Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1997-01-21SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997 AT 7:30 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Chairman San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Barbara Heller, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary Phillips, Member Absent: Albert J. Boro, Chairman Also Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 7:30 PM Member Miller moved and Member Phillips seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, January 6, 1997 (CC) 2. Quarterly Housing Report (RA) - File R-173 x (SRCC) 187 x 13-16 ACTION Approved as submitted. Accepted report. 3. Report on Bid Opening and Award of Contract RESOLUTION NO. 97-2 - for First and "C" Street Drainage Improvements, RESOLUTION AWARDING THE Project No. 916-9016-8770 (Bid Opening Held on CONTRACT FOR FIRST AND "C" Tuesday, November 19, 1996) (This is to Replace STREETS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS San Rafael City Council Resolution No. 9767 TO MAGGIORA & GHILOTTI, INC. Which was Adopted on 1/6/97 and is on the 1/21/97 IN THE AMOUNT OF $147,741.00 City Council Agenda for Rescission) (PW) AND AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER - File (SRCC) 4-1-487 x R-353 OF $90,000 FROM THE MAHON CREEK ACQUISITION AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ACCOUNT TO THIS PROJECT ACCOUNT. AYES: MEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Chairman Cohen NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Chairman Boro The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: 4. RESOLUTION RATIFYING EXECUTION OF LETTER AGREEMENT WITH McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN, LLP, RE: LEGAL SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH APPROVAL OF RAILROAD GRADE CROSSING FOR EXTENSION OF ANDERSEN DRIVE (CA) - File R-378 x R-246 Member Miller referred to the disbursement charges incurred by McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, LLP, stating he felt their charges were too high, specifically for photocopies and facsimile transmissions. Mr. Miller asked Agency Attorney Ragghianti if these charges reflected normal business practice among attorneys? SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 2 Agency Attorney Ragghianti stated the billing practices of some of the larger law firms would likely be even more expensive, noting the costs depend on the individual law firm. He stated some smaller firms include such costs in their hourly rate. Mr. Ragghianti reported there was no uniform policy, but the rates reflected in this report were not uncommon in the industry. Member Miller moved and Member Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-3 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND RATIFYING A LETTER AGREEMENT RETAINING THE MCCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN & ENERSEN LAW FIRM FOR LEGAL SERVICES, AND APPROVING A CONFLICT WAIVER. AYES: MEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Chairman Cohen NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Chairman Boro AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 5. FINAL TWO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR MACY'S SITE (RA) - File R-373 Economic Development Director Jake Ours reported the Macy's building had closed in April, the Redevelopment Agency purchased the building in September, and now the Agency was recommending the final two developers on the project. Mr. Ours reported a committee had been formed, consisting of Councilmember Phillips and Mayor Boro, and members of the Planning Commission, Citizens Advisory Committee on Redevelopment, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Business Improvement District. He noted it had been a very broad-based group of people who reviewed the seven proposals received by the Agency for compliance with the issues they knew would have to be considered, such as price, compliance with the Vision for Downtown, creating vitality, and other things the City had said it wanted for the Downtown area. Mr. Ours stated that in looking at all the proposals, he had also singled out a plan submitted by Sharon Fox, noting that while it was not actually a proposal, it was a compendium of very good ideas for the use of the building, and he reported a copy of this plan would be given to all the finalists, so they could look at it and see what applications it might have for their proposals. Of the six remaining proposals received by the Agency, three were quickly identified as being out of the mix for what the Agency envisioned for the Downtown area, centering around businesses similar to Ross Stores or Long's Drug Store, and did not have the dynamic the Agency was looking for. Mr. Ours reported the remaining three proposals were very good; however, one of the three included a Draeger' s Grocery Store in the Downtown, and while this was a dynamic proposal with a lot of appeal, it contained property requirements the Agency could not deliver on, such as having to include the adjoining property as part of the proposal, and when the Agency looked at the actual layout, there were also some problems with parking structures and parking lots. Therefore, while a Draeger's Grocery Store would be something the Agency would definitely want in the Downtown, it would not work at this particular street corner, or with this particular layout. Mr. Ours stated a Draeger Is Grocery Store was something the Agency would want to pursue at some other location, as well as a Long's or Walgreen's Drug Store. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 3 Mr. Ours reported the committee came down to the final two proposals very quickly. He referred to the design renderings from V Properties Corporation, dba Lalanne/Volkmann, which calls for retail on the ground floor, and eighty-eight units of housing above, noting it was a large, dynamic project, with a lot of activity, and gives the kind of feeling we want for the Downtown. Mr. Ours noted the second proposal, from Samuelson Schafer, also includes retail on the ground floor, with office space fronting Fourth Street, and residential space along Fifth Avenue. Mr. Ours stated both of these were well thought out proposals, noting the Samuelson Schafer proposal also included a theater complex; however, the Agency has had several conversations with representatives of the Rafael Theater project, and there was a lot of feeling that this would create too much conflict with the fundraising and actual operations of the Rafael Theater. Therefore, the Agency has asked Mr. Schafer if the theater segment could be eliminated from his proposal, and for now, the Agency will be looking at his proposal without the theater complex. Mr. Ours stated staff recommended these two proposals be selected, and then the proposals would come back to staff on February 26th with additional information for a more detailed examination, with the final selection to be made on March 17th. Mr. Ours stated he was very pleased with the proposals they had received, noting the Agency was working with very good developers who would deliver a very good product to the City. Member Heller asked if the proposals now being presented were the finals plans, or if they would be changed or expanded when they are submitted on February 26th? Mr. Ours stated the plans would probably be different when they are resubmitted, noting he had already spoken with Lalanne/Volckmann about possibly adding an office component to their proposal, and there would likely be a more refined presentation of design, and a better idea of who the tenants would be. Member Heller referred to the adjacent property, which was not owned by the City, and asked if the owners would have an opportunity to work into this development, if they so choose? Mr. Ours reported both developers had stated they would attempt to include that property in the development, if the Rubini family so chooses. Mr. Ours noted the Agency had not made this a requirement of the project, because they felt it could hold up the project, but acknowledged it would be better to include the property, if it can be done. Member Phillips noted when the committee had met to review the submitted proposals, these two were very quickly singled out as being above the others, and he hoped the Agency Members felt comfortable addressing these two, as they were exemplary, and both included significant elements of the Vision. He noted the Redevelopment Agency should be commended for acting so quickly on this project. Member Miller referred to the older house on the corner property, noting if it were removed the circulation patterns could change, and asking if this had been considered by the developers? Mr. Ours stated this had not been mentioned by the developers, although he would be suggesting they look at the entire block and consider what might be done. Vice -Chairman Cohen commended the Committee for the work they have put into this project, and stated the recommended selections do stand out from the crowd, SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 4 noting both proposals seemed to be outstanding examples of what the City was looking and hoping for. He stated he had been struck by the proposal for Draeger Is Marketplace, and while he was not necessarily stating he would choose it over either of these two proposals, he had noted in reading the report that this particular proposal had been eliminated solely because of the requirement that it include the other properties on the block, particularly the Rubini property. Vice -Chairman Cohen asked if that were the sole reason it was eliminated, would there be an opportunity over the next month to give the developer a chance to approach the Rubini family and see whether or not they could make that kind of deal? He also asked, if the Agency was encouraging the other two developers to contact the adjoining property owners to see if they could structure a deal which would assemble all the parcels, should they not also extend that opportunity to the group proposing DraegerrIs Marketplace? Vice -Chairman Cohen stated as he read further in the report he noted there had also been design issues, and asked Mr. Ours to expand on this, as well. Mr. Ours reported the Draeger's proposal included a four-story parking structure at the corner of Fourth and Fifth Streets, which was not a very vital part of any design, and would, in effect, kill that corner. In addition, they had a surface parking lot at the corner of Fourth and Court Streets, so there would be parking all along Court Street, all the way to Fourth Street, and the vision of shopping carts at that corner did not seem right. Vice -Chairman Cohen asked Member Phillips if he agreed? Member Phillips stated he did, noting the committee as a whole agreed the proposal did not seem visually attractive, although there had been sentiment for Draeger Is Marketplace, perhaps at another location. Mr. Ours acknowledged the committee liked the vitality of the Draeger's proposal. Vice -Chairman Cohen invited members of the public to comment on this item. Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber was very pleased this project was moving along so rapidly, and asked if both proposals would be required to have 10% inclusionary affordable housing? Mr. Ours stated they would have 15% affordable housing. Sharon Fox, 127 Humboldt Street, noted that while she was not a developer, she had submitted the Vision for the Macy's building, which Mr. Ours had mentioned earlier, and which the Agency was going to pass on to the developers. Ms. Fox stated her Vision had not been an actual proposal, but was the result of informal surveys she had conducted throughout San Rafael, and was based on what people had told her they did and did not want to see in San Rafael. She reported she had also spoken with prospective retailers who might want to be part of an upscale home marketplace, noting perhaps there would be a developer who would see the vision in this. Ms. Fox stated one of the important points which many of the people raised, and which most of the people felt very strongly about, was the real need to have a design which was very traditional, and in keeping with the "small town" look. Referring to the issue of the five screen theater, which was included in one of the proposals, Ms. Fox stated she could understand the Rafael Theater's concern about a conflict with their fundraising; however, she did not believe it would have a great impact, reporting she was a very strong supporter of the Rafael Theater. She noted she grew up in San Rafael, and one of her greatest joys was walking Downtown to go to a first -run feature movie, but people can no SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 5 longer do that in San Rafael; they have to get in the car and go to Northgate Mall. Ms. Fox also pointed out the addition of the five screen theater would mean that when the Film Festival is held, there would be five extra screens to use for that particular week, or for other special events. She stated the different types of theaters would increase the foot traffic in the Downtown, noting people would come to the Downtown as a destination. She asked the Agency if another conversation could be held with representatives from the Film Festival, and perhaps a rethinking of this decision. Ms. Fox stated she wanted the best for San Rafael, and if having the best meant having something like those theaters, she hoped the proposal could be revisited. Vice -Chairman Cohen stated he would like to see Ms. Fox's Vision, and asked that copies be sent to the Agency Members. Member Phillips noted the Committee had originally been under the impression the Rafael Theater felt it was a good idea to include the five screen theater; however, it seems that position was later re -thought. He stated the Committee' s discussion seemed to support many of Ms. Fox's observations of creating more activity in the evening, greater circulation, and adequate parking, and it seemed to compliment the Rafael Theater and their program. Mr. Phillips stated he, too, would like to encourage the Agency not to scrap this concept without further consideration, and perhaps further discussion with the Rafael Theater, noting that if it worked, it could compliment one to the other. Ms. Fox stated that when asking people what they wanted to see in the Downtown, many of them brought up the issue of the Rafael Theater, asking what was happening with the project, and expressing concern that so much money was being raised, but it appeared not much had been accomplished. Ms. Fox stated she explained the retro -fitting and construction took a great deal of time, and assured them the Film Institute was doing a great job, and that she supported them. Ms. Fox suggested perhaps the City might find a way to educate the public as to what this project is, how important it is to the Downtown, how important it is to support it, and how the public can get involved in supporting the project, not just by fundraising, but to somehow see that they are a component in the creation of the Vision, so there would be some pride of ownership in the project. Bill Dittman, 250 Elizabeth Way, stated as a resident of San Rafael, and owner of the Marin Teacher's Store, soon to be renamed Education Express, he had two reasons to address this issue. Mr. Dittman stated his perception of the entire project, after reading an article in the Marin Independent Journal newspaper, was that there was a "rush to judgment" here. He noted the proposals were very impressive packages, and it sounded as though the investment the Agency had made in the Macy's building was going to pay off rather handsomely for the City and the developers. Mr. Dittman stated the implication in the newspaper article was that there were Letters of Interest in the retail aspects of the property, and he felt the City should keep an open mind about this, and slow the project down, to the point where the needs of various citizens who live in San Rafael are considered, as opposed to the idea of having a magnet to draw people from outside. Mr. Dittman noted the idea of providing housing was on the right track, noting part of the Downtown Vision was to increase housing and office space in the Downtown. Mr. Dittman asked the Agency to consider the need for more independent business owners who are willing to come in and develop their particular niche in this community, and then stay here. He stated that while everyone was impressed with such names as The Gap, Barnes and Noble, and Williams Sonoma, those businesses also have locations elsewhere in Marin, and pointed out these were SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 5 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 6 highly competitive areas in which decisions were made in offices outside of our community. Mr. Dittman felt it should be considered that this project was going to be a community effort, and the developer should recognize that fact. He acknowledged he had only read the one newspaper article, and it was possible the Agency already had this Vision in mind; however, the tenure of the article was that the project was pretty much a package deal, to be approved or disapproved in March, and Mr. Dittman stated he did not feel it needed to be voted on at that particular time. He asked if the timeline the Agency was envisioning would include this kind of patient consideration? Vice -Chairman Cohen explained the Agency's action at this time was to narrow the selection down to two proposals, and in approximately a month the Agency would receive additional submittals from the two finalists, after which the Agency would enter into an agreement with one of the two finalists, and the final project would then come under review. Therefore, there would be at least two more opportunities for the kind of discussions Mr. Dittman and Ms. Fox have suggested, once when the proposals come back to the Agency next month, and then again as the final project goes through the normal application process. Vice -Chairman Cohen stated there would be plenty of opportunity to comment on the components of this project, including the nature of the retail, and other issues which may arise. Member Phillips moved and Member Heller seconded, to accept the recommendation of the Macy's Development Review Group for the selection of two proposals, from Samuelson Schafer and V Properties dba Lalanne/Volckmann, to go forward in the development selection process. AYES: MEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Chairman Cohen NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Chairman Boro 6. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 6 JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/21/97 Page 7