Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 2000-04-03SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2000 AT 7:30 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Paul M. Cohen, Member Barbara Heller, Vice -Chair Cyr N. Miller, Member Absent: Gary 0. Phillips, Member Also Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 7:38 PM None. CONSENT CALENDAR: Member Miller moved and Member Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, March 20, 2000 (AS) 2. Call for Applications to Fill One Unexpired Term on the Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment to the End of June, 2003, Due to Resignation of Bruce Friedman (AS) - File R-140 IV B 3. Resolution Making Findings Required by Health and Safety Code Section 33445, Committing Funds for Construction of Certain School Facilities and Taking Related Actions (RA) File R-6 x (SRCC) 4-16-7 4. Report on Recommendation Re: Downtown Farmers' Market and Mercado del Canal for the 2000 Season (RA) File R-181 x R-140 #8 x (SRCC) 251 x (SRCC) 11-19 Minutes approved as submitted. Approved staff recommendation: a) Called for applications to fill one unexpired term on the Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment, with deadline for receipt of applications set for Tuesday, April 25, 2000 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, City Hall; b) Set date for interviews of applicants at a Special Redevelopment Agency meeting to be held on Monday, May 1. 2000, commencing at 6:00 PM, to fill on unexpired term to the end of June, 2003. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-6 - RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445, AND APPROVING AGENCY FUNDING OF CERTAIN SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS AND TAKING RELATED ACTIONS. Approved staff recommendation: a) Approved operation of the Downtown Farmers' Market Festival from Thursday, May 4, 2000 through Thursday. September 28, 2000; and b) Approved operation of the Mercado del Canal and authorized expenditures of $15,000 for season from June 6, 2000 through September 26, 2000. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 2 5. Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File R-123 6. Resolution Authorizing an Agreement with Caporicci, Cropper & Larson, LLP, Certified Public Accountants, to Provide Auditing Services for the Years Ending June 30, 2000 And June 30, 2002, With Options for Years Ended June 30, 2003 and June 30, 2004 (MS) - File R-62 x (SRCC) 8-1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINING: AGENCY CONSIDERATION: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & MEMBERS: None MEMBERS: Member Phillips MEMBERS: Chairman Boro (from the Monday, March 20. 2000 meetinq). Accepted Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending February, 2000, as submitted. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-7 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH CAPORICCI, CROPPER & LARSON, LLP, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, TO PROVIDE AUDITING SERVICES FOR THE YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 2000 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2002, WITH OPTIONS FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 AND JUNE 30, 2004 Chairman Boro minutes of the meeting of only. due to absence from the 7. CONSIDERATION OF AN EXTENSION OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT WITH CENTURY THEATRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CINEPLEX ON THE THIRD AND LOOTENS STREETS PARKING STRUCTURE (RA) - File R-407 Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle reported that after looking at the parking situation, it was staff's recommendation that the Agency hold off on construction of the cineplex project and continue with the negotiations and entitlements, because the Agency needed to build more parking for the entire downtown, with or without the theater. Senior Planner Katie Korzun recalled that in August, 1998, the Redevelopment Agency selected Century Theatres to construct the new cineplex in the downtown, and entered into an Exclusive Right to Negotiate. She noted the Agency had extended the Exclusive Right to Negotiate several times, and it was staff's recommendation to extend it again. She explained staff and Century Theatres have been trying to develop a workable project, which would consist of three components; 1) traffic and parking reports; 2) a description of the theater's size and the number of seats and screens; and 3) site plans, theater floor plans, and a parking garage lay -out. Addressing the status of that information, Ms. Korzun stated a parking report had been submitted, and was determined by staff to be accurate. The traffic report was still under development, and staff was awaiting information from Century Theatres, which would then be incorporated into the City's traffic model, after which an analysis of the impacts could be completed. Ms. Korzun stated the applicant had submitted what they desire to construct on the site, noting the proposed theater would be 2,000 seats, it would have 12 screens and a ground -floor level lobby, and they would operate every day, with matinees starting at 11:30 AM, and the last screening at approximately 10:30 PM. Ms. Korzun noted the current proposal would have no retail or office component. Ms. Korzun reported the site plans, floor plans, and garage plans had been submitted in a schematic form, and staff had not yet done a complete analysis because the plans were still schematic. However, reviewing the information they did have, staff had found no outstanding Code requirements. Ms. Korzun stated the proposed site SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 3 would include three properties: one on the corner of Fourth and Lootens Streets, which Century Theatres owns; the garage behind the theater, which the City owns; and the Marin Laundry site on Third Street, which the applicant does not own, but is discussing with the property owner at this time. Ms. Korzun stated floor and garage plans had also been submitted, and staff had no particular comments to make regarding those. Ms. Korzun explained staff had requested a massing study rather than elevations, as they did not want to get into such things as choosing the right colors for the theater, and miss the entire discussion of whether or not there should be a theater. Therefore, they asked for a massing study, which the applicant had submitted. Regarding the impacts, Ms. Korzun first addressed parking and traffic. She reported the Parking Report looked at both on- and off-street parking within a 2 block radius of the site, and within that radius, they included nine of the eleven public parking lots. She stated the conclusion was that if the existing and pending projects would use all the existing capacity in the area studied, and if they estimate an 85% to 90% maximum desirable use rate, there would be a shortfall of parking, taking into consideration only those projects already existing or currently pending. She explained that even if the cineplex was constructed and they added on additional spaces, there would still be a shortfall. Therefore, whether the theater is built or not, there will be a short fall. Ms. Korzun stated the analysis started with an assessment of the existing parking situation. Staff conducted counts on a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and the results showed parking demand was greatest at noon, and then decreased the rest of the day, which was the pattern that has been seen for a number of years. Ms. Korzun stated the analysis indicated adequate parking currently exists with approximately 85% occupancy at noon, with a higher occupancy rate for on -street parking, indicating people would rather park on the street than in a structure. Ms. Korzun reported staff gave the applicant a list of pending projects and how much parking they would generate, and when the pending projects are added, parking occupancy increases and approaches 100% occupancy on weekdays at noon, up from 85%. Saturday usage rises substantially to 85%, and on Farmers' Market night, the demand would also be very high. Ms. Korzun stated the parking study then estimated the number of people expected to attend a 2,000 seat theater. She noted that was not an easy calculation to make, as theater parking varies by the hour of the day, with more people going to matinees than evening performances, and by the day of the week, with more people going to the theater on Saturdays than on Wednesdays. She noted attendance also varies by the month of the year, with more people attending in the summer than the winter, although a lot of people go to theaters during Christmas week. Therefore, there were quite a few variations that had to be taken into account. Ms. Korzun explained another unquantifiable demand would be a block -buster movie, noting no one knows when a "Star Wars" is going to come along, but when it does, it generates a substantial demand. Ms. Korzun stated these were all factors that needed to be worked in. Ms. Korzun stated that rather than trying to accommodate peak Christmas attendance, which was "way off the charts", the decision was made to look at the 90th percentile, which meant that 90% of the time all the parking would be taken care of, while 10% of the time there would not be enough parking. Therefore, during 52 weeks of the year, using the 90th percentile, five weeks of the year there would be a need for more parking than is being planned for. She explained that using the 90th percentile, and assuming there would be two people per car, there would be a maximum Thursday parking demand for the theater of 152 spaces, a Friday maximum use of 437 spaces, and on Saturday, the biggest day, 672 spaces would be needed. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 4 Ms. Korzun stated staff then took those parking demands, added them to the existing demand, and increased the parking capacity by the 119 spaces the applicant was required to add-on. She pointed out there was a difference in the number of added - on spaces used in the Parking Report and that shown in the staff report, as they were formulated at different times; however, she noted that when looking at 1,400 spaces, plus or minus ten spaces was not very much. Ms. Korzun stated that when adding the theater demand, the extra spaces provided by the theater, and taking into consideration the 85% maximum desirable occupancy rates, it showed that with pending and existing projects, the demand for parking would still be higher than what was available. She explained the desired 85% occupancy rate would be exceeded on Thursdays from 3:30 PM, on Fridays it would be short in the morning and again in the afternoon from approximately 3:30 PM to 7:30 PM, and on Saturday it would be short from approximately 11:30 AM to 9:30 PM. She noted that, basically, all day Saturday the capacity would be over what was desired, in terms of the 85% occupancy. Ms. Korzun stated this was shown visually in the staff report, noting on Pages 33, 35, 36, and 38 of the Parking Report staff had drawn a heavy line at 85%, to show when the parking goes up and over on those various days. Ms. Korzun noted the chart also showed current demand, what would be added -on with pending projects, and how much of that would be theater demand, allowing all three situations to be compared to the 85%. Chairman Boro asked for clarification. He noted the staff report addressed a shortfall of 169 to 243 spaces, which represents a shortfall of 124 to 191 even without the theater, and 45 to 52 spaces as the theater's shortfall. He stated he was trying to relate the parking structure, which will go from approximately 194 spaces to over 300, with the additional 129 spaces, plus those 52 spaces, to the figure of 600 spaces Ms. Korzun mentioned earlier. He asked Ms. Korzun to explain how all those figures related, noting one way he read the report was that the theater itself, if nothing else happened, would cause a shortfall of 52 spaces, assuming the new parking structure was built, and existing parking would cover all but 52 spaces. Ms. Korzun pointed out the report did not address the new parking structure, and the only new structure it referred to was the new Century Theatre. Chairman Boro stated the comment had been made that the theater should not be constructed until after the new parking structure was built; however, he wondered why staff was making that kind of recommendation if the shortfall was only 52 spaces? Ms. Korzun stated that if the theater did not go forward, and if the new parking structure was not built on a separate site, there would still be a situation where there was not enough parking to deal comfortably with the projects the City and the Agency already have. Chairman Boro stated he was looking at what would happen if the Agency tore down the old parking structure, built a new one, and built the theater, with nothing else happening. Ms. Korzun explained that if the Agency agreed to a suggestion made by Century Theatres that they valet park the structure to be built underneath the theater, an additional 50 spaces could be parked. However, during the evening, they would fill -up all the other parking in the downtown; therefore, while the parking could be accommodated, all the parking would be completely full. Ms. Korzun stated that if another structure was built, Century Theatres could valet park and possibly get all those spaces in the Century structure, with no impact on the new City parking structure. Chairman Boro asked what would happen on the days when 437 and 672 spaces were required? Ms. Korzun stated that occurred on Saturdays and evenings, when there were a lot of vacant spaces in the downtown. Chairman Boro asked when the worst possible time was, assuming nothing else was going on, and assuming the theater was built as proposed, and to accommodate their need, they added 129 spaces to the 194 spaces that were already there? He pointed out the 52 spaces they were short and the remaining spaces for their peaks could be found in existing structures in the SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 5 non -peak times. Member Cohen noted the staff report referred to valet parking in the structure, and Ms. Korzun had mentioned filling -up other spaces. He asked if valet parking meant parking cars in the aisles of the structure under the theater, and not having someone drive the cars off-site to park them at another structure? Ms. Korzun stated that was correct. Member Cohen referred to the 90/10 Rule, asking if the situation with the 52 spaces was the projection for 90% of the time? Ms. Korzun stated that it was. Mr. Cohen asked if that meant that during those 5 weeks of the year when the peaks overlapped, which he understood to be midday on Fridays and at Christmas, another 52 spaces would not even come close to providing the needed parking? Ms. Korzun stated that was correct. She also pointed out that instead of seeking this mythical 52 spaces, there was another difficulty, in that the theater would not have much of a demand for parking at noon, while the City had a huge demand at noon, which was going to go even higher. She noted the City would soon go close to 100% occupancy at noon, and the opening of the theater would only exacerbate that, and people would believe it was because of the theater, when it was actually because everyone is coming downtown to eat. Referring to the 85%, Ms. Korzun reported she has had several questions from people as to why there were suddenly so many complaints about parking, and why everyone was saying they could not find parking. She reiterated the City was only at 85% of capacity, and there were still spaces out there, although they were not where people wanted to find them. She stated people did not want to have to park on the upper deck of the "A" Street garage, they wanted to be able to drive into the same parking spaces where they have always gone, and park next door to the places they want to visit. Ms. Korzun noted the 85% was a figure the Agency needed to pay attention to, because that was when the complaints were going to come, and capacity needed to be built-in. She acknowledged the Agency could run toward 100%, but it would be problematic, noting the theater did not want to be in that situation, nor did the Agency or the City. Ms. Korzun pointed out the Agency and the City had always provided parking for everyone who comes downtown, noting that every space downtown had been paid for by the City, with no recompense. She stated this would be no different, and if a new structure is built, the City would still be moving along in the same vein. Chairman Boro stated that had changed with on -sight parking requirements in some of the newer buildings, such as the Macy's building, at the Fair, Isaac site, and Oacis. Ms. Korzun stated the City actually had not required any more than it had gotten in the past. Using Fair, Isaac as an example, she noted the only part of that project that was in the Parking District was the first fifty feet, and 98% of that project did not qualify for District parking. She pointed out that of all the other projects in the 10 years she has been with the Redevelopment Agency, other than very small projects, none have ever been given carte blanche, or 100%, the City has always gotten some. She noted that was the case in this instance, as the theater would be providing some parking, and a lot would be put in the District. Ms. Korzun stated the Agency had to look, not just at the theater's shortfall, since they will have to make that up; rather, they had to look at what the Agency needed to do to the system downtown to make it more comfortable. Ms. Mackle pointed out that when Ms. Korzun stated the Agency was doing what it has always done, she meant with the projects that had already been approved, not necessarily those that might be coming up in the future. She acknowledged the earlier comment about a "B" Street project being self -parked was correct; however, she pointed out the new structure was being built for such projects as Kaiser, Oacis, and Rafael Town Center, projects that have been approved, and have been told they can use District parking for some, not all, of their parking. Chairman Boro stated that even though they may be in the Parking District, the Agency had tried to move toward a good percentage of the parking being provided on- site by the new developments, noting that as we go forward, the Agency might have to come up with a new policy to do more of that. Executive Director Rod Gould stated SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 5 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 6 one of the things staff would be looking at as part of the Parking Management Study would be assessing a parking impact fee on those projects that cannot provide parking, perhaps changing the age-old policy of providing the parking and charging those projects that cannot provide full parking on-site, which would provide a revenue source for future parking. Ms. Korzun addressed where the shortfalls would occur with this project. She stated that while there was a shortfall, in order to reach the 85% maximum use there had to be more parking. She explained there were two options for obtaining that; the first was to provide more parking on-site, and the other would be to go off-site. In terms of providing more parking on-site, there were two ways that might be done. One would be to go underground; however, that was something, at least preliminarily, the engineers believed would be an expensive proposition, as the structure would have to be completely redesigned, and it would require very delicate negotiations to come up with constraints before it could be determined whether or not they could even go underground. Another option would be to make the structure pick-up more property, noting there were other properties in the area that could be picked -up, but there were costs associated with that. Yet another option would be to go off- site, which Ms. Korzun stated she would discuss later in her report. Ms. Korzun acknowledged there would be a parking impact, noting staff had looked at a variety of options and would be discussing them further. However, she reported one issue that had not yet been evaluated was the traffic impact. She stated it had been staff's assumption that evening peak hours would not conflict with the PM peak, although staff was aware the traffic capacity downtown was limited, and could not guarantee or vest capacity to this project until they had processed their permits. Regarding the site, floor and garage plans, Ms. Korzun reported the Fourth Street corner site was proposed by the applicant to be a ground -floor lobby, which was something staff supported because if there was going to be a theater, with all the excitement and visual stimulus associated with that, they wanted it on Fourth Street where the pedestrians were, not on Third Street facing traffic, or on Lootens facing another building. Ms. Korzun stated that as the project is proposed, there was access to the garage primarily from Lootens Street, with a secondary access on Third Street. She noted the City Traffic Engineer wanted to look at the impacts of those various ins and outs, as they may need to be adjusted. In addition, there was an open alley shown at the back of the theater and the backs of the buildings on Fourth Street, and she explained that was there because those property owners currently had access rights, and the Agency wanted to make certain those rights were preserved. However, there were a lot of questions as to whether what was shown there would work adequately, and staff will continue to work on that issue. In addition, that area would have to take pedestrians coming out of the structure, get them to the existing Court Street walkway, and eventually out to the Court Street Plaza; therefore, staff wants to make certain that not only can delivery trucks drive down the alley, but that pedestrians will be able to safety walk down the alley, as well. Ms. Korzun referred to the Massing Study, which describes the mass of the building. She noted this proposal showed a building approximately 70 feet tall, acknowledging that was over the allowed height in this District, and explaining the project would be granted a height bonus for providing public parking. However, she noted the project would still be slightly over, and would require a parking variance in addition to the height bonus. Noting the project would be approximately 71 feet tall, she pointed out that on Fourth Street, the tallest building in front of the project site was three stories, or approximately 34 feet; therefore, when the theater is seen behind that building, it will be approximately double the height. She explained that if someone were walking down Fourth Street, they would not see that building because it was set back mid -block; however, it would be seen by motorists driving down Third Street. She noted what would be seen at the corner of Third and Lootens Street would be Western Sports, a single -story building approximately 24 feet high, with a seventy-one foot high theater behind it. There SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 6 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 7 would be no openings in that wall because it was on the property line; therefore, the view would frame Western Sports with a wall that was approximately 50 feet higher than the building, with no openings. Ms. Korzun reported staff had looked at the possibility of setting the building back; however, she explained that when trying to set back a building that is 71 feet high, the two or three foot landscape strip is not visible. Therefore, she believed it had to be acknowledged that this was an urban building, in an urban situation, and there would not be substantial set -backs of any sort unless the size of the project was substantially reduced. Ms. Korzun reported the actual construction time for the theater would be between one and two years, and during that time, the 194 spaces would not be there. She acknowledged staff was aware of it, and would not ignore that fact, noting they would be looking at where else those cars might go. She stated one possibility would be to have the new structure open, and use that as interim parking. In addition, the City would need the new structure in order to provide additional parking when the theater opens, allowing the City to maintain its 85% comfort level. Therefore, staff was proposing the timing of the parking structure and the theater be coordinated, with the new parking structure being completed, and then the old structure being torn down. Ms. Korzun stated staff was asking for a two-year extension of the Exclusive Right to Negotiate. She explained that when the Redevelopment Agency first entered into the Exclusive Right to Negotiate, the assumption was that the Disposition and Development Agreement would be processed, Century Theatres would follow with their discretionary permits, and the project would be under construction by now. However, she noted that had not occurred, and the Agency was fast approaching a point where there might not be enough traffic capacity. Ms. Korzun stated the Agency had to vest the traffic capacity, and the only way that could be done was to obtain the approvals. Therefore, staff was proposing that the applicant move promptly on their development approvals, and then the Agency would follow with the Disposition and Development Agreement. She explained this would lock -in the traffic, and construction could begin later, stressing that they needed to proceed quickly to lock -in the traffic. Ms. Korzun stated it could take up to two years to do the Disposition and Development Agreement, and noted that even if they had an approved Use Permit, they would still need the Exclusive Right to continue working on the DDA, otherwise the Agency could grant a Use Permit and then go and talk to someone else. She stated this was something the Agency needed to pay attention to; therefore, staff was proposing the Agency Members adopt the Resolution, and extend the Exclusive Right to Negotiate for two years. Executive Director Gould noted the Agency had been working with Century Theatres for over a year on this project, and it was very complicated. He reported Century Theatres had completed the most comprehensive, intricate and expensive parking study ever completed on any project in San Rafael. He stated it was the depth of that parking analysis that had led staff to the conclusion that the parking shortfall in the downtown must be addressed in any case, and right away. Further, he pointed out the site itself was highly constrained and, therefore, very challenging. He noted Century Theatres had worked with the Agency and made some major concessions, including a loss of retail on Fourth Street, in order to accomplish the Agency's objective of a major presence on Fourth Street. He stated he wanted to give credit to the applicant for working very closely with staff to bring the Agency a project staff felt was very doable, and one that would be very important for the downtown, well into the future. Ms. Mackle noted that on many projects, staff comes before the Agency Members with a more conceptual project, then goes to the Planning Commission with all the details. However, because of the impact of this project, staff was bringing more of the details to the Agency Members early on, such as parking, massing, and other issues. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 8 She pointed out that while Ms. Korzun had discussed many issues, that was merely a "heads -up" of what was to come later on. She stated staff was still very supportive of this project, although it was a little out of the normal order. She explained that normally, they would get the DDA done and develop a concept with a general description of the project, then go through the parking, traffic, and Planning Commission approvals for the Use Permit; however, in this instance, staff was reversing that order and moving forward with some of those issues because of the impact of this project. Chairman Boro stated he did not understand why they needed two years to do a DDA when the Agency had done them with other projects that were bigger than this one, and in a shorter period of time. He noted what he was really concerned about was the linear approach being taken, where first one is done and then the other, with each having different cycles, and the garage having an entirely different timing cycle. He stated if there were no other alternatives, then he would have to agree that was what the Agency had to do. However, he pointed out there were other potential alternatives coming their way for interim parking, such as the use of part of the P.G. & E. site, possibly part of the Fair, Isaac site, and perhaps even successful negotiations with the owners of the bank building to determine whether their parking structure could be used at night. Therefore, he stated he had a real problem with stating the Agency would adopt this Resolution with the idea that the parking structure will be built first, and then the theater. Chairman Boro stated the Agency Members had to have the understanding, or at least hope, that staff was going to pursue other solutions, noting he felt the Agency had other options rather than just to say they were going to go after this one step at a time. He was concerned that staff was asking the Agency Members to agree, in concept, to a two to five year effort, as he did not believe it needed to take that long. Chairman Boro believed there were other opportunities out there, and while acknowledging the Agency had not had a chance to go after them, he noted they had been talking about them, and knew they were there. Ms. Mackle agreed Chairman Boro's point was well taken, noting they had discussed this in general terms at staff level. She stated staff's proposal was a "worse case" scenario, noting that if staff was unable to come up with another option, this would need to be done. She explained that if the Agency takes out all the parking and the theater is built, something needed to be done to take care of the parking when the cineplex is under construction, and to suffice when the theater is up and running. She stated the Agency would like to come up with another solution, as would Century Theatres, noting they were all ready to get moving on the project. Member Cohen stated he was very supportive of this project, at least on a conceptual level, as it fit very well with what the Agency and the City have been doing in the downtown, and he was anxious to see it become a reality. However, he felt the report made clear that the project continued to face tremendous challenges. Mr. Cohen noted he was a little concerned to discover the project itself would not handle its own parking, and added stress on an already stressed parking system downtown, although he acknowledged that perhaps the valet parking would take care of that. He stated his previous intention had been that once the construction was done, the project would essentially be self -parked, and the City would be netting new parking spaces. He pointed out that might be true some of the time, but other times, not only would it not be true, there would also be additional demand that would have to be addressed, either through valet parking or finding an additional fifty parking spaces. Member Cohen stated that while perhaps they have already been studied exhaustively, he would like to see additional study of other options. For example, he acknowledged that digging holes in the ground was more expensive than building structures in the air; however, he pointed out that both Oacis and Rafael Town Center had managed to find ways to fit that into their project budgets. Mr. Cohen SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 8 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 9 stated he was also concerned about the height of the project, pointing out the massing study did not show very well the fifty foot blank wall this project presents to the thousands of people driving west on Third Street, and that concerned him. He did not believe he had a good grasp of what that would look like, noting he only had a sense of it, and did not like that sense. He stated he needed to see and know more about that, because the project might go forward, and they would realize it was not what they wanted to see there. Member Cohen stated it was not entirely clear from the plot plan where the buildings are proceeding west, where Nautilus is. He noted it was his general impression that next to the laundry there was a surface parking lot. He stated he was not really familiar with the way that building was set up, and how they used that space; however, setting aside his comments regarding the height of the structure, or, if they were able to figure out a way to deal with the blank wall aspect of it, given that there was surface parking past there, he asked if that parking structure could be continued to the west? He noted that since it was a three-story structure, they would be able to pick-up some significant parking spaces for every few feet they were able to move it west. For example, he noted the staff report referred to 48 spaces, and he believed that if Century Theatres were able to come to an agreement with the owners of Western Sports Shop, and if the project became rectangular, the City could conceivably get those 48 spaces. He asked if staff had looked at re- configuring the Nautilus building and moving westward with those three floors of parking? Ms. Korzun stated they had discussed it briefly, reporting the Nautilus building was completely utilized by Nautilus, and the area in the back was their classroom area. She noted the building at that point was 300 feet deep, and if 150 feet was taken off, which was almost half the building, there was a question of whether it would still stand up. Therefore, this had not seemed like something worth pursuing, because of the structural constraints. Member Cohen stated one of the things he was concerned about related to the next item on the agenda; however, when putting the two items together, it appeared that when the projects were completed, whether they were completed in a linear fashion or somewhat in conjunction, the City would still be back at capacity at the end. He believed the Agency really needed to explore every option, even if the cost per space might initially be higher. He stated he wanted to be confident staff would examine every opportunity that might exist, because the Agency was not going to be able to do very many of these types of projects, as the City was running out of space. He understood the parking problem existed independent of the theater, and that the need for the other structure was also there, independent of the theater project; however, he wanted the Agency to look very carefully at this. Referring to the two-year extension, Mr. Cohen stated assumptions regarding traffic impacts greatly concerned him, and he asked how soon the traffic impacts of this project would be evaluated? Ms. Mackle stated staff had discussed getting started on the traffic impacts, and Century Theatre's Traffic Consultant had talked with the City's Traffic Engineer; however, she did not know whether they had actually begun the evaluation. Fred Choa, Fehr and Peers Associates, Traffic Consultants on this project, noted they had also been the Traffic Consultants on the Fair, Isaac project, and were currently working on the proposed expansion of Safeway. Regarding the Traffic Study, he noted City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian was in the process of updating the City's traffic model. He explained that in terms of analyzing the actual impacts of the project, there were two considerations. First, regarding the project itself, he noted that for a movie theater, the hours of operation and when shows begin were mostly outside peak hours, definitely not during morning peak hours, and during the evening the highest parking usage and trip generation occurred more toward 7:30 PM to 8:30 PM. Therefore, during the traditional peak hour, which is 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM, trip generation and parking demands of the project were actually lower than Ms. Korzun had stated earlier. Specifically, on Thursdays, SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 9 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 10 instead of 152 it would be 113; on Fridays, instead of 437 it would be 251; and on Saturdays, instead of 672 it would be 459. He stated there would be a significantly lower number of vehicles coming to the downtown during the peak hour, and when the movie theater is generating higher trips, there would be available parking spaces in the downtown, either from employees leaving office land uses, or from retail uses generating less traffic than during the noon peak hour. Secondly, the amount of traffic traveling east and west on the main arterials was significantly lower at 7:30 PM, 8:30 PM, and 9:30 PM. Regarding the Traffic Study itself, Mr. Choa stated they had provided most of the information the Agency had asked them to address, such as site access, particularly off of Third and Lootens Streets; however, until the City Traffic Engineer completes the update to the Traffic Model, specific impacts during the traditional peak hours could not be determined. Member Cohen asked if they had done an initial study and determined, based on what they know today, that this is doable? Mr. Choa reported that based on the market data which Century Theatres does for any new movie theater, in terms of where they expect people to come from and who will go to the movie theater, as well as the number of trips travelling through the downtown area and the total volumes coming from the freeway during peak hours, it did not appear this project would impact the critical intersections, such as at Mission Avenue, getting onto the freeway. He reiterated that during the morning peak hour, the movie theater itself would generate only employee traffic, which would be minimal. Member Cohen noted a similar comment had been made about parking. He stated there were industry standard trip generation rates for various types of uses, and asked if Mr. Choa was relying on Century Theatres' market data, or if they had trip generation rates for other movie theaters, as well? Mr. Choa stated they actually used the standard source, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Guideline, which defines week -day trip generation and Saturday trip generation. In conjunction with that, they looked at what Century Theatres was doing at three of their busiest cineplexes in the Bay Area, so not only did they have a national standard for every movie theater, whether it be in the Bay Area, the midwest, or back east, they also had data for Century Theatres' three busiest movie theaters. Mr. Choa stated that using Century Theatres' data, they actually had higher trip generations and parking demands than compared to standard rates. Therefore, theirs was a conservative analysis of what the potential impacts could be. Member Heller stated it seemed as though there might be a lot of trouble with cars trying to queue -up to get into the parking structure, noting there was a fairly small area to try to get them in and out. She wondered how it would work if there was someone doing valet parking? Mr. Choa stated their emphasis would next be to work with the City Traffic Engineer, looking at how the driveways would operate. He noted they knew how many cars would come to the downtown area, and now they had to determine the best and most efficient way to get them in and out without impacting through traffic and other patrons coming downtown to eat or shop. Ms. Heller asked if Mr. Choa had worked with other theaters that were using valet parking? Mr. Choa stated they had worked with Century Theatres on other projects throughout the Bay Area, as well as other theaters; however, Century Theatres would actually be doing what private parking lot owners would do if they were located next to a movie theater complex, taking that type of process and implementing it on-site, thereby improving the overall efficiency of getting people in and out. Ms. Korzun noted that when they first started talking about the methodology, Mr. Choa conducted a tremendous amount of investigation as to what the industry standards actually were, and where they came from. She explained he had found the standards were old and dealt primarily with single -screen theaters, and he returned to Century Theatres, informing them they needed to look at real-time data, as the standards were not valid. She emphasized they had not merely taken what the standards were, they had reviewed them, found they were not really what they wanted to use, and went quite a bit further. She reported Century Theatres had even had to SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 10 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 11 do a lot of exposing of their ticket sales, which was something that would make any competitive business nervous. She stated the analysis was real-time, based on what was going on now, and what was going on with comparably run Century Theatres in the Bay Area, which she believed was as close a replication as they could get. Ms. Mackle responded to Member Heller's question about the queuing -up, noting that if the Agency Members directed staff to move forward with the new parking structure, staff would take a hard look at how the structure would be managed, whether it be with computers or attendants. She noted they might be using a whole new technology, where people do not have to stop and take a ticket on their way in, rather they get in, get off the street, and do something on the way out. Member Miller believed a theater would be a vibrant use for the downtown. However, he agreed with Member Cohen regarding the massing, especially from the Third Street view. He stated he understood the comments about being part of an urban landscape; however, he noted that during the Vision process there had been set -backs, although he understood there could not be set -backs with this project because there was not enough parking capacity. Mr. Miller felt the project was almost overwhelming, and he did not know how they were going to be able to mitigate that feeling, or what kind of measures could be taken. He pointed out the next block would have the City's parking lot going up three feet, and the block after that would have a massive new parking structure, resulting in what would seem to be a large, walled- off area. He hoped this could somehow be taken into consideration, as he felt it was the kind of thing people would react to very strongly. Mr. Miller believed the City was getting close to the edge, where everything needed to come together and the City needed to say "enough", and decide when and where it was going to have to stop development and intensify existing uses, rather than continue new development. He acknowledged those were big issues that were being raised by this project, and they would have to be addressed at some point. Ray Syufy, CEO of Century Theatres, referred to the comments made by his Traffic Consultant, pointing out the three theaters used in the analysis were three of the busiest theaters in Century Theatres' entire circuit of over seventy locations, and were also in the top twenty-five theaters in the country in terms of occupancy and parking demands. He noted, when coupled with the 85 or 90 percentile and all of the analysis, there was a tremendous amount of contingencies built into the parking study, pointing out it did state that 90% of the time there would be no parking problems downtown. He stated that while they did not wish to belittle the other 10% of the time, that existed because of the conservatism that had been built into the analysis, and he believed there was actually less of an issue than indicated in the parking report, although he acknowledged the project had to be parked correctly. Mr. Syufy noted that if the project moves forward, they would be putting in significant sums, and the theater would be there for a long time; therefore, they wanted it done right. However, they also wanted a realistic view of the situation, and he believed they were moving toward that. Mr. Svufy stated they wanted to do this project sooner, rather than later, and were prepared to start immediately; however, he acknowledged they needed to do things in a responsible manner, and they respected that. Chairman Boro stated, as pointed out in the staff report, that parking studies are conducted approximately every eighteen months; therefore, the Agency had good data and staff felt fairly confident. However, he noted things had changed, even since Century Theatres began working with the Agency, and although things were moving in the downtown when work began on this project, they were not moving then as well as they are now, and the City did not have the parking problems a year and a half or two years ago that exist today. Chairman Boro stated the Agency had to make certain that as this project moves forward, if the Agency runs up against a stone wall of some kind, that Century Theatres, as well as the City, will be willing to look at some of those issues, such as the hours of operation, maximum number of seats, and when they would be filled. He stated he understood what Century Theatres was SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 11 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 12 stating they wanted to do; however, he believed that until they get closer to actually starting the project, there should be an understanding that some of the operational issues that could mitigate the parking problems will be considered. He stated the Agency also understood Century Theatres was putting substantial money into the project and, therefore, the project had to pencil -out for them, and while the Agency understood and respected that, he wanted to make certain the understanding was there that such issues might have to be revisited. Mr. S.vuf.v stated, given the sums his company had committed to the project, they were going to do that in any event, noting they wanted to make this project qualify on its own, without the added operational things that could be done. He felt it would be terrific if, once the project qualifies on its own, Century Theatres then added, on top of that, all of the operational things that could be done, such as valet parking and, under certain reasonable conditions, looking at the hours of operation. Gary Ford requested the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency postpone its vote on the fourth extension of the DDA for a period of at least thirty days, stating he believed such a request was reasonable and quite necessary. Mr. Ford pointed out the Agency had already granted three extensions to allow the Agency to gather the numerous documents surrounding the cineplex project, in order to create a workable project. He noted one of the necessary documents was a final report of the downtown Century Theatre, as prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates and submitted to the Planning Division of the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Ford pointed out the receipt date to the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency was March 20th, and stated he had not received a public copy until April 1st. He stated that during the past twelve months, he has also attempted to obtain copies of the parking report, only to be informed that it had not been formalized. Mr. Ford felt it was inappropriate for the public to be receiving thirty-nine pages of complex parking analysis only forty- eight hours before the next public meeting of the Redevelopment Agency. He stated the Planning Division of the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency could not petition the Agency Members to continuously seek extensions for the cineplex project because key reports and documents have not yet been finalized, and then withhold such information from the public so that inadequate time is provided for public review. Mr. Ford stated the parking report was very critical, and the questions being posed by the Agency Members and Executive Director Gould showed the parking issue was quite complex, and he reiterated the public had not received copies of the report until April 1st, which was not enough time for them to analyze the report. He also questioned whether there had been sufficient time for the Agency Members to analyze the report. Mr. Ford stated it should also be understood that all the subsequent analysis surrounding parking rates, vacancies, usage, the need for an additional parking garage, the environmental report, and the particulars of the DDA would be predicated upon the assumptions and stipulations as detailed in the parking report. Consequently, he believed a detailed review of the parking report was most prudent, not only by the public, by also by the members of the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Ford stated the public has the right to thoroughly examine the report, and bring key issues to the attention of the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency for greater clarification, and he did not believe such review could be done in forty- eight hours, nor did he believe such review was being done this evening. Mr. Ford noted extensions had been granted for the cineplex project for the past several months, if not years; therefore, he felt his request for a thirty -day postponement appeared most reasonable. Executive Director Gould pointed out staff was not asking the Agency Members to confer any development rights to Century Theatres at this time, nor approve any entitlements or even a Disposition and Development Agreement. He explained that after the good faith efforts to negotiate a project with Century Theatres, staff now believed, based on a site plan and parking study, that there was reason to move forward with the application processing. He stated staff was encouraging Century Theatres to begin the application process, and was asking the Agency Members for SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 12 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 13 direction to negotiate the Development Agreement with Century Theatres in that context. He noted there would be months for the public to analyze the parking study, reiterating the Agency Members were not being asked to approve the report at this time. Member Cohen pointed out the second to last paragraph of the staff report contains the sentence, "Century's representatives indicated their strong preference for an extension of more than a year, and the acceptance of the parking and traffic study findings by the City in the future, with no revisions or updates". He stated he wanted to be sure, in his mind and for the public, that "in the future" meant this was something the Agency was still discussing, and that the Agency Members were not, in any way, accepting the findings of the parking study or traffic study as part of their actions this evening. Ms. Mackle stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen clarified the only thing being proposed was to continue the Exclusive Right to Negotiate with Century Theatres, and that any theater on this site could be presumed to have similar parking and traffic impacts. He recalled the Agency had previously stated its desire to see a theatre at this site, and offered an Exclusive Right to Negotiate for what they took to be the most qualified firm. He noted the Agency was merely extending that agreement, and not talking about a fundamental change in the project, or locking the Agency into any documents, whether they were received a month ago or two days ago; rather, they were acknowledging they had come up against a deadline, and had reason to believe that extending the deadline would continue to produce results. Ms. Mackle stated that was correct. Member Cohen moved and Member Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving an extension of the Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement with Century Theatres for the development of the cineplex on the Third and Lootens Streets parking structure. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-8 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT WITH CENTURY THEATRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CINEPLEX ON THE THIRD AND LOOTENS STREETS PARKING STRUCTURE (to March 21, 2002). AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Phillips 8. NEW DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE (RA) - File R-140 #8 x R-105 Senior Planner Katie Korzun recalled that last March, staff presented a parking report in which they informed the Agency Members that parking was full and more parking was needed. She stated staff began working on the problem, and on July 6th presented twelve potential sites for a new parking structure, noting the Agency Members focused on two of those sites and asked staff for further investigation and an analysis. Ms. Korzun reported staff also contracted with CUB Management Group to prepare a management study, having told CUB the Agency needed approximately $6 million, and asking how that could be obtained from the existing system. In addition, staff placed a parking structure on the Redevelopment Agency Bond list, providing seed money of approximately $3 million to get the project started. Ms. Korzun also reported that since that time, Century Theatres has prepared a parking analysis. Ms. Korzun stated one of the questions that was consistently asked of her at meetings in March and July was how much parking was needed, and her response had been that the Agency needed as much as it could afford to build. Ms. Korzun reported Century Theatres' parking analysis had provided an estimate of how much was needed, and staff now had much more information. She stated there was a shortfall over the desirable use rate of approximately 169 to 243 spaces; therefore, she believed that in the worse case scenario, the Agency needed approximately 240 additional parking spaces. Ms. Korzun explained most of the increased shortfall, SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 13 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 14 which she noted was larger than staff had previously thought, was because there were now more people downtown, noting a year ago staff had been able to look at the trends and see that it was creeping up. She reported staff was beginning to hear more complaints from people who say they can no longer park downtown, and asking what the Agency has done. She explained that was because the demand for parking has exceeded the 85% mark, and instead of being able to just quickly find a parking space, people were having to drive around looking for a space, and they did not like having to do that. Regarding the choice of a preferred site, Ms. Korzun reported staff had taken the two sites preferred by the Agency Members to parking structure designer Watry Design Group, and asked how to get 400 spaces on each site. She stated they had been looking at the property behind Wells Fargo, currently occupied by the City's parking lot and Wells Fargo Parking, but had not included the small retail on the corner, as they were not taking out any structures. The other alternative was the site behind (San Rafael) Joe's, which is the cineplex site. Ms. Korzun stated Watry generated two alternatives for the Third and Lootens Streets lot, and staff added a third alternative. Staff was now presenting for consideration three schemes at Third and Lootens Streets, and one at Third and "C" Streets. Scheme A at Third and Lootens Streets involved only the property the Agency has now; Scheme B would include Western Sports, making the property a little bigger; and Scheme C would take that larger site and make it even taller. She noted there was only one scheme for the Third and "C" Streets alternative. Ms. Korzun stated staff's real objective was net new spaces, or, how much they were really going to get at the end of the day, noting the sites at Third and Lootens Streets and Third and "C" Streets already had parking on them; therefore, staff simply subtracted what was already there. Doing this, Schemes A and B on the Third and Lootens Streets lot had approximately the same net new spaces, although with Scheme B. the Agency would have to purchase more property. Scheme C would require purchasing more property and financing yet another structure; therefore, the Agency would be getting more spaces, but it would be an extremely expensive proposition. The Third and "C" Streets scheme had as many net new spaces as Schemes A and B on the Third and Lootens Streets site, although not as many as Scheme C, and it would probably be more expensive than Scheme A. but not as expensive as Scheme B. Ms. Korzun stated it was staff's analysis that Scheme C was the most expensive scheme in terms of what it would cost, as well as disruption to existing businesses and the loss of the theater, pointing out that if Scheme C were chosen, there would be no theater. Therefore, staff was recommending the Third and "C" Streets lot, noting the Agency would get 263 spaces, and it would not have to purchase any businesses or buildings, although it would purchase some property. In terms of moving forward with that particular scheme, Ms. Korzun stated the Agency would have to purchase all or part of four parcels, three of which are owned by Wells Fargo, and the fourth by the Herzog/Rake family and Mr. Robert Peterson. She noted the lot would require taking out a driveway, and it was possible that some of the access at the back of the buildings would have to be reconfigured, which would also require purchasing property. Ms. Korzun stated staff would also have to hire a parking structure design consultant, someone who could take the sketches staff has now and begin generating them into real designs, a real analysis, and real cost estimates. Regarding the fiscal impact, Ms. Korzun reported this would involve approximately $7 million to $8 million, noting staff would not have an exact amount until appraisals of the properties were obtained, and they had a real design and cost estimate. She stated staff believed there would be funding mechanisms that could be used to obtain the additional money, pointing out people pay to park, and the Agency might be able to recapture that. She noted one of the reasons staff hired CUB was to figure out what revenues the Agency can get out of the District, as well as the best use of them. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 14 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 15 Ms. Korzun explained staff was requesting the Agency Members accept the report, accept the Third and "C" Streets site, direct staff to begin acquisition discussions and property appraisals, and issue a Request for Qualifications for a parking structure design consultant. Member Cohen noted there was one thing that concerned him, and which he felt was a potential risk of the proposal moving forward. He stated that if the theater project was not before the Agency, if the project turned out to have a fatal flaw in terms of traffic impact, if Century Theatres suddenly decided this market was saturated and no longer wanted to do the project, or for whatever reason the theater project was no longer on the table, the Agency would want to make certain it was making the best decision regarding where to put these millions of dollars in a new parking structure. He noted there was something about the table in the staff report which bothered him, as it appeared to suggest Scheme A at Third and Lootens Streets was arguably more desirable than the Third and "C" Street solution staff was recommending, because the cost per space was significantly less, pointing out that even though the cost of the project was more, the cost per space was less. He noted that absent the theater project, someone might question why the Agency was spending $13,300 per space as opposed to $12,300 per space at Third and Lootens Streets. He explained what really bothered him was that the net new spaces were the same, with no discernible difference between the 261 versus 263, yet the Third and Lootens site was significantly more expensive. He stated it appeared what staff had done to get the cost per space was to take the total number of spaces after the project is completed, and divide that into the cost to construct the project. He stated he had done a little math following that same logic, using the cost per new space, which clarified which is the better project. He explained he took the 261 spaces, divided it into the $5.61 million, then took the 263 and divided it into $4.7 million, and he found the incremental cost was $21,500 at the Third and Lootens Streets site, and $18,275 at Third and "C" Streets. He believed that was a figure the Agency Members should have in front of them when this decision is made, noting there was something about the results as shown in the staff report that did not make sense to him, yet when he looked at it in this way, it seemed clear, based on that information, and without having to worry about whether or not the theater project was real or speculative, Third and "C" looked like a better decision. Member Heller noted that earlier in the meeting, as well as at previous workshops, they had discussed whether there might be other sites where the Agency could negotiate with the owners to furnish some of the needed parking within the downtown. She asked if staff had pursued this, and asked the property owners for permission? She requested staff return to the Agency within thirty or sixty days to follow-up with a list of those property owners they have spoken with, and what their reactions have been. Ms. Mackle stated there were two issues involved; one was to see if the Agency can use parking that is used by an office building during the day but not used at night. Secondarily, there was a list of areas that might be used as interim parking, which she noted staff could pursue. She pointed out that would be dependent upon when those projects do, or do not, go forward; for example, if the hotel does not go forward as quickly as anticipated, and P.G. & E. leaves the site anyway, that might be an opportunity for the Agency to use parking on that site on a short-term basis. Member Heller stated she was thinking more in terms of long-term parking. Chairman Boro stated he and Executive Director Gould have had preliminary discussions with the owners of the bank building, and were also pursuing the issue of the successors to Fair, Isaac, perhaps having one of the criteria be that the Agency would have access to evening parking at that site. Member Cohen referred to the "C" Street site, noting that during discussion of the theater there had been a comment regarding Western Sports Shop, and what acquisition of those parcels would net as far as parking spaces. He noted that in the staff report for this item there was a similar situation, pointing out there were two parcels that, if done as part of this project, would yield a rectangular project that would presumably be a more efficient design, and would net additional parking. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 15 0 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 16 He asked if this had been considered, or whether there was a reason it had been ruled out? Ms. Mackle stated staff had ruled that out for a couple of reasons; one was the expense of buying the property and relocating the businesses, and secondarily, in this case, staff felt it would be good to keep a pedestrian -friendly "B" Street if possible. She stated staff could review taking those buildings as part of the project, but noted they had not yet gone that far. Member Cohen asked how tall the proposed structure would be behind those buildings? Ms. Korzun referred to the chart in the staff report, noting the height at Third and "C" Street would be approximately 47 feet, roughly equivalent to the "A" Street garage. She stated the reason staff did not want to have the "A" Street garage facing the new garage and have them be equal was because there was no retail on that side, and they wanted to maintain a retail buffer. Member Cohen noted staff had stated earlier in the evening that with the cineplex they were looking at an urban project, and felt they might also be looking at an urban project in this case, as well. He stated one could conceivably do ground -floor retail in equivalent size spaces, with an additional couple of floors of parking above it, all the way to "B" Street. He acknowledged there would be a question as to what the financials would be for something like that; however, he noted one could presumably get pedestrian - oriented retail on "B" Street, and park two to three levels of parking above it, in what is currently "air rights" over those existing buildings. He stated he would like, as part of the direction to staff, that they look at this. He acknowledged that it would increase the expense and complexity of the project; however, he pointed out the Agency was "only getting a couple of bites of this apple", and he wanted to make sure they were good ones. Member Miller moved and Member Heller seconded, to accept the report, select the Third and "C" Streets site, direct staff to begin acquisition discussions and property appraisals, and to issue a Request for Qualifications for a parking structure design consultant. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Phillips RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SECTION 33401 AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN RAFAEL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF AGENCY FUNDS FOR OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO THE AMENDED SECTION 33401 AGREEMENT (RA) - File R-6 x (SRCC) 4-16-7 Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle explained that anytime the Agency issues a round of bonds, it must get approval from taxing agencies. She reported that in 1999, staff worked with all the taxing agencies to issue the Agency's bonds, including the San Rafael High School District. She noted the Agency got the bonds, and they got $4.2 million, which they were able to leverage for $20 million in State funds. Ms. Mackle explained these bonds helped increase the assessed valuation of the property taxes in the area, which was a long-term gain for everyone involved. Ms. Mackle reported staff's initial estimate of their tax impact for the Agency issuing the bonds was $300,000 per year, and the Agency was compensating the San Rafael High School District by giving them the $4.2 million for that loss. However, she stated staff now understood that loss to be $479,000 per year, due to various reasons, such as different bonding size, and primarily due to a different calculation than staff had understood would be used by the County. Ms. Mackle stated that while both parties have agreed to this agreement, staff wanted to work with the schools to help them during the tight budgetary timeframe they are currently in. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 16 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 17 Ms. Mackle stated staff was proposing a three-year solution to help them, due to the impact of the bonds, which would be $179,000 per year, and would not exceed $537,000. She explained staff was recommending an amendment of an agreement already in place, which would allow the Agency to pass these funds to the School District to help them at this time. Member Miller congratulated Executive Director Gould, Ms. Mackle, and her staff for seeing this as a community problem and a community issue, rather than sitting back and wondering what the best advantage would be for the Agency, and for acknowledging that schools are at the heart of the community and the heart of our future. Member Miller moved and Member Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing an Amendment to the Section 33401 Agreement with the San Rafael High School District, and approving the allocation of Agency funds pursuant to the amended Section 33401 Agreement. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-9 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO AMEND A FISCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN RAFAEL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Phillips 10. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A LOAN AND REGULATORY AGREEMENT FROM THE CANAL AFFORDABLE. SAFE AND HEALTHY HOUSING ("C.A.S.H.") PROGRAM FOR THE REHABILITATION OF THE 28 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 509 CANAL STREET IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200.000 (RA) - File R-420 x (SRCC) 13-16 Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle explained staff was presenting two different approaches to housing in the Canal. She pointed out this was a complicated issue; however, she and her staff had not given up, nor had BRIDGE Housing. She reported staff was presenting two items which, combined with the efforts of the City's Code Enforcement, she felt really had a chance at tackling portions of the affordable housing issues in the Canal. One was the Canal Area Housing Improvement Program with BRIDGE Housing, and the other was with the C.A.S.H. Program, which involves private property owners. She explained there were two different approaches, and both addressed very low-income households to retain affordability; with the BRIDGE Program it would be forever, and with the C.A.S.H. Program it would be thirty -years. Ms. Mackle stated staff was very excited, and hoped the Agency Members would be supportive of these actions. She acknowledged they would not solve all the problems out there, but staff believed this was a good step in the right direction. Senior Planner Stephanie Lovette recalled that in September, she addressed the Agency Members to discuss the C.A.S.H. Program, which is basically a program whereby the Agency would increase the maintenance and habitability of housing in the neighborhood, through continued Code Enforcement and owner training, and also increase the supply of affordable housing through a program of providing rehabilitation funds in exchange for affordability covenants. Ms. Lovette reported staff was moving forward on both fronts. She noted the first meeting of the Canal property owners would be held April 11th, and would be chaired by Police Sergeant Jim Kelly, herself, the City's Code Enforcement Officer, representatives from the Fire and Police Departments, Fair Housing, Marin Housing, and the Red Cross. She explained that meeting would basically be a "getting to know you" meeting, and understanding what resources are out there. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 17 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 18 Ms. Lovette stated the second program was one that was more exciting, and potentially more problematic. She recalled that when it was first brought before the Agency Members in September, staff had noted that it would be a very difficult program and a difficult sell to the community, in terms of the community of property owners. She stated staff had to find an owner who would be willing to work with a government agency, and be willing to reduce rents in exchange for rehabilitation loans. Ms. Lovette stated she was delighted to announce that staff had found that owner, and would like to move forward with the allocation of $200,000 for rehabilitation at 509 Canal Street, a 28 -unit building in fairly good shape. She noted the owner had experience with government programs, and would be setting aside fourteen units, affordable to people at 50% of the median income; therefore, the rents would be approximately $843 for a two-bedroom unit, and $936 for a three- bedroom, which is comparable to the high-end of current rents in the Canal which are $1,000 to $1,300 per month, based on a rent survey completed in July. Ms. Lovette explained the $200,000 loan would pay for security improvements, and interior and exterior improvements, noting a complete list of improvements was included in the staff report. The loan would be for a period of twenty years, at 4.00% interest. Interest and principal would not be due until the twenty-first year, and would be forgivable between the twenty-first and thirtieth year. The cost per loan would be approximately $14,000 per unit. Ms. Lovette recalled the Agency Members had asked for a comparison of other rehabilitation programs the Agency had funded. She reported there had been a wide range of projects, from $3,500 per unit for Marin Housing to $25,000 per unit for the Marin Center for Independent Living, and noted they were included in the staff report. Ms. Lovette stated the property owner, Gabriella Ricci, was present and wished to address the Council. Gabriella Ricci, one of the owners of 509 Canal Street, stated her qualifications went back to 1962. Noting that all of the properties had been purchased with partners, she stated they bought their first little building in San Francisco, in 1972 they moved to Marin County and bought an 18 -unit building in Novato, in 1984 they purchased 105 Canal Street, which was almost falling down but now looks marvelous, and in 1986 she and her husband purchased 509 Canal Street, which also had been in extremely bad condition, and which they rehabilitated. She stated they had experience with 105 and 509 Canal Street, as far as doing rehabs with the Housing Authority, and noted that after they were rehabed, each unit was given a Section 8 certificate. She explained that because of the Section 8 certificate, many of the people there had been able to save a little and buy condo's or little houses, and move up. Referring to her expertise in management, Ms. Ricci stated she belongs to the Marin Income Property Association and has been a member of their Board of Directors. In addition, she was also on the Government Committee to the California Apartment House Association for the Marin Income Property Association, which is a Statewide organization. Ms. Ricci noted she has been on several housing boards, including Fair Housing of Marin, and she attends meetings of the Human Rights Commission on Housing at the Civic Center. She stated her partners were also involved in the management of the properties. Referring to 509 Canal Street, Ms. Ricci explained this was a twenty-eight unit building with two- and three-bedroom units. She noted they were family units, which she believed were really needed for that area, as that was the type of clientele they were seeing. She stated that since 1986, the building has had a very stable tenancy, noting she still had a lot of the tenants who received Section 8 certificates and then lost them because they made too much money. She reported she has only had one eviction over the past fourteen years. As to why she was requesting this funding, Ms. Ricci stated that in the Canal the showers take a beating due to large families. She noted this was also a humid area, and the paint does not last very well. Ms. Ricci stated she now needs to do some SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 18 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 19 capital improvements, explaining she would like to have a security gate, which would prevent a lot of hassles. She stated that would prevent cars that do not belong in the parking lot, particularly during the weekend and at night, which would make the building more secure for the tenants. She stated that along with the security gate, they would also like to have a metal fence that would match the gate, making it more appealing, noting the entrance really was tired and needed to be upgraded with new wrought iron. Ms. Ricci pointed out the facia had been painted only a year and a half ago; however, paint was not what it used to be, and consequently, did not stick. She stated she had located metal that had baked -on paint, which lasts 50 years, and at 105 Canal they laminated the entire facia with this material, reporting all of the wooden parts had been replaced with that, and it looked just like wood from a distance. In addition, she stated the asphalt in the driveway also needed attention, and the inside bathrooms could use new tubs. She stated there were a few other items they would like to take care of if they could be included in the cost, such as resurfacing the roof with a white polyurethane surface, which is a complete sealant that would make it more comfortable for the tenants, and also lower maintenance costs. Addressing the question, "Why 509 Canal Street, and not another building?", Ms. Ricci stated she had a lot of experience, and has been in the Canal for a long time, she has always had the lowest rents in the area, and was also familiar with repairs. She believed there were other owners in the area who could be enticed into the program, acknowledging there were other good owners in the area she knew through the Association. Responding to the unasked question of whether she was crazy to sign half of her units to rent control, she stated she did not believe she was, as she felt this was the coming thing, and eventually, especially in California, owners and governments would have to work together to provide housing. She stated there just was not enough of it, yet we cannot displace all of the people in the Canal who do all the gardening, cleaning, and restaurant work, and send them up to Sonoma County. Therefore, she believed this issue had to be addressed, not just in this area, but in other cities that will have to grapple with this issue, as well. She noted that in San Francisco it was the City Council against the owners, and that just did not work. However, in San Rafael she saw that the Redevelopment Agency was really far- sighted, and doing the right thing. Member Cohen stated the Agency Members were not the only ones doing the right thing, and he thanked Ms. Ricci for stepping up and helping the Redevelopment Agency to get this program going. Member Cohen moved and Member Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the Economic Development Director to Execute a loan and regulatory agreement from the Canal Affordable, Safe and Healthy Housing ("C.A.S.H.") Program for the rehabilitation of the 28 -unit apartment building at 509 Canal Street, in an amount not to exceed $200,000. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10 - RESOLUTION APPROVING EXECUTION OF AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AND REHABILITATION LOAN AGREEMENT WITH LOUIS AND GABRIELLA RICCI TO LOAN UP TO $200,000 FOR REHABILITATION OF HOUSING UNITS WHICH WILL BE MADE AFFORDABLE PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Phillips SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 19 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 20 11. RESOLUTION APPROVING EXPENDITURE OF $80.000 FROM THE CANAL HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ASSIST BRIDGE IN THE PURCHASE OF 162/172 BELVEDERE STREET AND 129 CANAL STREET (RA) - File R-413 x (SRCC) 13-16 Senior Planner Stephanie Lovette explained this item was an authorization of $80,000 from Redevelopment Agency Housing funds to assist BRIDGE Housing in the acquisition of two buildings, 162/172 Belvedere with 28 units, and 129 Canal Street with 40 units. She explained BRIDGE Housing planned to acquire, rehabilitate, and manage the units, and was attempting to keep all of the rents affordable at 50% of median, which meant approximately $749 per month for a one -bedroom unit, $843 for two - bedrooms, and $936 for three bedrooms, all based on the current median income. Ms. Lovette reported BRIDGE Housing planned to spend the next sixty days doing inspections on the property, and noted the total due diligence budget for each of the buildings was estimated to be $130,000 per building, of which staff was requesting $40,000 come from Redevelopment Agency funds. She explained that if the acquisition does not proceed, the Agency could lose that money; however, she noted staff expected they would be so far into the inspection period that they would know if there was a problem before the time the Agency had to put up the money. ' Ms. Lovette reported the Agency has allocated $500,000 to this program, and anticipated allocating another $250,000 in the next fiscal year. She noted the remainder of the Agency funds, above and beyond the $80,000, were expected to be used for tenant relocation. Ms. Lovette stated that while BRIDGE Housing anticipated very little tenant relocation being required for the rehab, relocation was anticipated because of the overcrowding of the units. She noted some of the money being used on this project would be Federal funds, such as CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) and HOME funds, and they had very strict restrictions on the number of people that can be in the units. Ms. Lovette reported BRIDGE Housing, along with their relocation consultant, would be doing a relocation plan, explaining that plan would be based on interviews with each of the tenants in their native language, and the relocation consultant anticipated being out there during the next week or two. Ms. Lovette noted the consultant speaks Spanish, and all of the notices will be in Spanish, and any other language staff needs to translate them to. She explained the Agency would be providing the notices, and once they go out to the tenants, they will also be provided to the Canal Community Alliance, the Canal Ministry, Marin Housing, and the Housing Assistance line, so if they should get any calls, the tenants can be assured that they are not notices to move, and that they do not have to leave. Ms. Lovette stated staff had included the preliminary due diligence and acquisition budget in the staff report, reiterating these were preliminary numbers, as they have not yet been able to get into the units to inspect them. She reported the funding for the acquisition and rehabilitation was expected to come from CDBG and HOME, the Redevelopment Agency, conventional or tax-exempt lenders, and potentially from the Marin Community Foundation or other foundations, noting staff had already spoken briefly with the Marin Community Foundation about this project. Member Heller noted Ms. Lovette had mentioned there might be relocation because of overcrowding, and asked what happened in such cases, how they selected which tenants would be relocated, and how they relocated them? Ms. Lovette explained that, basically, the Federal government considers a unit to be overcrowded if there are more than two people per bedroom, plus one person in the living room. Therefore, if a consultant goes in and interviews a tenant, and finds there are more than that many people in a unit, some of those people would have to move. She stated the Agency would provide relocation for them, finding them a new unit and paying the differential in rent for a specific period of time. She explained that if they were being asked to move for rehabilitation because something needed to be done to the unit, then the Agency would probably move them into another unit, and the relocation requirements would be a little different, because it would be a temporary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 20 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 21 relocation. Ms. Mackle explained the relocation law was very specific concerning the benefits, and there were consultants who specialized in that issue. She noted BRIDGE Housing would be hiring such consultants, pointing out they were also bi- lingual, and would be able to explain to the tenants their rights. In addition, in the event the tenants had to move out, the consultants would also help them assess where other properties might be, and review their income to see what they could afford, and there was also a financial payment to help them with the difference in their rent payment. Ms. Lovette explained there was a forty-two month replacement housing payment which the Agency would have to provide for any tenant that was permanently relocated. Member Miller asked if it would be possible to add, in addition to the Canal Community Alliance, Canal Ministry, and Marin Housing Assistance, the Pickleweed Community Center, and train someone so that people could easily go by the Center? He believed a number of people would go to that Center rather than going to the others. Ms. Lovette stated staff would do that, noting they had also let the Pickleweed Advisory Board know about this at their meeting last week. Lydia Tannum, BRIDGE Housing Corporation, stated she was very pleased to be before the Agency, noting they had waited a year and a half to be able to address the Agency Members and have a contract in place on not only one, but two key properties in the Canal district. She stated they had a lot of work to do in the next sixty days, and were ready and waiting to go forward. Ms. Tannum noted they believed the most important thing at this point was to get the relocation consultant onto the properties to interview all the residents, so they determine if there is overcrowding, and also what the incomes of the residents are, as well. Referring to the issue of relocation, Ms. Tannum explained that if there was permanent relocation off-site, it was also required by law that they provide three alternative housing opportunities for each of the families who are relocated. She noted this was a very thorough service that would be provided to the residents. Member Miller moved and Member Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the expenditure of $80,000 from the Canal Area Housing Improvement Program to assist in the purchase and acquisition of two apartment buildings. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-11 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF $80,000 FROM THE CANAL AREA HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ASSIST IN THE PURCHASE AND REHABILITATION OF 162/172 BELVEDERE STREET AND 129 CANAL STREET. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Phillips 12. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None. There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 PM. 111. JEANNE . LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 4/3/2000 Page 21