Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1997-10-06SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1997, AT 7:45 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Barbara Heller, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary O. Phillips, Member Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman Paul M. Cohen, Member Absent: None 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 7:45 PM Member Miller moved and Member Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular and Special JointApproved as submitted. Meetings of Monday, September 15, 1997 (AS) 2. Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Crowd Control RESOLUTION NO. 97-39 - Barricades for Event Management (Not to Exceed RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PURCHASE $9,900) from Friedrich's Custom Manufacturing (RA) OF CROWD CONTROL BARRICADES - File R-181 x R-140 #8 FOR EVENT MANAGEMENT (NOT TO EXCEED $9,900) FROM FRIEDRICH'S CUSTOM MANUFACTURING. 4. Downtown Fourth Street - Accept Proposal From RESOLUTION NO. 97-40 Republic Electric to Furnish and Install RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A Decorative Lights on Street Trees, and Authorize PROPOSAL FROM REPUBLIC ELECTRIC the Director of Economic Development to Execute TO FURNISH AND INSTALL Agreement (Not to Exceed $59,000) (PW) DECORATIVE LIGHTS ON - File R-366 x R-140 XIV STREET TREES AND AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None The following item was removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: 3. RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPERTY TAX RELEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND THE MARIN COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE MACY'S SITE, 998 FOURTH STREET (RA) - File R-373 x R-380 Economic Development Director Jake Ours reported that when the Redevelopment Agency purchased the Macy's building there were outstanding taxes which were in dispute, and they were still in dispute when we closed the sale. Mr. Ours stated it had been the Agency' s position that these taxes were the responsibility of the previous property owners, Territorial Savings and Federated; however, the County disagreed, stating the Agency had bought the property, and we had SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 2 to pay the taxes. Mr. Ours noted the dispute could have gone on indefinitely, and it was decided that in order to clear the property, the best thing to do was to compromise with the County. Therefore, the Agency compromised on paying approximately 50% of those taxes to get the Agency into clear title, and to appease the County. Mr. Ours pointed out this issue came up after the Agency had closed the sale on this property, and it was not something that at the time of the closing the Agency thought would be our responsibility. Member Phillips pointed out the property taxes ran through the period prior to closing, and asked why they were not attributed to the seller? Mr. Ours noted it had been the Agency's position, that it was the previous owners' responsibility, but the County interpreted the (Tax) Code to state that if the Agency purchased the property with those taxes outstanding, they were the Agency's responsibility. Mr. Ours stated this was only an interpretation, and the Agency's lawyers did not agree with them. Mr. Phillips reiterated that this tax was not attributed to a period during which the Agency held the property and, therefore, it was someone else's responsibility. He asked if there was any way the Agency could recover the $44 , 000 from Territorial Savings? Mr. Ours stated it was the Agency's intention to try to recover the money; however, at this time the Agency does not have any way of doing that, although they would explore how to do that. He noted the Agency could ask that if the County does recover funds, the Agency participate in that recovery. Member Cohen noted the Agency and its attorneys do not agree with the County that this is our responsibility, and asked how secure we were in our position? Mr. Ours stated it was not 100%, as it is a question of interpretation of the Tax Code. Mr. Cohen asked if they felt it was better to settle for paying $.50 on the dollar and have that be the end of it, than to fight with the County about it? Mr. Ours stated that was correct, pointing out the Agency has to clear title before it can transfer title on the property. Mr. Cohen asked, if the County does proceed against Territorial Savings, was there some way the Agency could incorporate into this agreement that the County will also seek to recover the Agency's $44,000? Mr. Ours stated he would try to have this included, and he would send the Agreement back to the County with such an amendment. Member Cohen moved and Member Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving a Property Tax Release Agreement between the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency and the County of Marin Tax Collector, including an amendment that the Agency seek to have the County of Marin and the County Tax Collector assist the Agency in recovering these funds from the previous owner. RESOLUTION NO. 97-41 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPERTY TAX RELEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE COUNTY OF MARIN AND THE MARIN COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR FOR THE MACY'S SITE, 998 FOURTH STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID RELEASE AGREEMENT (Agreement to be amended to include stipulation that if the County attempts to recover the taxes from Territorial Savings, reimbursement for the Agency to be included in such negotiations). AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 3 AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 5. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF "B" STREET PROJECT AREA (RA) - File R-396 x R-381 x R-384 Senior Redevelopment Specialist Nancy Mackle noted the staff report reflected changes made since the last Agency meeting. Reviewing the RFP for clarification, Ms. Mackle noted there was a list of Objectives, which referred to creating an active Mixed Use project, and pointed out staff refers to the Vision in this section of the document and throughout the RFP, and also refers to the General Plan. Ms. Mackle reported the Agency has an objective of retaining the historic character and pedestrian friendly nature of the street, has included housing replacement requirements, and is looking for an Entrance Statement at the "A" Street corner of the project. In addition, they have traditional Redevelopment objectives, such as eliminating blight and creating new jobs, and practical objectives such as construction timeframe and Agency financial assistance. Ms. Mackle noted the report also addresses the General Plan and parking standards, providing background information for the Developer, and an attachment providing more information on the properties themselves. There is also a section specifically on the historic character, in which the Agency calls for preserving or enhancing the historic character of the area. Ms. Mackle referred to the submittal requirements, noting they include Developer experience and financial information on the Developer, as well as a description of the project, asking for such details as square footage, site plan, number of housing units, and the amount of Retail, Office, or Housing being proposed. Ms. Mackle noted she has also specifically asked for them to list the amount and type of rehab they might be doing on any of the buildings, and if they propose to demolish any buildings. Based on a request at the last Agency meeting, Ms. Mackle stated she has also added a section to allow for the Developers to propose an alternative scenario, explaining that if the Developers want to include other nearby properties that are not listed in the Agency's project area they may do so, but they have to do it as an alternative, so the Agency is comparing "apples to apples" on all of the basic scenarios they propose. Ms. Mackle referred to the Evaluation and Selection Criteria, noting this included such things as experience with the Developers, their financial capabilities, their ability to deliver tenants, satisfaction of affordable housing requirements in their proposals, feasibility of the project, conformance to the City's Vision and General Plan, and any financial assistance they need from the Agency. Ms. Mackle noted this gave the Agency the ability to weigh the proposals against the Agency's objectives for the project. Regarding changes since the last meeting, Ms. Mackle reported she has taken a new look at the property descriptions, noting she had originally included a property description that had been done approximately a year ago. She stated she had shortened it to approximately a quarter of its original size, giving only a brief description to the Developers on such things as size, square footage, and number of units. She noted this description was an estimate, and the Developers would have to do their own research and determine what is in there. She explained that as the Agency gets further along in the project, we will have to do specific site analysis for relocation plans and prepare the plans, SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 4 so those details will be dealt with later. Ms. Mackle reported there had also been a request from the owners of one of the properties to develop their own property in accordance with a Master Developer; however, the way this proposal has been put out, there will be one Developer for the entire project, not a Master Developer who would do the design, and then each individual property owner would work within that design. She stated staff did not think this made sense in terms of attracting retail tenants, and in terms of making the whole project flow together and be the draw we want that area to be. Ms. Mackle stated the Agency had directed staff to look into adding the properties located at 1212 and 1214 Second Street, and upon review, staff agreed this made a lot of sense. She noted these were two Victorian houses that would be squeezed in between the Lone Palm Court Project that is under construction now, and the "B" Street Project Area, and pointed out the Resolution before the Agency includes these two properties in the Project Area. Chairman Boro asked Ms. Mackle to comment on the Agency's goal as far as historic character, explaining what our goals are and how we might achieve them. Ms. Mackle stated staff had purposely not gone into detail in the RFP to specify exactly what we expect, as staff wants to see what the development community will come back with in regard to tenants, size, and historic preservation. Referring specifically to historic preservation, she reported the RFP asked the Developers to meet the goals of the Vision, maintain as much as they can, and enhance as much as they can, because some of the properties are not historic anymore. She pointed out there were three buildings listed on the Cultural Affairs survey of this Project Area, noting one is the St. Vincent's building at 822 "B" Street, which already had significant amount of the facade rehabbed ten years ago, and it looks from the outside as though some of the back is not original structure. She stated it was hard to tell the Developers they must retain specific things when we do not know specifically what is original anymore. Referring to the masonry building next door to the St. Vincent property, also listed on the Cultural Affairs list, Ms. Mackle noted it also looked as though it has had some work done on the front of the building. She stated the third property on the list, located at 1212 Second Street which staff had just added to the project area, was a Victorian building that looked as though it has not been taken care of over the past couple of years. Ms. Mackle noted these three buildings were not Historical Landmarks and were not listed on the Historical Register, but they are listed as good properties to be considered. Member Heller stated Ms. Mackle had noted an additional property that the Agency had been asked to consider including, and she asked if there were any other additional requests? Ms. Mackle stated this was the only request they had received. Ms. Heller asked if this would be set-up as a separate alternative scenario only if the Developer was interested in including it? Ms. Mackle stated that was correct. Ms. Mackle reported she had included a general comment that any Developer who wanted to add an adjacent property could include it in his proposal, noting a Developer might want to go even further down the block, or include the entire block; however, the Developer would have to specify that as an alternative proposal, so that the basic proposal is comparable to all the others, and the Agency will have a basis for comparison. Member Heller asked if the Agency would be notifying the property owners within the area that this is happening? Ms. Mackle stated that if an alternative development is chosen, then the Agency would go through the entire process of notifying and making the appropriate findings. Ms. Heller noted there might be other property owners on this same block of "B" Street who were not aware that perhaps they could come into this development if they so choose, and asked SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 5 if we were notifying any of the property owners on "B" Street that there might be an opportunity? Ms. Mackle stated they had not done this as yet, noting she would not know where to draw the line. She pointed out the reason staff had not included these other properties was because they felt it was going to become much too expensive, noting that once one of the Developers began to pencil this out, she did not believe the Agency would get many requests to add additional properties. Member Cohen stated it was his understanding that it was not the owner of the Carmel Hotel property who requested inclusion in the project, it was the owner of another property located within the proposed Redevelopment project, who intends to submit a development proposal and sent a letter stating he felt it made sense to include these other properties. Member Cohen noted a letter had been received from St. Vincent de Paul Society, in which they referred to exercising their option to enter into an Owner Participation Agreement; however, Mr. Cohen pointed out Ms. Mackle had stated there is no such option unless the Agency chooses to structure that within the Master Development and give each property owner the right to develop their own property, which is not the approach the Agency is taking. Ms. Mackle stated that was correct. Mary Casey, attorney for St. Vincent de Paul Society, stated the agenda packet she received prior to this meeting had not included the letter from St. Vincent de Paul. Ms. Casey gave a copy of the letter to the Agency Secretary, asking that the letter be included in these proceedings, so the record could be complete. Bob Kuntz, President of St. Vincent de Paul Society, asked that as the Agency and Agency Director consider Redevelopment plans for part of the Downtown which includes the current St. Vincent de Paul dining room location, he wished to emphasize three things: 1) St. Vincent de Paul Society is prepared to move; 2) They are working on finding a suitable site as to the size, condition, and reasonable proximity to their present location; 3) They are anxious to be assured that their good faith negotiations with the Agency's representatives will be permitted to reach a satisfactory conclusion, in time for them to make an orderly move. Mr. Kuntz asked the Agency to understand that St. Vincent's definition of "reasonable proximity" springs from nothing arbitrary, but from the practical and painful reality that for the overwhelming majority of their clients, walking is the only means they have of reaching the dining room. Mr. Kuntz noted a new location would have to be further away for most of those who are in the area of the present dining room, stating they know and have accepted this in the spirit of willing cooperation; however, in justice and a sense of common decency, they are asking that the Agency not attempt to force a location on the patrons that will make it impossible for them to reach St. Vincent's. Member Cohen moved and Member Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-42 - RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT CERTAIN PARCELS IN THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ARE IN NEED OF REDEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE "B" STREET PROJECT AREA. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips and Chairman Boro SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 5 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 6 NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 6. RESOLUTION APPROVING A USE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC PARKING LOT AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF THIRD AND LOOTENS STREETS WITH SAMUELSON SCHAFER (RA) - File R-399 Economic Development Director Ours noted that for some time staff has been hearing rumors of Walgreen's wanting to locate in the Downtown, and he reported this is true, Walgreen's does wish to be in the Downtown. He stated one of the conditions Walgreen Is was very concerned about was parking for their customers, as they are used to an unmetered, shopping mall type operation. Mr. Ours reported that when Walgreen's was told that was not going to happen in San Rafael, their proposal came back asking if they were to pay for the meters, paying more than we would normally get from an average parking meter, and keep it public parking so the public could continue to park there, could they then take the meters out? Mr. Ours stated the proposal from Walgreens, which is now before the Agency, states they would like to do this, that they realize the Agency needs to be made whole, and shows that they are trying to keep the Agency whole, monetarily as well as parking -wise, as this would still be a two-hour parking lot, patrolled by the City's own Police Officers. Mr. Ours stated this seemed like a good proposition, believing this was a win/win situation for San Rafael, and for both sides as far as parking and revenue, as well as the much needed prescription and drug store in the Downtown area. Mr. Ours noted this was a critical part of the lease being proposed for Walgreen's. Member Cohen noted Mr. Ours has reported the money generated would be above the average we would get from the parking meters, and asked Mr. Ours if we knew how much this lot normally generates? Mr. Ours stated this lot was somewhat below average, and while he did not have specific amounts for this particular lot, because it is not collected separately, he did note that an average parking lot meter is $33. city-wide, and Walgreen's is willing to pay $40. to $45., which is what we get in a parking structure. Mr. Cohen asked if staff was reasonably certain this lot was currently performing lower than the parking structure? Mr. Ours stated that it was. Mr. Cohen asked if staff tracks revenue from the different lots, other than the parking structures? Mr. Ours stated there were meter collection routes that include different lots. Administrative Services Director Nordhoff noted the meter routes were not necessarily conducive to parking lots, because there are street meters that are also picked -up, and the routes are just broken down into zones, where the City goes to a specific area, collects money from all the various meters in that particular area, and brings it in. Mr. Cohen asked if it would be feasible at some point to come up with a system to evaluate those parking lots and see what kind of revenue they are generating? Mr. Ours stated staff currently monitors the lots twice a year, beginning at 8:00 AM and monitoring how many cars are in the lots, noting they know, on an average, how many cars are in a lot for any given period of time. However, actually tying the dollar amount collected from the lot is something they have not done. Member Cohen asked about the usage of this lot? Mr. Ours stated staff did have good figures regarding the usage of the lot, and this lot is not as heavily used as some of the other lots, noting one of the reasons it is not as heavily SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 6 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 7 used is because we do have other parking in the area, particularly now that the merchants' parking lot has opened up across the street, and with the lot on the other side of Western Sports, which is the most used parking lot in town. Mr. Cohen stated there would certainly be an impact on this lot, noting WalgreennIs would not be agreeing to this deal if they did not anticipate that there would be spaces available for their customers, and if those spaces are taken by WalgreennIs customers, they are unavailable for people who are parking there now. Mr. Ours stated there is a vacancy factor in the lot now, particularly during the commute times, noting it is not as heavily used at that time, when people would be coming home and pulling in to go into Walgreen' s. Member Heller referred to the question of increased parking rates. Mr. Ours stated that when the parking structure rate goes up, the lot rate will also go up. Ms. Heller asked if this Agreement was for a period of sixty years? Mr. Ours reported it was keyed to the WalgreennIs lease, noting there was a thirty year option period after thirty years on the lease, and as long as Walgreen's is located there, this agreement would be in place. Chairman Boro felt this was a very creative approach to the issue; however, his biggest concern was the lack of knowledge or publicity about this, noting people often ask why the City does not eliminate the parking meters. He pointed out that when the City went through the Vision process, they visited the City of Mountain View, where they did eliminate parking meters, because that was what their merchants and property owners wanted. However, what people forget is that Mountain View then agreed that the merchants and property owners would pay the in -lieu revenue that they would have gotten from the parking meters via a tax. In our case, we have a private Developer coming in, basically stating he will pay these meters out, make the parking available to the entire public, with no preference to their customers, and maintain the two-hour time limit, which the City will enforce. Chairman Boro felt this was very creative. He noted Mr. Ours has had some discussion with the Chamber of Commerce and the BID (Business Improvement District), and pointed out it was important that the Agency goes to their Boards and makes sure they understand this, and that we publicize how this is happening, because if there are other lots where people would like to do this, the Agency would be more than willing to entertain other suggestions if there was an entity in place that wanted to fund such an approach. Chairman Boro stated he did want to get a commitment from Police Chief Sanchez that the two-hour parking would be enforced, noting that would be critical. He also pointed out that thirty years was a long time, and stated he was concerned with tying this property up in the event there might be some option for the City to utilize the property for better use. He asked Mr. Ours what thought had been given to this, and how we might proceed if an offer came to the City that we wanted to pursue? Mr. Ours stated the City was still in a position to accept an offer to do an Air Rights proposal or to expand the lot. He noted this proposal was to provide thirty-seven parking spaces, so that is what we have to do; however, if in that envelope we had someone who wanted to construct a building on the property, part of the deal would be that they would have to maintain those thirty-seven spaces. Mr. Ours stated we were not precluded from doing this, noting this was only a Maintenance and Use Agreement. Mr. Ours also pointed out that the City will no longer have to take care of this parking lot, nor will we have to take care of the parking meters, which are two things that cost us money in other places. Chairman Boro noted the plans are to demolish the existing building and build a new Walgreen's on the site, and he asked Mr. Ours to keep the Agency apprised of the development of the site and what it looks like, stating it was a very critical entry point to the City. Mr. Ours reported he had spoken with the Developer about this, and he was quite willing to bring those plans to the SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 8 Agency as they develop. Mr. Ours felt it would be a good idea, since the Agency owns the property right next door. Member Phillips asked if this would go through the normal DRB (Design Review Board) process? Mr. Ours stated that it would. Member Miller asked that there be some consideration as far as timing, pointing out all the work being done on Second and Third Streets, and suggesting that this be folded into some kind of "timing program" so the City can continue to thrive as we go through the throws of a new birth. Mr. Miller asked that the Developer be sensitive to this, as this was an issue the people in the City were very interested in. Member Miller moved and Member Phillips seconded, to approve the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-43 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEASE AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR THE PUBLIC PARKING LOT AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF THIRD AND LOOTENS STREETS WITH SAMUELSON SCHAFER. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 7. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/6/97 Page 8