Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1996-11-18SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1996 AT 7:40 PM Regular Meeting: Present San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Barbara Heller, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary Phillips, Member Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director Lee Rosenthal, Agency Attorney Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE None CONSENT CALENDAR: Albert J. Boro, Chairman Paul M. Cohen, Member 7:30 PM Member Cohen moved and Member Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar item: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Monday, November 4, 1996 (CC) AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 2. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION RE: AMENDING THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (1996-97 AMENDMENT) TO PROVIDE FOR AN AGENCY PROJECT FOR SOME OF THE PARCELS ON THE BLOCK BOUNDED BY SECOND, THIRD, "A" AND "B" STREETS AND TO DETERMINE THAT PARCELS IN THAT BLOCK DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REQUIRE ASSEMBLAGE FOR PURPOSES OF REDEVELOPMENT: (RA) - File R-140 XVI a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ADD PROJECTS THAT THE AGENCY MAY UNDERTAKE. Chairman Boro declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Director of Economic Development Jake Ours explained redevelopment law requires that agencies have a five-year Implementation Plan, which basically tells the public how the agency is going to do business. He stated tonight the Agency was going to amend its Implementation Plan to add a new specific project, noting the Amendment was to balance the Plan internally to specifically identify a "B" Street Project, and address the change in emphasis from an Economic Development Plan, with no funds associated with it, to a Downtown Revitalization SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 2 Plan, with specific funds attached to the implementation of that Plan. Mr. Ours stated the Plan Amendment does not change the Agency's direction, but it does add a Downtown Revitalization Project, shifts funds, and adds a discussion of replacement housing to cover the possibility that we may have to take some houses down, and then replace them. He noted this was not something the Agency had done in the past, which was why this had not been in the plan before; but, now it will be, as there are some very specific laws about replacement housing. Mr. Ours explained this Amendment would add one new project, "B" Street, to the Downtown Revitalization Plan, and one project, a culvert replacement project, would be taken out. He stated that because the "B" Street area contains existing residential units, there was a potential that housing units could be impacted, noting the Agency had to address affordable housing as a replacement plan. Mr. Ours stated the Plan indicated the funding to be used for the new projects and programs would be $650,000 from the Canal Culvert Project, and $300,000 from the Bret Harte Drainage Projects, noting we will find other funding for those projects. In addition, $1 million will be taken out of the Agency Housing Fund two years from now. Mr. Ours stated there were a number of administerial changes within this project, but the main ones were the addition of the "B" Street Project, the reduction of the Flood Control Projects, and the inclusion of a Housing Replacement Plan. Chairman Boro noted this item was essentially to amend the Implementation Plan, and a second item, to be discussed later, would deal specifically with particular parcels being discussed as part of this revised Plan. Member Miller asked if this would be considered an extension of the development which includes the Lindaro District, Second and Third Street Corridor, and East San Rafael which have been listed as Community Commercial Developments Opportunities? Mr. Ours stated this would be an expansion of that, and sets forth the specifics of the funding. Mr. Miller asked if this Amendment was a revision after the General Plan Amendments to the Downtown, so that it was picked -up from the Vision? Mr. Ours stated that was correct. Member Phillips referred to the shifting of funds from the Bret Harte Drainage Project and the Canal Culvert Project, and asked what the consequences of that would be, and if those projects were only being deferred, to be done at a later date, or if they were being discontinued permanently? Mr. Ours stated that when they went over the budget for the Bret Harte Drainage Project, they felt they could take this money out of the Bret Harte Project and not significantly reduce the project, noting they thought they could still get it done with the monies that would be left. Referring to the Canal Culvert Project, Mr. Ours stated this was something that would need to be done sometime in the future, but after discussions with the Public Works Department, they felt they could get other sources of funds for the project, other than Redevelopment Funds. Member Phillips asked if that meant these projects would not be placed in a detrimental position because of this, and Mr. Ours stated that was correct. Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, requested to read into the record a letter she had sent to Chairman Boro and the Redevelopment Agency Members, "After reviewing the "B" Street Project Evaluation Report, I wish to inform you that the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce is in full agreement with the Redevelopment Agency's intention to assemble SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 3 the nine listed properties for the purpose of redevelopment. We feel that a major revitalization effort is necessary in order to address all of the issues that are negatively impacting the area. "B" Street is one of San Rafael's most historic avenues and has the potential to become one of its most economically vital areas. We have often discussed how the redevelopment of some of the properties in the Second and "B" Street area would fuel private investment. Interest in Downtown San Rafael's renovation is growing exponentially. It would be foolish for the City to let one deteriorating area keep the Downtown from experiencing its full economic potential. We encourage the Redevelopment Agency to move ahead with the project and again offer you our assistance and support". Deborah of th it Paolino, resident of funds from the Bret e drainage project in would not. the Bret Harte neighborhood, asked if the movement Harte Drainage Project would delay, halt, or change any way? Public Works Director Bernardi responded Charles Garfink, President of the Downtown Business Improvement District, stated the "B" Street corridor was a very important part of the retail section of Downtown, noting revitalization has been needed there for a long time, in order to spur further Downtown development. He stated this project would dovetail nicely with all the other projects the City is undertaking Downtown, and noted perhaps at some point this area could be included in the Business Improvement District, to help strengthen the area economically. There being no further public comment, Chairman Boro closed the Public Hearing. Member Cohen stated that in addition to the Plan Amendment which discusses "B" Street, he also wanted to point out the discussion of the Replacement Housing Program. He reported there were a very limited number of sites Downtown where there was "raw" land, noting there were still a few, but a couple of those were already under consideration for development projects, some with the City's participation and some totally private. However, he felt that, increasingly, we are going to want to be able to look at projects where we are going to deal with existing buildings that do contain housing units, and we are going to have to be prepared to deal with this issue. Member Cohen felt the time was right to amend the Plan and confront this issue, not just for this one specific project, but because, in general, it was time for us to use this as another tool, as there will be more areas where, in the future, we may be discussing buildings that currently have housing units, and we are going to want to get into the area of relocation or replacement. Member Cohen moved and Member Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving an Amendment to the Implementation Plan to add projects the Agency may undertake. RESOLUTION NO. 96-83 - RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO ADD PROJECTS THAT THE AGENCY MAY UNDERTAKE. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 3. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN PARCELS IN THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ARE IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THOSE PARCELS (RA) - File R-140 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 4 XVI Director of Economic Development Jake Ours noted Agency had directed staff to evaluate the southerly portion of the block bounded by "A", "B", Second and Third Streets, and adjacent properties, for conformance to the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Plan, and whether these properties could be required in an assemblage for the purposes of redevelopment. Mr. Ours stated the report being presented was an extensive, parcel by parcel study of this area. Mr. Ours stated it had been concluded that all nine parcels were in need of redevelopment, and should be included in the project. He noted all the parcels had items which were not consistent with City and Agency policy, blighting factors, and/or would require assemblage with adjacent parcels to have a project that would be effectively redeveloped in an integrated manner. Mr. Ours pointed out that while some of the parcels may not seem to be as blighted as others, when one looks at the total, some of the other parcels, including the corner lots, have to be included to make the project work. Mr. Ours stated staff had prepared a matrix, which showed the address of each of the parcels involved, and then listed the General Plan policies and asked, "Does the site need redevelopment action to address?" Mr. Ours noted that predominantly in the charts the answer was "yes", and that every parcel had some things that needed to be done, addressing the areas of Zoning Ordinances, the Redevelopment Project Plan, Project Area Long Term Goals, the Implementation Plan, Blight Factors, and the Five -Year Implementation Plan Goals. Mr. Ours explained staff had prepared the report to include each of the items staff must address daily, when looking at redevelopment and what needs to be done. He noted with each of the parcels, for each item on the chart, he asked the question, "Does this specifically need to be done in this case?" Mr. Ours stated, in general, these properties have been impacted by changing market needs, lack of maintenance, or poor appearance, noting this did not apply to all of the parcels, but a majority of them. He noted the lease spaces are not the size or configuration desired by most rental operations, and basic maintenance and investment in the properties had not been undertaken due to the decreased rental rates and revenues. Mr. Ours noted this was an area where cash flow was not as great as it should be; therefore, the properties were not being kept up as they should be. Mr. Ours noted the property they had looked at most seriously as being non -conforming was the industrial facility at 1112 Second Street. He stated the idea was that in order to remove this industrial use, we would need other areas, noting that in particular we would need access off "A" and "B" Streets to make the project work, and to get this core taken care of. Therefore, he stated one of the drivers in this project was this large, central property in the center of the project. Addressing a telephone call he had received earlier, Mr. Ours acknowledged the two corner parcels were not as blighted, but because of the assemblage requirements, the Agency needed them. He stated the Agency did not intend to make any comments about the look of the properties, or the lack of maintenance of those particular parcels, but because of the need for the corner development, they needed to be included in this area. Member Phillips stated that in looking at the listing of the property owners, many of the properties show owners with an interest of less than 100%, noting he was curious as to why partial ownerships were listed. Mr. Ours stated this SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 5 had to do with estates and inheritances, and was the way the ownership was listed on the tax rolls. Lauren Hallinan, Attorney representing Legal Aid of Marin, addressed the Agency on behalf of the St. Vincent de Paul Dining Hall, located at 822 "B" Street, stating their objections to the staff report concerning the condition of their property, particularly described in the chart regarding conditions of blight and blighting factors. John Manzone, owner of property at 810 - 816 "B" Street, clarified for Member Phillips that the reason only his name appeared as the owner of the property at 810 "B" Street was because the title transferred after a death, and while there were five owners of this property, it was listed with his name as owner. Dave Zappetini, owner of the industrial property located at 1112 Second Street, stated he had been having discussions with developers, and they were hoping to move forward with a plan and come before the Agency within sixty days. Mr. Zappetini stated the problem in doing a project like this was that it would need some subordination from the City, and he hoped that if this did go through, the City would consider giving him its support. Chairman Boro stated if the Agency passed this Resolution, Economic Development Director Ours would come back to the Agency with a plan to go out for proposals on this site, and noted that under State law, individual property owners had every right to come in with a proposal, and at the same time, the Agency could also entertain proposals from the market at large. Chairman Boro asked Mr. Ours to come back with a schedule of when and how this would happen. Member Heller asked when they would have this schedule, and Mr. Ours stated he would have a proposed schedule at the next meeting. Member Heller noted Mr. Zappetini was looking at putting together a project, and asked if Mr. Ours had received any other inquiries? Mr. Ours stated Mr. Zappetini was the only one they had discussed this with so far, noting this was a closely held idea at this point, and there had not been a lot of publicity, stating we would be seeking developer proposals. Member Phillips moved and Member Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution determining certain parcels in the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project Area are in need of redevelopment and directing a request for proposals for redevelopment of those parcels. RESOLUTION NO. 96-84 - RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN PARCELS IN THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ARE IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THOSE PARCELS. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 4. THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION RELATING TO CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TAX ALLOCATION BONDS, SERIES 1992 AND SERIES 1995 (Admin. Svc.) - File R-312 x R-140 XV x R-241 Administrative Services Director Kenneth Nordhoff stated this was a clean-up item SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 5 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 6 relating to the 1995 bond issue. He reported that in 1977 the Agency issued a series of bonds that retired in 1995, and the Agency worked in agreement with the County to continue extending that debt, in the amount of $630,000 per year, and they were willing to continue to commit the Agency's tax increment. Mr. Nordhoff reported the Agency was required to submit the annual payments, due in June and December, to the trustee who administers the bonds, and when that was done, we had, in essence, overfunded what the trustee needed by approximately $230,000, noting this exceeded what was allowed in accordance with our agreement with the County, dating back to 1977. Mr. Nordhoff stated this Resolution would clean-up this calendar year difference with the fiscal year difference, and bring them both into synchronization, noting the Resolution would then provide only that $630,000 be provided to the trustee twice a year within the bond cycle, and that would coincide with what the County has agreed to with respect to our tax increment, and funding our debt service. Mr. Nordhoff reported the Agency would be requesting funds from our trustee to have this money back and available for our debt service payment due December 1, 1996. Member Cohen moved and Member Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution relating to the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project Tax Allocation Bonds. RESOLUTION NO. 96-85 - THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION RELATING TO CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TAX ALLOCATION BONDS, SERIES 1992 AND SERIES 1995. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 5. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 11/18/96 Page 6