the City/Agency prior to any engagement.
VII. OTHER CLIENTS: STAFFING: AVAILABILITY
See Attachment B for a list of selected public agency clients. Ken, Josh and I each would
commit to make ourselves personally available as needed for this assignment. Josh and I would
be available to cover for Ken in the event he has an unavoidable conflict on a particular meeting
date.
VIII. PLAN OF STUDY/SCOPE OF WORK.
We view our role as lawyers in the plan adoption process as follows:
* To apply creatively our knowledge of the governing law and our experience in
plan adoptions to assist the client and consultants in maximizing the potential for
effective redevelopment and fulfillment of client objectives.
* To insure that the technical requirements of the Redevelopment Law are followed
and to insulate the project from vulnerability to legal challenge.
* To apply our skills in salesmanship, negotiation and consensus building to assist
in obtaining unilateral support from taxing entities and community members when
possible, and finding win-win solutions to disputes if they arise.
* To be sensitive to the need for efficient use of our time.
* To work as a team, to be available and responsive, and to help keep the process
organized, efficient, and moving forward.
Processing a new redevelopment plan is an extended and time-consuming process, often
requiring the better part of a year or more. Organization and planning ahead are key, because
of so many critical path milestones and legal requirements, from scoping and community
meetings, survey area adoption, coordination with taxing entities, economic interest/Political
Reform Act screening, blight delineation, environmental review, and redevelopment plan
PROPOSAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES, Page 7
preparation and approval. Our first order of business (assuming the core Agency Board and
community support for the project are present and a preliminary analysis indicates the feasibility
of redeveloping the target areas) would be to work with staff and GRC to develop a
comprehensive schedule of processing steps and actions for the project, including internal team
deadlines as well as public approval milestones. I suspect GRC. may have already developed a
schedule, in which case our review would be limited to confirming compliance with all current
redevelopment law requirements.
Ideally, we would like to tour the project area with you to understand the nature of the
blight conditions, and discuss the project goals and objectives. This will also enable us to
identify areas of the proposed survey area which may raise particular legal concerns, such as
housing displacement, hazardous waste sites, and underutilized or vacant parcels. We would also
discuss the degree to which opposition to the project is anticipated from residents, businesses,
or affected taxing entities. Sometimes the concerns of these parties can most be addressed early
on and relatively painlessly through.careful selection of survey area boundaries.
The numerous processing steps which follow selection of the survey area boundaries
require varying degrees of legal input, most significantly in the areas of (i) working with staff
and consultants to insure that the blight, urbanization, and vacant land inclusion tests of the
redevelopment law are satisfied by the proposed project area; and (ii) monitoring preparation and
processing of the Initial Study, Draft EIR and Final EIR.
Total legal expenses for the project would be based on the number of attorney hours
required, which depends upon the size and complexity of the project and the amount of public
controversy surrounding it. As an illustrative example, the following was the budget we
prepared for our services in connection with another recent plan adoption process involving a
complicated 2.000 acre project area:
GRC BWC
SELECTION OF SURVEY AREA 10,000
Strategic planning, conflict analysis,
legal review and input re CEQA,
preliminary blight analysis, procedural
and substantive compliance
PRELIMINARY PLAN 1,000
PREPARATION OF. MAILING LISTS
TAX INCREMENT PROJECTION AND
FISCAL PLANNING 2,000
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Coordination, drafting, report, 2 meetings
with staff to review drafts
U!
IPROPOSAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES, Page 8
Physical blight analysis 2,000
Complete economic blight analysis
CONSULTATION WITH TAXING ENTITIES 1,000
t (Allowance)
PAC FORMATION SUPPORT [Need for
Allowance for presentation materials, etc. PAC is under
review.]
EIR COORDINATION 15,000
Work with EIR consultants to ensure
consistency with redevelopment plan/legal support
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 5,000
Drafting of plan, review with legal counsel,
final plan
REPORT TO COUNCIL 3,000
Inclusion of information from preliminary
report, financial feasibility, report on
consultation with taxing entities, neighborhood
impacts, implementation plan. Draft report,
review with legal counsel
STAFF REPORTS
Preliminary plan 500
Report to Council 500
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
LEGAL COORDINATION/REVIEW
Attendance at staff and official meetings; 15,000
miscellaneous issues
LEGAL DOCUMENTATION
Resolutions, ordinances, findings 10,000
TOTAL 65,000
BASED ON OUR UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR FOCUS FOR THE NEWHALL PROJECT,
WE DO NOT EXPECT THE FEES FOR YOUR PROJECT AREA ADOPTION TO BE AS
HIGH AS THIS ILLUSTRATIVE.
We would expect staff and GRC to prepare and provide initial drafts of most of the
project documents, including the processing schedule, survey area maps, blight delineation, fiscal
I
IPROPOSAL FOR LEGAL SERVICES, Page 9
projections and reports, preliminary plan, environmental documents, the final redevelopment
plan, and agendalstaff reports. We would work with you and GRC to determine who should
most efficiently prepare first drafts of notices, resolutions, findings, ordinance, etc.
In each step, our goal is to move the process forward without wasted effort or
inefficiency. Plan adoption is a costly process in terms of staff and consultant resources, and
these must be carefully managed by City officials and the team members themselves to maximize
the net.dollars available for actual redevelopment projects. We would look forward to working
in concert with you to achieve this objective.
IX. PERSONNEL. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES.
rPlease refer to Sections V and VI above. It is anticipated that Ken Brown at $175 per
hour and Josh Gottheim at $150 per hour would be the primary attorneys splitting most of the
total time expended.
X. STATEMENT OF OFFER AND SIGNATURE.
This proposal for the work described above at the foregoing hourly rates is a firm offer
which will remain in effect. for 60 days from the date of this proposal and the undersigned is
r authorized to bind the firm.
The firm meets all of the qualifications in the RFQ and will meet all of your requirements
including provision of the non -conflict of interest covenant set forth in Section IV No. A.6 of
the RFQ and the insurance set forth in Section IV No. A.7 of the RFQ.
We sincerely look forward to meeting with you and learning more about this exciting
project for the Community of Newhall. If you should have any questions or need additional
information in the interim, please do no hesitate to call me or Ken at (213) 687-2100.
JJ
i11
1AXX=EC%41 W EWHAU
1
I
Sincerely,
r ;
ANTHONY CANZONERI
I
11
TELECOPIER:
12131 667-2149
F'1
L
BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI
INCORPORATED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CALIFORNIA PLAZA
300SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 1500
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-3125
TELEPHONE:
12131 689.2100
THE BACKGROUND OF THE FIRM
FILE NO:
DIRECT DIAL NO:
Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. is located in the heart of the
downtown Los Angeles business district. The firm has a broad-based civil practice,
including governmental, redevelopment, administrative, business, commercial, lending,
real estate, and litigation relating to those areas of law. The firm's client base is
broad and economically substantial. It includes government entities, New York Stock
Exchange and smaller corporations, banks, real estate developers and lenders,
individuals, partnerships and trusts.
Throughoutthe firm's history, the firm has been involved in sophisticated
matters on behalf of both private and public sector clients. Recently, the firm has
represented a privately held real estate development company in connection with its
acquisition of a major institutionally owned real estate portfolio, including business
parks, high rise commercial office buildings and urban and suburban undeveloped land.
We have also played a central role in the planning, development and financing of a
major regional development similar in concept to Century City, defended multinational
and local corporations in a wide variety of litigation matters, and represented three
major railroads regarding the potential uses of their extensive right-of-way properties
in Los Angeles.
REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS
Representative clients of the firm include the following:
Business and Real Estate: Alliance Bank, Alper Development, Inc., Bixby
Ranch Company; Dictaphone Corporation, File Keepers, Inc., Haseko (California), Inc.,
Haverford Capital, Highridge Partners, J.H. Snyder Company, Jenna Group, Kaufman
& Broad Home Corporation, Kilroy Industries, Pitney Bowes Inc., Raleigh Enterprises,
Rancho Vista Development Corporation, The Parsons Corporation, The Procter &
Gamble Company, The Roberts Group, Inc., Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Southern
Pacific Transportation Company, Southwestern University School of Law, The
Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co., Ltd., Summit Commercial, and Western Pacific
Housing.
L
1
11
I
1
Governmental: Cities and/or Redevelopment Agencies of Anaheim, Bell
Gardens, Cerritos, Fontana, La Canada Flintridge, La Mirada, Long Beach Housing
Development Company, Monterey Park, Oxnard, Palm Desert, San Dimas and Yorba
Linda, the County of San Luis Obispo, the Los Angeles County Housing Development
Corporation, the Los Angeles County Housing Authority; and the Community
Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles.
THE PRACTICE OF THE FIRM
The firm has three focused areas of practice:
-- Real Estate, Business and Finance Law
Public and Municipal Law
Litigation
Real Estate. Business and Finance Law: The business and finance aspect
of the firm's practice provides general representation for corporations and other
business entities ranging in size from major companies and financial institutions to
small privately held enterprises. Its members help in the planning and consummation
of major transactions, such as public and private debt and equity financings, mergers,
acquisitions, debtor -creditor transactions and reorganizations. The firm also
represents individuals in various business matters including employment contracts,
directorship duties, sales of stock or businesses, venture capital matters, and
entertainment industry transactions.
The real estate aspect of the firm's practice includes purchases and
sales, tax-deferred exchanges, leases, financings secured by real property, zoning and
land use planning, housing and other matters involving real property or energy
exploration and development. The real estate work involves housing, subdivisions and
commercial and industrial projects such as office buildings, hotels and shopping
centers. The firm's attorneys frequently appear before planning commissions, city
councils and other governmental agencies on behalf of private development clients.
Public and Municipal Law: In its municipal law practice the firm renders
advice to public officials and employees at city council meetings, planning commission
meetings, meetings of other public bodies and other occasions requiring such advice.
The firm's practice of municipal law includes participation in the development of
solutions to the lack of housing for persons with low or moderate income,
participation in the development of alternative solutions to the significant financial
2
distress which many public entities now face, and dealing with constitutional law
issues relative to regulating pornography, religion, business and land.. Through its
municipal law practice, the firm becomes an active participant in the physical shaping
and the evolution and development of the communities we represent including
participation in decisions respecting land use, cable television franchising,
redevelopment, housing and related matters.
Litigation: The firm's litigation practice includes a wide variety of state
and federal civil litigation, including real estate, banking, environmental, eminent
domain, inverse condemnation, construction, contract disputes, antitrust, securities,
creditors' rights and insolvency, wrongful termination, employment, constitutional and
civil rights, lender liability, defamation and right of privacy, product liability, copyright
and trademark. It also includes participation in contested administrative proceedings
and bankruptcy proceedings.
IATTORNEYS OF THE FIRM
1 The following attorneys practice with the firm:
1 J. KENNETH BROWN, born Cleveland, Ohio, April 22, 1935; admitted to
bar, 1961, California; 1976, United States Supreme Court. Education: John Carroll
University (B.S.S. 1957); Western Reserve University (LL.B. 1961). Phi Delta Phi.
City Attorney: Cerritos, 1965—; Bell Gardens, 1965-1969; Lawndale, 1967-1970;
Norwalk, 1969-1989; Signal Hill, 1975-1985; La Canada Flintridge, 1976—; San
Dimas, 1977—. Redevelopment Agency Counsel: Cerritos, 1969—; Signal Hill,
1975-1985; San Dimas, 1977—; Norwalk, 1983-1989; Housing Authority Counsel:
Norwalk, 1976-1989; Los Angeles County, 1982—. General Counsel: Independent
Cities Risk Management Authority, 1986—. Member: City Attorney's Department,
League of California Cities, 1965—. State Bar of California; Los Angeles County and
Ohio State Bar Associations.
THOMAS F. WINFIELD III, born New York, N.Y., April 14,. 1942;
admitted to bar, 1968, California; 1976, United States Supreme Court. Education:
Rutgers University (B.A..1964); Rutgers University (J.D. 1967). Editor, Rutgeers.Law
Review, 1966-1967. Law Clerk to the Honorable William M. Byrne, U.S. District
Court, Los Angeles, 1967-1968. City Attorney: Lawndale, 1970-1983; Palos Verdes
Estates, 1992-1993. Redevelopment Agency Counsel: Monterey Park, 1980--.
Lecturer in the fields of real estate litigation, inverse condemnation, and civil rights
litigation. Member: State Bar of California (Business, Public, and Real Property Law
E
�I
It
I!
Sections; Vice -Chairperson, Governmental Liability Committee, 1975-1977);
Los Angeles County and American Bar Associations.
ANTHONY CANZONERI, born Los Angeles, California, October 23, 1946;
admitted.to bar, 1972, California. Education: California State College at Fullerton
(B.A. 1969); University of California at Los Angeles (J.D. 1972). City Attorney and
Redevelopment Agency Counsel for City -of Monterey Park, 1986=. Lecturer:
California Continuing Education of the Bar Programs, Real Property Sales Transactions,
1978; Introduction to Real Property Secured Transactions, 1980; Homeowners
Association Counseling and Litigation, 1980 and 1986; Community Redevelopment
Agencies Association Program Land Leasing, 1985; U.C.L.A. Extension Program
Utilizing the Wealth in California's Public Real Estate, 1986; California Association for
Local Economic Development Programs, Economic Development and Tax Reform
1986, and Land Leasing 1987. Member: State Bar of California, Los Angeles County
Bar Association (Member, Real Estate Section); American Bar Association (Member,.
Sections on Real Property, Probate and Trust Law; Urban State and Local Government
Law and Corporation, Banking and Business Law).
VICKI E. LAND, born Plainfield, New Jersey, September 25, 1940;
admitted to bar, 1976, Texas; 1977, District of Columbia; 1979, California; 1988,
United States Supreme Court. Education: University of Houston (B.A. magna cum
laude, 1972); University of Texas (J.D. cum laude, 1976). Order of the Coif; Phi
Delta Phi. Editor, Texas Law Review, 1975-1976. Lecturer in the field of litigation
procedure. Member, The District.of Columbia Bar; State Bar of Texas; State Bar of
California (Litigation and Environmental Law Sections); Board of Governors of Women
Lawyers' Association of Los Angeles 1985-1988 and 1993-; Los Angeles County Bar
Association (Trial Lawyers Section, former member of Superior Courts Committee);
American Bar Association (Litigation Section).
JAMES C. CAMP, born Greenville, South Carolina; January 7, 1951;
admitted to bar, 1976, Georgia; 1977, California. Education: Duke University (A.B.
cum laude, 1973); Emory University (J.D. 1976). Member: State Bar of California;
Century City Bar Association (Chairman, Real Property Committee, 1982-1984);
Los Angeles County Bar Association (Co -Chairman, Lawyers and the Arts Committee,
Barristers, 1982-1983; Member, Business & Corporation and Real Property Sections;
Editorial Board, Los Angeles Lawyer, 1984-1989, Chairman, 1988-1989); American
Bar Association (Member, Real Estate Financing and Public -Private Cooperation in the
Development of Real Estate Subcommittees).
0
I
I
STEVEN ABRAM, born Cincinnati, Ohio, October 10, 1954; admitted to
bar, 1980, California. Education: University of California at Los Angeles (B.A. in
Economics, cum laude, 1976; J.D. 1979; M.A. in Economics, 1980). Omicron Delta
Epsilon; Distinguished Invitee to the Moot Court Honors Program. Member: State Bar
of California (Real Property Law Section); Los Angeles County Bar Association
(Business Section).
DENNIS S. ROY, born Los Angeles, California, November 7, 1954;
admitted to bar, 1981, California. Education: Brown University (A.B. magna cum
laude, 1977); University of California at Los Angeles, Graduate School of Management
(M.B.A. 1981); and University of California at Los Angeles School of Law (J.D. 1981).
Order of the Coif; Editor, International Lawyer. Judicial Extern to Judge Shirley M.
Hufstedler, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Law Clerk to Justice
George Lohr, Colorado Supreme Court. Lecturer on real estate development,
condominium law, and public-private joint ventures. Member: State Bar of California
(Real Property and Business Law Sections); Los Angeles County Bar Association (Real
Estate Section).
MARK W. STERES, born St. Louis, Missouri, May 23, 1959; admitted to
bar, 1984, California. Education: University of California at Los Angeles (A.B. cum
laude, 1981); University of Southern California (J.D. 1984). Participant, Hale Moot
Court Honors Program, 1982-1983; Hale Moot Court Competition Best Brief Award,
1983. Member: State Bar of California (Public Law Section); Los Angeles County Bar
Association.
KATHARINE ARAUJO MILLER, born Los Angeles, California, June 24,
1955; admitted to bar, 1987, California. Education: University of Puget Sound,
Tacoma, Washington (B.S. magna cum laude, 1977, Phi Kappa Phi National Honor
Society, Mortar Board National Honor Society); Whittier College School of Law (J.D.
summa cum laude, 1986), Editor, Whittier Law Review, 1985-1986. Member: State
Bar of California; Los Angeles County Bar Association (Litigation Section).
CHRISTOPHER NORGAARD, born Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, October 14,
1948; admitted to bar, 1973, Colorado and U.S. District Court, District of Colorado;
1979, California and U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; 1980, U.S.
District Court, Central District of California; 1986, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit; 1991, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California; 1992, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of California. Education: Stanford University (A.B., with
i distinction, 1970); Georgetown University Law Center (J.D., 1973). Author:
! "Monopolization of Computer Peripheral Equipment: Telex v. I.B.M," 53 Denver Law
t5
II
Journal 295, 1976. Member: State Bar of California; American Bar Association
(Sections on Antitrust Law and Litigation); Los Angeles County Bar Association.
C. GEOFFREY MITCHELL, born Raleigh, North Carolina, May 27, 1953;
admitted to bar, 1979, North Carolina and U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
North Carolina; 1986, California. Education: University of North Carolina (A.B., with
honors, 1975; J.D., 1979). Lecturer: Legal Environment of Business; Principles of
Real Estate, East Carolina University, 1980-1981. Member: Los Angeles County and
American Bar Associations; North Carolina State Bar; State Bar of.California; Financial
Lawyers Conference.
SCOTT H. CAMPBELL, born Palo Alto, California, December 16, 1961;
admitted to bar 1987, California. Education: University of California at Berkeley (B.A.
magna cum laude 1984); University of California at Los Angeles (J.D. 1987). Phi
Beta Kappa, Moot Court Honors Program. Member: State Bar of California (Litigation
and Public Law Sections); Los Angeles County Bar Association (Litigation Section);
American Bar Association.
JOSHUA C. GOTTHEIM, born Evanston, Illinois, May 1, 1963; admitted
to bar 1989, California. Education: Yale University (B.A. 1986); Boalt Hall School of
Law (J.D. 1989). Associate Editor, International Tax and Business Law Journal;
Judicial Extern to Judge Patel, United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. California Redevelopment Association: Member, Affordable Housing
Task Force 0996—); Panelist, Financial Reporting Seminar (1994). Member: State
Bar of California (Real Property Law Section); Los Angeles County Bar Association.
DONALD P. RIES, born Hazelton, Pennsylvania,. November 24, 1959;
admitted to bar 1986; Arizona; 1988, California. Education: Arizona State University
(B.S. Business Administration, summa cum laude 1981); The University of Chicago
(J.D. 1985). Member: State Bar of California (Member, Real Property Law Section
and Business Law Section); State Bar of Arizona.
IMUIRA K. SETHI, born Los Angeles, California, January 29, 1970;
admitted to bar, 1994, California. Education: University of California at Los Angeles
(B.A. cum laude, 1991); Loyola Law School, Los Angeles (J.D. 1994). Participant,
Scott Moot Court Program, 1993; St. Thomas More Law Honor Society, Phi Delta Phi
Legal Fraternity. Member: State Bar of California; .Los Angeles County Bar
' Association.
1
6
II
I
SETH I. WEISSMAN, born Van Nuys, California, December 23, 1969;
admitted to bar, 1995, California, United States District Court, Central District of
California, and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Education:
University of California, Los Angeles (B.A. magna cum laude, 1992, Phi Beta Kappa,
Golden Key, Omicron Delta Epsilon, Phi Eta Sigma); University of Southern California
Law Center (J.D., 1995). Judicial Extern to the Honorable James M. Ideman, United
States District Court for the Central District of California, 1993. Member: State Bar
of California; American Bar Association (Sections on Business Law, Taxation, and
Entertainment and Sports Law); Los Angeles County Bar Association.
JOHN H. HOLLOWAY, born Santa Monica, California, February 28, 1966;
admitted to bar, 1995, California. Education: The College of William and Mary
(B.A. 1988); Tulane Law School (B.A. cum laude, 1995). Moot Court, Tulane Journal
of International and Comparative Law. Phi Delta Phi, Senior Fellow. Member: State
Bar of California; Los Angeles County Bar Association.
RAFAEL E. ALFONZO, born Brooklyn, New York, November 20, 1972;
admitted to bar, 1996, California. Education: University of Michigan (B.A. 1990);
George Washington University Law School (J.D. 1995). Judicial Extern to the
Honorable John Garrett Penn, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, 1994. Staff Member The Environmental Lawyer, 1994-1995.
SONYA L. KARPOWICH, born Santa Monica, California, January 13,
1969; admitted to bar, 1995, California, United States District Court, Central District
of California, and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Education:
University of Southern California (B.S. cum laude, 1991); Southwestern University
School of Law (J.D. Magna cum laude, 1995). Law Review, Associate Editor.
1 Member: State Bar of California; Los Angeles County Bar Association.
iJ
I
LJ
I
1:\D0CS\SEC\14\9991 ADHK.AZ 7 08109196.1
II
TELECOPIER:
12131 687, 149
BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI
INCORPORATED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CALIFORNIA PLAZA
300 SOUTH GRANO AVENUE, SUITE 1500
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071.3125
TELEPHONE:
(213) 687-2100
Selected Summary of Public Agency Client Relationshins
and Other Relevant Experience
FILE NO:
DIRECT DIAL NO:
Since its inception as a law firm in January, 1974, we have provided both public entities
and private sector clients with legal services which have included all aspects of real estate, land
use, municipal and redevelopment law. Our firm is unique in the wide variety of public entities
it represents, including counties, charter and general law cities, redevelopment agencies, housing
authorities, joint power authorities, as well as non-profit public -benefit housing corporations.
Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri presently serves as both City Attorney and Redevelopment
Agency Counsel for the following cities,
Cerritos
La Canada Flintridge
San Dimas
Monterey Park
- 1966 to present
- 1976 to present
- 1977 to present
- 1986 to present
In addition, we are acting as Special or General Counsel for the following public clients:
Housing Authority of the
County of Los Angeles
Community. Development Commission
of the County of Los Angeles
County of San Luis Obispo
Independent Cities Risk
Management Authority
Bell Gardens Redevelopment Agency
La Mirada Redevelopment Agency
City of Oxnard and its
Redevelopment Agency
Fontana Redevelopment Agency
City of Anaheim
Long Beach Housing Development Co.
Chino Redevelopment Agency
Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency
1 of 7
1982 to present
1982 to present
1983 to present
1986 to present
1987 to present
1987 to present
- 1988 to present
- 1988 to present
- 1991 to present
- 1992 to present
- 1994 to present
- 1994 to present
In addition to our representation . of public agencies we have an . impressive list of
corporate clients, including a number of Fortune 500 companies and other substantial privately
held companies such as Alper Development, Andrex, Bixby Ranch Company, Haseko
(California), Inc., Highridge Partners, J.H. Snyder Company, Jenna Group, Kaufman and Broad
Home Corporation, Piper Aircraft Corporation, The Proctor and Gamble Company, The Roberts
Group, Santa Fe Pacific Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company and Western
Pacific Housing. Our relationship with many of these clients is longstanding and. for several
public and private clients predates the formation of our firm 20 years ago.
We recruit attorneys for all of our departments from major law schools with credentials
and of a calibre comparable to major downtown commercial firms. Our other public clients
benefit from utilizing the high calibre transactional and litigation attorneys that service our private
clients. Our attorneys further offer the advantage of being well-rounded by having experience
in representing both public and private clients. That experience also permits us to be better
problem solvers and negotiators based on a hands-on understanding of both the public and private
sectors.
In summary, municipal, redevelopment, land use and real estate law are our primary
business. These areas have historically been and continue to be the main stay of our practice and
we would be honored to represent your City. We invite you to contact our references and to
contact Anthony Canzoneri directly if you require any further information.
The following is a detailed description of selected experience with our clients:
(1) City of Cerritos and Redevelopment Agency
Our representation of this client commenced with the preparation, processing and adoption
of redevelopment plans for two distinct project areas. The adoption of those plans involved all
required legal services. More specifically, we represented the Agency in connection with the
development of the Los Cerritos Mall in 1971, which was one of the first and most successful
regional shopping malls to be developed through the redevelopment process. Since that time we
have handled numerous redevelopment projects for the Agency, including the Cerritos Auto Mall
which again was one of the first and continues to be one of the most successful auto malls in the
country. Finally, we are currently handling the Cerritos Towne Center which is a 120 -acre
redevelopment project with over 1,000,000 square feet of office buildings, a 400 -room hotel, a
40 -acre regional retail development and an Agency -owned community theater. The Towne
Center project is being developed pursuant to an extensive RFP process in which TransPacific
Development Company was selected as the office and hotel developer and Vestar Development
Company was selected as the retail developer. We negotiated and drafted the Disposition and
Development Agreements with each developer under which they have exercised options to ground
lease a number of phases of development. The first four office buildings have been completed
and the first phase of the hotel has opened. A 400,000 square foot retail center which includes
a Smiths, Walmart, Ross and Edwards multi -screen theater complex is now complete. The
community theater complex has also been completed and is open. In this project we chose to
2of7
create a long-term financial asset for the Agency by granting 99 -year leases with rent increases
over time based on both the consumer price index and increases in the developer's rent levels.
This will provide the Agency with both a participation in the success of the project and inflation
protection. As legal counsel, we are participating in all phases of this project, including the
documentation, coordination and administration of contracts with design consultants and
contractors for the community theater and public infrastructure improvements as well as the
economic consultants for the entire project. We are also involved on an on-going basis in
negotiating appropriate lender protection provisions for the various lenders under each ground
lease. We were also involved in the initial assemblage and land acquisition. In addition, we
have provided extensive legal advice to this Agency in connection with hazardous waste liability
and toxic material liability and abatement pursuant to state and federal laws, California
Environmental Quality Act matters, all aspects of construction and public works, including
bidding, subcontracting, disputes, claims, stop notices and litigation.
Finally, we have represented this Agency in a broad range of litigation legal services and
eminent domain proceedings.
(2) City of San Dimas and Redevelopment Agency
' We have represented this Agency over the past 12 years in connection with numerous
retail and commercial ventures, including the recently completed San Dimas Station, which is
a 100,000 square foot specialty retail center. Again, as with the Cerritos Redevelopment
Agency, we have been involved in all aspects of providing redevelopment legal services, real
estate transactions, construction and public works, redevelopment plans, litigation legal services,
and eminent domain. For instance, we have negotiated and drafted owner participation
' agreements, disposition and development agreements, easements, and other real estate
transactional documents. We have advised the Agency with respect to hazardous waste liability,
state and federal abatement procedures and the California Environmental Quality Act.
We have prosecuted a number of eminent domain actions to successful conclusion,
including one particularly difficult action involving a cement.batch plant.
(3) City of Monterey Park and Redevelopment Agency
We have been involved in an extensive and complex effort for the City of Monterey Park
and its Redevelopment Agency that included a much needed expansion of redevelopment project
areas coordinated with obtaining voter approval of a community design plan incorporating
findings of a city-wide design, traffic and economic. study. This project was unique in that the -
City was experiencing declining sales tax revenues in commercial development in the face of
escalating land values.
Since that time we have been involved in the RFQ/RFP process, and in negotiating and
documenting a disposition and development agreement with a developer for a retail/commercial
center which has been successfully completed and opened. That project involved the
3 of 7
II
condemnation of an existing shopping center involving two fee owners and approximately 35
tenants. We reached compromised settlement agreements with both property owners and the
II' majority of tenants, thus, avoiding the uncertainty and expense of trial.
We have completed an RFP process and selected a developer for a large mixed-use
commercial and retail project.
As a result of a third RFP, we selected a developer and negotiated and completed a
Disposition and Development Agreement for a Good Guys and Tower Records retail center
which has opened and is exceeding expectations.
In the affordable housing area we have negotiated with a developer to construct
approximately 75 low-income senior citizen housing units using the HUD 202 program.
' (4) City of Oxnard and Redevelopment Agency
' We have been providing on-going redevelopment legal services to this Agency since 1988
and are currently involved in an extensive analysis of and preparation for the expansion and/or
establishment of additional project areas.
' In the litigation legal services area, we successfully represented this Agency in a lawsuit
brought by the County to challenge the formation of a project area.
In the eminent domain area, we successfully assisted this Agency in obtaining possession
of a substandard, dilapidated transient hotel. We are also advising the Agency in connection with
the potential acquisition of a large industrial site involving extensive and complex hazardous
waste issues.
' In the real estate transactional area we have been involved in the negotiation and
documentationof several unique public/private ventures ranging .from a retail rehabilitation
project in the downtown area to a project involving a square city block and. the relocation of
' approximately 12 historic buildings which are owned by private individuals in a planned -unit
development format on a common site, including retail, office and public uses.
In the affordable housing area we have been involved in assisting the City and its
Redevelopment Agency in developing a comprehensive Affordable Housing Production Plan
which coordinates the housing element, CHAS and redevelopment law requirements with
' programs for the provision of affordable housing through use of federal, state, local and private
funding including tax increment, HOME, CDBG, tax credits, and tax exempt financing. We are
also involved with the Housing Group which evaluates and coordinates proposed public and
private housing projects.
Mr. Canzoneri has also been involved in assisting this Agency in the long-range planning
and redevelopment for a 1,500 -acre blighted, underdeveloped area known as Ormond Beach.
4 of 7
�r
That representation has included the acquisition and disposition of approximately 300 acres,
coordination, land use planning, resource protection and environmental issues, including Coastal
Commission issues, with respect to the adoption of a city-wide General Plan Amendment and the
Ormond Beach Specific Plans.
Finally, the firm is currently working with the City of Oxnard to establish a new
redevelopment project area. This representation involves the full spectrum of issues arising in
connection with project area adoption.
(5) City of Anaheim
We represent the City of Anaheim as Special Counsel in regard to the financing, planning
and documentation of a joint public-private effort leading to the development of the $3 billion
Disneyland Resort expansion, including an additional theme park and more than 4,000 hotel
rooms.
(6) Bell Gardens Redevelopment Agency
We were selected to represent this Agency as special counsel for redevelopment. In this
capacity we have been involved in two RFQ/RFP processes, both of which has resulted in the
selection, negotiation and documentation of disposition and development agreements. Both
projects have been completed and opened for business. One is a hotel and the other is a retail
commercial center.
(7) La Mirada Redevelopment Agency
We successfully acquired numerous parcels of property required for the U Mirada Auto
Mall. We then assisted in the relocation of major industrial manufacturers and negotiated the
disposition of the property and its development for auto uses.
(8) City of Fontana and Redevelopment Agency
This Agency hired us in midstream to assist in resolving some very difficult and complex
problems which had arisen in connection with public/private ventures that involved in excess of
12,000 residential units and related improvements. Within a relatively short time, given the long
history of the parties' inability to resolve the matter, we successfully negotiated and concluded
documentation which led to the issuance of approximately $25,000,000 in Redevelopment Agency
bonds which were needed for the immediate construction of schools and for other purposes.
With respect to another venture, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Agency and City
against the original developer and reached a favorable settlement for the City and Redevelopment
Agency within less than 3 months. As a result of that settlement, the City's general fund will
receive payments of approximately $32,000,000 over the next several years.
5of7
We also successfully represented the City of Fontana in an action to enjoin Cal Trans
from topping valued eucalyptus trees. That action was brought under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
(9) County of San Luis Obispo
We represent the County of San Luis Obispo as special counsel in matters pertaining to
civil rights and land use litigation. Recently we successfully defended the County in a land use
matter through the federal courts to and including the United States Supreme Court where the
amount at issue exceeded twenty million dollars.
(10) Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles
We have represented the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles since 1982.
We work with the Los Angeles County Counsel and advise that office and officers of the
Housing Authority and various of the housing project managers on matters relating to
landlord/tenant problems, rehabilitation housing contracts, Section 8 entitlement, construction
disputes, and various other legal issues which frequently involve litigation. In addition, we have
analyzed and assisted in the review and issuance of tax exempt bond related financing issues.
(11) Los.Angeles .County Community Development Commission
' In connection with our representation of the Los Angeles County CDC we have recently
prepared documentation for the disposition of and construction financing for a 10 unit low-
income condominium resale project. We have also handled development of a 22 unit low-income
' senior rental housing project with construction financing provided by a conventional construction
loan, and permanent financing provided by a combination of local government funds, a loan from
the California Housing Finance Agency, and the sale of low income housing credits.
(12) Long Beach Housing Development Company
We have represented the LBHDC as Special Counsel since 1992. Recent, representative
projects include assisting the LBHDC in the structuring and documentation of their Down
Payment Assistance and Second Mortgage Loan Programs; assisting in the development and
documentation of a 15 unit low and moderate income condominium development; assisting in the
acquisition and rehabilitation of low and moderate income rental projects, using a combination
of tax increment and HOME financing; and assisting with their application for financing from
the Southern California Home Financing authority single family mortgage bond pool.
(13) Kaufman and Broad
We have represented Kaufman and Broad since prior to the inception of our firm in 1974.
We assisted them in the land use and transactional aspects of the East Hills Master -Planned
Community in the City of Anaheim which included thousands of residential units and commercial
6of7
and retail uses. We also assisted Kaufman and Broad with the May Ranch Master -Planned
Community in Perris, California, which consists of approximately 3,500 homes, along with
commercial and retail uses. Our representation has also included preparation of Master
Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, the formation of a Homeowners and
Commercial Property Owners Association, processing through the California Department of Real
Estate and Consumer Purchase and Sale Agreements.
(14) J.H. Snyder Company
We are real estate counsel for the J.H. Snyder Company with respect to its commercial
and residential real estate development and financing matters. We first represented the company
in connection with land use, transactional and California Department of Real Estate matters for
the conversion of condominiums at the Manna City Residential Towers, Manna City Club and
attendant commercial and recreational uses. We have also handled litigation, land use and
transactional aspects of the Channel Gateway mixed-use development which will consist of
condominiums, commercial uses, and a 500 -unit residential rental component.
(15) The Roberts Group
We assist this developer in connection with various large-scale residential projects,
including the 3,800 residential unit and championship golf course development known as Wood
Ranch in Simi Valley. Our representation has included land use, transactional and litigation
matters.
(16) Stanford Ranch
We assisted this developer in the creation of a balanced master -planned community in
Rocklin, California, north of Sacramento, consisting of approximately 15,000 homes, along with
industrial; commercial and retail uses. Our representation included land use and transactional
matters.
S..Pub/12M
7of7