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