Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1998-12-07SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1998 AT 7:40 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Paul M. Cohen, Member Barbara Heller, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary O. Phillips, Member Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director Gus Guinan, Assistant Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 7:40 PM None. CONSENT CALENDAR Member Phillips moved and Member Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Public Minutes approved as submitted. Hearing and Regular Meeting of Monday, November 16, 1998 (AS) 2. Acceptance of Statements of Disclosure for Accepted Statements of Abraham Yang, Member of the Citizens Advisory Disclosure for Abraham Yang, Committee on Redevelopment; Kenneth Nordhoff, Kenneth Nordhoff, David Agency Treasurer; David Bernardi, Assistant Bernardi, Robert Brown, and Executive Director (PW); Robert Brown, AssistantNancy Mackle. Executive Director (CD); and Nancy Mackle, Senior Development Specialist (AS) - File R-140 IVB x R-140 #8 x 9-4-3 x 9-4-4 3. Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File R-123 Accepted Monthly Investment Report for October, 1998, as presented. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: MEMBERS: Cohen (from the minutes of 11/16/98 only, due to absence from meetings) AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 4. RESOLUTION APPROVING EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT WITH MONAHAN PARKER, INC. FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE "B" STREET PROJECT AREA (RA) - File R-406 Senior Development Specialist Nancy Mackle reported staff was presenting an SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 2 Exclusive Right to Negotiate agreement with Monahan Parker, Inc. for the redevelopment of "B" Street. She explained they had set a goal of creating an active, Mixed Use project for the area, enhancing the historic character of "B" Street, and creating affordable housing. Ms. Mackle stated the Exclusive Right to Negotiate agreement specified a six-month time frame in which to work out such details of the project as the site plan, uses, traffic study, size, and tenants. In addition, she noted they would review the subsidy requirement, in order to keep the housing affordable. Ms. Mackle stated staff was preparing an Owner Participation Disposition and Development Agreement (OPDDA), and as part of that process, staff would come back before the Agency for approval of all the details, and would also comply with CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act), going through an Environmental Review process for the OPDDA. She explained the Community Development Department would go through another Environmental Review process for the Planning approvals. Ms. Mackle stated staff anticipated that this would be a Negative Declaration, not an Environmental Impact Report, noting the EIR for the General Plan should cover this project. Ms. Mackle acknowledged this was an aggressive schedule, but stated staff believed this could be done within six months. Ms. Mackle explained the Exclusive Right to Negotiate agreement stated the Agency would exclusively negotiate with Monahan Parker, Inc., and reported Monahan Parker, Inc. will be putting up $25,000 to show their good faith in these negotiations. Ms. Mackle stated staff was still anticipating this would be a phased project, noting the phasing details would be worked out with the developer, and it was not clear at this time whether it would be done in two phases or three. She stated penalties would be included in the agreement, to make certain that all phases take place. In addition, Ms. Mackle reported if there were any properties acquired, as staff anticipated there would be, then the Agency would go through a relocation plan for any of the tenants who need to relocate, and go through all the proper procedures for notifying property owners concerning acquisition. Ms. Mackle stated staff wished to enter into the public record a letter received from one of the property owners, R. C. Roberts and Company, by their Attorneys Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, LLP. She noted the Redevelopment Agency's Attorney would respond to the letter. Economic Development Director Jake Ours noted the Developers were property owners in the "B" Street area, and had been offered development rights after the Agency went to all the property owners, asking if they wanted to participate. He stated they were the only property owners to respond, and they also had the qualifications the Agency was looking for as Developers. He noted the Agency was lucky to have a property owner and qualified Developer in the same package, stating staff believed Monahan Parker was very qualified to do this project, pointing out the work they have done in San Rafael is of the highest quality. He cited Monahan Parker, Inc.'s Oacis Building as a fine addition to the City, and noted they were also doing the Kaiser Building. He felt the Agency did not need much more of a search to see how they do things than to just look down the street, noting the Agency felt very good about that. Mr. Ours stated staff was very concerned about the phasing, and the way things change over time, noting they wanted to make certain that once the Agency enters into this project, it continues and finishes, and that we get all the various parts of the project. Mr. Ours reported the timing dictated that the project begin at one section, at the corner of "A" and SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 3 Second Streets, and then as the project proceeds, move onto "B" Street. Mr. Ours explained most of the positive economics of the project comes with the first phase; therefore, in going from the first to the second phase, they might feel they do not want to continue with all of it because they are not going to make as much money. Mr. Ours stated staff intended to put some fairly stiff financial penalties into the contract, which would ensure the entire project will be finished. He explained this could be done a number of different ways, noting he would be meeting with Agency Attorney Lee Rosenthal tomorrow to discuss a way to craft such language, to ensure that the penalties, while not hurting the development, are protecting the Agency, and making sure the project goes forward. Chairman Boro asked Assistant Agency Attorney Guinan to comment on the letter that had been received this evening from Mr. Michael Durkee. Mr. Guinan stated he only had an opportunity to read the letter just prior to this meeting, and had not had a chance to look into it in any great depth, although he noted it appeared there was no serious legal challenge to the authority of the Agency to proceed. He referred to an earlier comment that a request for notification had been made, yet no notification had been given. He stated he did not believe there was a legal requirement, as a legal pre -condition, that before the Agency could take action it had to notice; however, at the same time, he did acknowledge they apparently had not received the requested notification. Mr. Guinan stated Mr. Durkee's letter had been received by the Redevelopment Agency by FAX at approximately 5:45 PM. Chairman Boro asked if either Mr. Ours or Ms. Mackle were familiar with the requirements concerning the noticing of this meeting, and whether the Agency had complied? Ms. Mackle stated staff had notified all the property owners, and had intended to notify all of their attorneys; however, it appeared they had missed this one. Mr. Ours explained the FAX had come from an Attorney of one of the property owners, but noted all of the property owners had been notified. Barbara Roberts, property owner of 801 "A" Street, stated she received notification in the mail on Friday afternoon, and contacted her Attorney, Mr. Durkee, today at noon to see if he planned to attend the meeting. Mr. Durkee informed her he had not been notified of the meeting, and sent someone to the Agency Secretary's Office to pick up a packet for tonight's meeting. Ms. Roberts stated Mr. Durkee would have attended the meeting had he been notified in time; instead, he had only enough time to send the letter. She asked the Agency to take into consideration that she and her Attorney had not had enough time to respond. Mr. Ours reported Mr. Durkee had called this morning and asked what would be discussed this evening, and Mr. Ours explained what was being presented to the Agency. He stated Mr. Durkee had seemed quite satisfied that it was a normal procedural action, noting Mr. Durkee stated he was not planning on attending the meeting. Chairman Boro asked staff to review the requirements for notification, what staff had done as far as noticing, and when the notifications were sent out? Ms. Mackle stated the City Clerk's office is given a list of those people to be notified, and when all the staff reports are completed, the agendas and staff reports are sent out. Agency Secretary Leoncini reported the agendas and staff reports were mailed on Thursday (12/3/98), and in this instance, an agenda and copy of the staff report went to the property owner. Member Cohen noted this issue has come up from time to time, and he SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 4 understands the reports cannot be ready earlier, and the interested parties cannot get them before they are ready and prepared for the Agency. However, he asked, on an action like this, when we know there is an affected property owner who has an ongoing interest in what the Agency is doing, have we ever considered sending out a "courtesy notice", stating we anticipate that an item will be on the agenda on a certain date? He felt this was something we could do in advance, and then people would know to be on the lookout for a specific item, and they could check back with the City Clerk to make sure the item was still on the Agenda, and they could pick up a packet as soon as it was available. He wondered if, in instances such as this, where someone is being affected and has an ongoing interest, whether we could give them a "pre -notice" instead, telling them an item is anticipated to be on the Agenda, and suggesting they watch their mail or check in with the City Clerk's office? Chairman Boro suggested Executive Director Gould report back on this issue. He pointed out the Agency and City Council had recently rearranged the entire Agenda process to be more timely. Executive Director Gould stated he would review the process and report back, but noted the Agendas sometimes change markedly from the time they are first put together to the time the Agency and the Council receive them as part of the packet. Member Cohen stated he understood that, and would wait for the report; however, generally speaking, he would rather be in the position of telling someone that an item had been dropped from an upcoming Agenda, and was currently scheduled for a future date, than to have to tell someone we are sorry they did not receive the information until late on Friday for a meeting the following Monday evening. He asked that they look at whether there might be a way to give people advance warning, even if it is on the level of telling them something might be on the Agenda, but was subject to change. Mr. Gould stated he would discuss this issue with staff, and report back. Member Cohen stated he believed the Agency was proceeding along a course it had been very public about, noting tonight's action was a fairly procedural step, and as with staff and the Agency's Attorney, he did not see anything in Mr. Durkee's letter which would cause him to ask questions of staff, or to question whether the Agency should proceed. He pointed out the Agency was not making any final decisions at this time regarding disposition of anyone's property. Chairman Boro noted the staff report refers to a Mixed Use; however, the last time the Agency addressed this project, they discussed having a strong retail presence as part of this component, to make it a draw to the Downtown, and not just an office complex. He stated he understood staff had discussed this with the applicants, and they were pursuing that; however, he wanted to clarify that this was the consensus of the Agency. Member Cohen moved and Member Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution approving the Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement with Monahan Parker, Inc. for the redevelopment of the "B" Street Project Area. RESOLUTION NO. 98-34 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT WITH MONAHAN PARKER, INC. FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE "B" STREET PROJECT AREA. 5. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 5 There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/7/98 Page 5