City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 12/14/2009 Item Number: A-1
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AGENDA ITEM: (1) Adoption of a Resolution
Making Certain Findings and Determinations and Authorizing the Execution and
Delivery of a Notice of Termination Terminating the Disposition and Development
Agreement with Rush Pacifica LLC for 9300 Culver Boulevard and (2) Termination
of the Infrastructure Improvement Agreement with Rush Pacifica Inc. for
Construction of the Town Plaza Expansion.
Contact Person/Dept.: Joe Susca/
Redevelopment
Phone Number: 310-253-5763
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas – Redevelopment Agency (12/08/09),
(Fed-Ex) Rush Pacifica LLC (12/08/09); (E-Mail) Downtown Business Association
(12/09/09).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (12/08/09)
Agency General Counsel Approval:
Murray Kane (12/08/09)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Mark Scott (by Martin Cole) (12/08/09)
Executive Director Approval:
Mark Scott (12/08/09)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency Board (Board) (1) adopt a
resolution making certain findings and determinations and authorizing the execution
and delivery of a Notice of Termination terminating the Disposition and Development
Agreement (the “DDA”) by and between the Culver City Redevelopment Agency
(Agency) and Rush Pacifica LLC (RPLLC) for the sale of 9300 Culver Boulevard
and (2) terminate the Infrastructure Improvement Agreement with Rush Pacifica
Incorporated (RPI) for construction of the Town Plaza Expansion in Downtown.
BACKGROUND:
On July 10, 2006 the Board approved the DDA with RPLLC to sell the 9300 Culver
Boulevard parcel (a surface parking lot Downtown commonly referred to as “Parcel
B”) from the Agency to RPLLC. Simultaneously, the Board also approved an
Infrastructure Improvement Agreement (the “IIA”) with RPI whereby RPI agreed to
design and then construct the realignment of Washington Boulevard in Downtown
(now completed) and to subsequently build Town Plaza’s expansion on behalf of the
Agency concurrently with construction of the Parcel B building.
DISCUSSION: City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
On June 1, 2009 the Board directed staff to place RPLLC on notice of several
defaults of the DDA with a subsequent 30-day right to cure period as stipulated in
the DDA. RPLLC failed to cure any of the defaults within the 30 day period and
responded to the Agency by letter on July 6, 2009. The Agency subsequently
replied by letter to RPLLC on August 18, 2009 (see all letters attached). It is for
these DDA defaults and the other findings and determinations found in the proposed
resolution that staff recommends the Agency adopt said resolution terminating the
DDA and authorizing the execution and delivery of a Notice of Termination to
RPLLC. Further, it is recommended the Board adopt a motion authorizing the
Executive Director to execute and deliver a Notice of Termination to RPI terminating
the IIA.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
If the project were built by RPLLC, the Agency would have received $5,938,686 for
the land sale. Staff also estimates that the project would have generated Tax
Increment receipts (projected to be $424,000 in year 1 with 2% annual growth
thereafter), City building permit fees (approximately $1,000,000 in one-time permit
fees), and other City tax revenues (i.e. Sales Tax, Business Tax and Utility Users
Tax totaling approximately $265,000 annually).
ATTACHMENTS:
• June 4, 2009 Agency Notice of Default Letter to the Developer
• July 6, 2009 Developer Letter of Reply to the Notice of Default
• August 18, 2009 Agency Letter of Response to the Developer Reply
• December 8, 2009 Agency Letter of Notice to Developer Regarding
Consideration to Terminate of the DDA and IIA on December 14, 2009.
• December 15, 2009 Agency Notice of Termination Letter to Developer of the
DDA
• December 15, 2009 Agency Notice of Termination Letter to Developer of the
IIA
• Agency Resolution No. 2009-A_____
MOTION:
That the Redevelopment Agency Board:
1. Adopt a Resolution making certain findings and determinations and
authorizing the Executive Director to execute and deliver a Notice of
Termination terminating the Disposition and Development Agreement by and
between the Culver City Redevelopment Agency and Rush Pacifica LLC; and, City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
2. By motion, direct the Executive Director to execute and deliver a Notice of
Termination to Rush Pacifica Incorporated (acting under the authority of Rush
Pacifica LLC) terminating the Infrastructure Improvement Agreement.
MEETING DATE: 12/14/09
AGENDA ITEM: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration to Adopt a Resolution that Terminates
the Disposition and Development Agreement with
Rush Pacifica LLC for 9300 Culver Boulevard;
Consideration to Approve a Notice of Termination of
the Disposition and Development Agreement with
Rush Pacifica LLC for 9300 Culver Boulevard; and
Consideration to Terminate the Infrastructure
Improvement Agreement with Rush Pacifica LLC for
Construction of the Town Plaza Expansion.
ATTACHMENTS
Item Pages
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
June 4, 2009 Agency Notice of Default Letter to the
Developer
July 6, 2009 Developer Letter of Reply to the Notice
of Default
August 18, 2009 Agency Letter of Response to the
Developer Reply
December 8, 2009 Agency Letter of Notice to
Developer Regarding Consideration to Terminate of
the DDA and IIA on December 14, 2009.
December 15, 2009 Agency Notice of Termination
Letter to Developer of the DDA
December 15, 2009 Agency Notice of Termination
Letter to Developer of the IIA
Agency Resolution No. 2009-A___ Terminating the
DDA
1-3
4-8
9-19
20-21
22-23
24-25
26-28
ATTACHMENT 1
1ATTACHMENT 1
2ATTACHMENT 1
3
July 6, 2009
Via Overnight Courier and Email
Culver City Redevelopment Agency
Attn: Sol Blumenfeld, Assistant Executive Director
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City CA 90232-0507
Via Overnight Courier and Email
The City of Culver City
Attn: Mark Scott, City Manager
9770 Culver Boulevard
Culver City CA 90232-0507
Re: Culver Studios Plaza
Mr. Blumenfeld and Mr. Scott:
We are in receipt of your June 4
th
letter (received by us on June 10
th
) that purports to claim that
Developer is in default under the DDA and that a 30-day cure period has commenced. All initial-
capitalized terms in this letter shall have the same meaning as set forth in the DDA.
This letter is a preliminary response on behalf of the Developer, Rush Pacifica LLC, and The
Plaza at Culver Studios LLC, to your June 4
th
letter. We reserve the right to supplement this letter as we
deem appropriate.
Your letter also purports to list several areas in which Developer defaulted under the DDA.
First, you claim that “Developer failed to submit its Evidence of Financing by March 5, 2008, as
required by the Schedule of Performance.” As you are aware, this assertion is baseless and has no
relation to the reality faced by both the Agency and Developer as time has passed. As the project
evolved and the parties mutually cooperated, the actions of the Agency and the City waived the time limit.
The following timeline might be of assistance in this regard:
October 26, 2004 Developer and Agency signed their Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement.
December 2004 Developer engaged Gensler Architects to design the project, as
Agency did not like the original design proposed prior to
Developer selection.
July 2005 City decided to move forward with the process of closing
Washington Boulevard, which contributed significantly to the
ATTACHMENT 2
4Culver City Redevelopment Agency
The City of Culver City
July 6, 2009
Page 2
delay in the signing of the DDA. This added 14 months to the
original schedule.
November 8, 2005 Developer received first draft of the DDA from the City’s attorney.
February 2006 Developer and Agency agreed on the price of Parcel B following
19 months of negotiations.
February 24, 2006 Developer agreed to cause an affiliate to supervise all
construction management for the Town Plaza public works
project without remuneration as an accommodation to the Agency
and City.
April 17, 2006 At Agency’s request, Developer agreed to hire Christine
Deshaine of Lee Associates to handle retail leasing.
February-to-October
2006
Developer continued pre-leasing activity and presented several
retail and restaurant tenants to Agency. Agency rejected the
majority of prospective tenants because, although creditworthy,
they were not sufficiently unique and boutique to satisfy the
subjective tastes of Agency personnel.
October 16, 2006 Developer and Agency finally signed DDA, two full years after the
ENA was signed. The last four months were dedicated to
negotiating the Infrastructure Improvement Agreement (Town
Plaza public works agreement), which arose due to Developer’s
acquiescence to the Agency’s request for Developer to oversee
the public works project.
November 17, 2006 Developer submitted preliminary drawings for review.
December 20, 2006 City/Agency approved preliminary design.
January 15, 2007 Developer submitted schematic drawings.
February 7, 2007 In a meeting with the Agency and its sub-committee, the Agency
rejected the revised exterior architectural detailing and colors, in
spite of the fact that the Agency had previously approved the
design.
March 26, 2007 After working with City/Agency staff and obtaining staff’s
preliminary approval, Developer re-submitted exterior redesign.
April 3, 2007 City notified Developer that it again rejected exterior color and
asked for additional architectural changes to the exterior. City
also notified Developer that the City Manager had determined
that a formal approval by the Agency with public input was
required.
July 11, 2007 City Council approved project design drawings nearly eight
months after Developer submitted its preliminary drawings and
ATTACHMENT 2
5Culver City Redevelopment Agency
The City of Culver City
July 6, 2009
Page 3
six months after submitting schematic drawings. The DDA
Schedule of Performance requirements were ignored as the City
had second thoughts about having initially approved Developer’s
design.
July 25, 2007 Parties signed 2
nd
Amendment to DDA, extending the closing
date to 4/21/08.
August 28, 2007 Agency rejected Vitamin Shoppe as potential tenants. This was
but one of several rejections of prospective tenants by Agency.
October 4, 2007 Resubmitted revised design development drawings to Agency.
October 30, 2007 Agency approved revised drawings with staff comments.
February 6, 2008 Developer timely submitted construction plans to Agency/City for
permit approval as required by the revised schedule.
May 30, 2008 Final Plan Check documents delivered to City.
June 25, 2008 City approved plans for permit issuance. Process took 4½
months involving extensive plan check delays from the City.
September 2008 Lehman Brothers (controlling partner of Culver Studios and a joint
venture partner with Developer) withdrew as joint venture partner
in early September and declared bankruptcy on September 15
th
.
November 2008 PCCP (minor partner in Culver Studios) notified Developer that
Culver Studios would not fulfill the Lease it had signed for the
entire 3
rd
floor. In spite of this, Developer continued to work with
its lenders by agreeing to a much lower loan in order to move
forward with the project.
February 2009 Room & Board, Inc. withdrew as a tenant of approx. 39,614 sf.
As this timeline demonstrates, Developer was repeatedly delayed in moving forward with the
project due to the actions, delays, and inactions of the City and Agency. Time and again, the project was
delayed due to the City and Agency to the point that Developer found itself subject to an entirely new
reality caused by the economic meltdown that was in full swing by late summer 2008.
The impact of this reality is that, since late 2008, construction and permanent financing was no
longer available, other than those with onerous terms that likely would have resulted in a foreclosed
project. The pool of prospective tenants for Parcel B dried up, which underscored the regrettable and
repeated rejections of numerous tenants by the Agency over the past two years on grounds that were
arbitrary and meaningless.
This negative environment was made worse by the ever-increasing supply of cheap office and
retail space in the west Los Angeles/Culver City market. This made it even more unrealistic to lease
space at sensible rents to any tenant that would justify the cost to complete the proposed Parcel B
project, let alone at the rents that the Agency might deem to approve on any given date.
ATTACHMENT 2
6Culver City Redevelopment Agency
The City of Culver City
July 6, 2009
Page 4
The City and Agency were fully aware of these and other challenges, yet now they are arguing
that Developer unduly delayed the project. This is difficult to understand in light of the City’s and Agency’s
knowledge of Developer’s ongoing expenditure of funds and demonstration of its commitment to complete
the project. Moreover, both the City and Agency knew that Developer repeatedly undertook to ensure the
success of the project and even agreed to undertake construction oversight duties for the public works
project to facilitate the request of the Agency. It is difficult to see how the City and Agency could make
this first claim in good faith in light of their actual knowledge of the facts.
Second, you claim that Developer “failed to meet the Agency’s Conditions Precedent to Closing
and accept conveyance of the Property by the Outside Closing Date, which was 4/28/08”. As the City
and Agency are fully aware, this date was impossible to meet since the plans were not approved by the
City until May 25, 2008. The City and Agency waived this date and continued thereafter to cooperate with
Developer to move the project forward.
With complete disclosure and cooperation, Developer placed its steel order on May 15, 2008 for
$4,104,170. While Developer offered to close the land purchase on multiple occasions, it could not close
the construction loan and commence construction without a complete set of construction drawings and
80% pre-leasing. Agency delays, commencing in December 2006 when it questioned the pre-approved
building design and exterior architecture, are significant contributors to the delays. With few exceptions,
the Agency approval process took considerably longer than outlined in the DDA’s Schedule of
Performance.
As stated above, it was unrealistic and impossible for Developer to meet the May 25
th
deadline,
and the City and Agency fully waived compliance with it.
Third, you claim that Developer committed a default by failing to commence construction by May
6, 2008. Even after that date however, notwithstanding significant delays, the loss of the two main tenants
and a market meltdown (all of which were beyond Developer’s control), Developer, Agency and Agency’s
outside counsel continued to work in good faith to finalize the 3rd Amendment to the DDA well into early
2009. This can hardly be deemed a default when all parties were aware that Developer could not be held
to this deadline.
In February 2009, the Agency requested a meeting to discuss the future of Parcel B. It was clear
that the market conditions and leasing market had deteriorated significantly and continued cooperation
was essential. Over the next couple of months, the Agency took the liberty of holding meetings with
Developer’s leasing agents to determine if there were tenants willing to commit to lease sufficient space
and at rents to satisfy the bank’s pre-leasing requirements.
For these and the above reasons, Developer rejects this third claim of default.
Fourth, you claim that the letter of credit ("LOC") provided by Developer expired in contravention
of DDA § 301.2. In March, the Agency asked for a proposal from Developer for a revised Schedule of
Performance and details as to the leasing program. The City and Agency were aware that the LOC was
payable to Rush Pacifica LLC, not the Agency, and therefore the LOC served no purpose whatsoever
ATTACHMENT 2
7Culver City Redevelopment Agency
The City of Culver City
July 6, 2009
Page 5
other than to show good faith and Developer’s financial abilities. The LOC cost Developer the bank fees
to acquire or renew. Its presence or absence did nothing to enhance the Agency’s position.
The only conceivable purpose of the LOC was to demonstrate that Developer was willing to throw
away its funds without any project or political benefit. What would possibly be the point and what form of
public scrutiny would argue in its favor? Developer’s expenditures and financial condition clearly indicate
its wherewithal and ability to perform to make this project succeed.
The Agency and City consistently failed to meet their own schedule requirements, not the least
effect of which is the excessive time lost after each of the submissions of concept, schematic, design
documents and construction documents. Developer believes that without the Agency’s delays, the
project could very well have been in construction 18 months to two years earlier and well before the
economic collapse.
On May 10, 2009, Developer requested additional time to (1) allow the market to recover to avoid
costly redesign of the building plans in reaction to falling market lease rates and conditions, (2) continue a
pre-leasing effort, (3) explore all options with the Agency and its contractors to reduce the cost of the
building, (4) look for any other reasonable options that may make sense for both parties, and (5) preserve
the time and money invested over the past 4½ years.
Developer has invested nearly $1,300,000 in the building design alone. Developer has incurred
nearly $4,000,000 in total project expenses to date. The City’s and Agency’s June 4
th
letter ignores their
responsibilities and would result in Developer’s loss of its investment and future profits, a result that
Developer will not permit to happen. Developer would prefer not to argue about its rights under the law
and DDA, but it will not hesitate to enforce those rights if the City and Agency leave it with no other
choice.
Rest assured that Developer stands ready, willing and able to pursue this project with the
cooperation of the City and Agency and it expects your cooperation as requested in our May 10, 2009
letter.
Sincerely,
Evan Mead Stone
cc: Leibold, McClendon & Mann, PC
Attn: Barbara Zeid Leibold, Esq.
Attn: Joy Heuser Otsuki, Esq.
23422 Mill Creek Drive, Suite 105
Laguna Hills CA 92653
Joe Susca / Agency
ATTACHMENT 3
9ATTACHMENT 3
10ATTACHMENT 3
11ATTACHMENT 3
12ATTACHMENT 3
13ATTACHMENT 3
14ATTACHMENT 3
15ATTACHMENT 3
16ATTACHMENT 3
17ATTACHMENT 3
18ATTACHMENT 3
19ATTACHMENT 3
20ATTACHMENT 4
21ATTACHMENT 4
22To be considered
by Agency Board
December 14, 2009
December 15, 2009
Via Email and FedEx
Dr. Jeffrey L. Rush
Rush Pacifica, LLC
12348 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Evan Stone, Esq.
Pacific Medical Buildings, L.P.
12348 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Re: NOTICE OF TERMINATION: Disposition and Development Agreement
(9300 Culver Blvd.)
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to that certain Disposition and Development Agreement (9300 Culver
Blvd.), dated for identification purposes only as of October 16, 2006, by and between the Culver
City Redevelopment Agency, a public body, corporate and politic (the “Agency”), and Rush
Pacifica, LLC, a California limited liability company (the “Developer”), as amended by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 thereto (collectively, the “DDA”). Capitalized terms used but not
defined in this letter shall have the meaning given in the DDA.
In a letter dated June 4, 2009, the Agency notified you of your default(s) under the DDA
(the “Default Letter”). In accordance with Section 701 of the DDA, a 30-day right-to-cure
period commenced upon your receipt of that letter. No cure has been tendered to date, resulting
in an Event of Default under the DDA.
Further, the Default Letter notified you that, pursuant to Section 704 of the DDA, the
Agency has additional rights to terminate the DDA as set forth therein.
ATTACHMENT 5
23Rush Pacifica, LLC
December 15, 2009
Page 2 of 2
At its meeting at 7:00 pm on December 14, 2009, the Agency Board voted to terminate
the DDA. This letter acts as Notice to the Developer of Termination of the DDA by the Agency
pursuant to Section 701 of the DDA. From this date forward, the DDA is hereby terminated.
If you have any questions, you may contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic
DRAFT
By: Sol Blumenfeld
Its: Assistant Executive Director
cc: Mark Scott, Executive Director
Todd Tipton, Redevelopment Administrator
Joe Susca, Redevelopment Project Manager
Murray O. Kane, Esq., Kane Ballmer & Berkman
Greg Nelson, Senior Vice President, Pacific Medical Buildings
Barbara Zeid Leibold, Esq., Leibold, McClendon and Mann
Joy Heuser Otsuki, Esq., Leibold, McClendon and Mann
ATTACHMENT 5
24To be considered
by Agency Board
December 14, 2009
December 15, 2009
Via Email and FedEx
Dr. Jeffrey L. Rush, President
Rush Pacifica, Inc.
12348 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, California 92130
Evan Stone, Esq.
Pacific Medical Buildings, L.P.
12348 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
Re: NOTICE OF TERMINATION: Infrastructure Improvement Agreement
Gentlemen:
The Culver City Redevelopment Agency, a public body, corporate and politic (the
“Agency”) and Rush Pacifica Inc., a California corporation (the “Developer”) have previously
entered into that certain Infrastructure Improvement Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated for
identification purposes as of October 16, 2006. All capitalized terms not defined herein shall
have the meaning set forth in the Agreement.
Pursuant to Section 6.10 of the Agreement, the Agreement may be terminated for
convenience in accordance with Section 9.1 of the Construction Manager Obligations. Section
9.1.2 of the Construction Manager Obligations states that the Agency may, at any time, for any
reason and upon thirty days’ (30 days’) written notice, terminate the Agreement.
At its meeting at 7:00 pm on December 14, 2009, the Agency Board voted to terminate
the Agreement. This letter acts as Notice to the Developer of Termination of the Agreement by
ATTACHMENT 6
25Rush Pacifica, LLC
December 15, 2009
Page 2 of 2
the Agency pursuant to Section 6.10 of the Agreement. From such date as is 30 days from your
receipt of this letter, the Agreement is hereby terminated.
If you have any questions, you may contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, a public body, corporate and politic
DRAFT
By: Sol Blumenfeld
Its: Assistant Executive Director
cc: Mark Scott, Executive Director
Todd Tipton, Redevelopment Administrator
Joe Susca, Redevelopment Project Manager
Murray O. Kane, Esq., Kane Ballmer & Berkman
Greg Nelson, Senior Vice President, Pacific Medical Buildings
Barbara Zeid Leibold, Esq., Leibold, McClendon and Mann
Joy Heuser Otsuki, Esq., Leibold, McClendon and Mann
ATTACHMENT 6
261
CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RESOLUTION NO._______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING
THE TERMINATION OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT (“DDA”) WITH RUSH PACIFICA, LLC (the “Developer”)
PERTAINING TO THE SALE OF 9300 CULVER BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the California Community Redevelopment Law (California Health & Safety
Code sections 33000 et seq.)(the “CRL”) vests the Culver City Redevelopment Agency with
powers to implement the Redevelopment Plan (“Redevelopment Plan”) for the Culver City
Redevelopment Project Area (the “Project Area”), approved and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Culver City on November 23, 1998 by Ordinance No. 98-015 and amended on
January 12, 2004; and
WHEREAS, Section 33437 of the CRL requires the Agency to obligate purchasers of
property acquired in the Project Area to begin the redevelopment within a period of time which
the Agency fixes as reasonable; and
WHEREAS, the Agency is the owner of that certain real property with legal address of
9300 Culver Boulevard, in the City of Culver City, California (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is located within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Agency and Rush Pacifica, LLC, a California limited liability company
(“Developer”) entered into that certain Disposition and Development Agreement, dated for
referenced purposes as October 16, 2006, and thereafter amended by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
(collectively, the DDA”); and
WHEREAS, the DDA contemplates sale of the Property to the Developer and the
redevelopment of the Property within a specific time, as agreed to by the Agency and Developer
in the DDA; and
WHEREAS, Section 701 of the DDA authorizes the Agency to terminate the DDA,
based upon Developer’s default of any terms and conditions in the DDA (“Default”), subject to
Agency’s advance notice of the Default (“Notice of Default”) to Developer and Developer’s
right to cure such Default within thirty (30) days of the notice (“Cure Period”); and
WHEREAS, Section 704 of the DDA further provides that the Agency has the right to
terminate the DDA as a result of Developer’s failure to cure a Default during the Cure Period
and under certain other circumstances as described therein; and
ATTACHMENT 7
272
WHEREAS, the Agency provided Developer with a Notice of Default, dated June 4,
2009, based upon certain events and circumstances of Default more particularly described in the
Notice of Default, which is available as a public record in the offices of the Agency at 9770
Culver Boulevard, in the City of Culver City, California, and which is incorporated into this
Resolution by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, Developer has failed to cure said events and circumstances of Default
described in the Notice of Default within the Cure Period, resulting in an Event of Default as
described in Section 701 of the DDA; and
WHEREAS, to facilitate the redevelopment of the Property and fulfill the Agency’s
duties under the CRL, the Agency now seeks to utilize the termination provisions of the DDA to
fulfill its obligations pertaining to the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, Agency has reviewed and considered a draft notice of termination for the
Agency’s termination of the DDA (“Notice of Termination”);
NOW, THEREFORE, the Culver City Redevelopment Agency, hereby resolves as
follows:
1. The Agency hereby finds and determines that all recitals set forth in this
resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein in full by this reference.
2. The Agency hereby finds and determines, based upon (i) the facts and
circumstances presented in the Notice of Default and (ii) Developer’s failure to cure said Default
that the conditions for termination of the DDA have been satisfied and termination is necessary
and warranted to ensure the Agency’s ability to fulfill its duties under the CRL.
3. The Executive Director, or designee, is authorized to execute and deliver the
Notice of Termination on behalf of the Agency to Rush Pacifica LLC, forthwith.
ATTACHMENT 7
283
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ________________ DAY OF ______________, 2009, BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
_______________________________
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Agency Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
KANE BALLMER & BERKMAN
_________________________________
Murray O. Kane,
General Counsel to the Agency
ATTACHMENT 7
29