Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 2000-05-01SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, MAY 1, 2000 AT 7:30 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Barbara Heller, Vice -Chair Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary 0. Phillips, Member Absent: Paul M. Cohen, Member Also Present: Kenneth Nordhoff, Assistant Executive Director Gus Guinan, Assistant Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 7:50 PM Member Phillips moved and Member Heller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH WATRY DESIGN GROUP TO CONDUCT A COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROCESS. AND GENERATE A SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND A PRELIMINARY RENDERING FOR THE NEW THIRD AND "C" STREETS PARKING GARAGE (RA) File R-429 x (SRCC) 12-14 Senior Planner Katie Korzun recalled that at the meeting of April 3rd, the Agency Members directed staff to proceed with the development of a new parking structure, and to do so in an expeditious manner, indicating this was a very high priority for the Agency. In considering how to move this high priority project forward, staff determined they could perhaps do parallel tracking of some of the items that must be done, rather than sequential processing. She explained the items they would like to work in parallel at this time are the work being done on the Alternatives Analysis, the Parking Management Study, and discussions concerning the purchase of the property; in addition, staff would like to add the issue of design. Ms. Korzun noted it could take several weeks to find the designer, and to put together a process; therefore, staff would like to do that now, while these other items remain in order. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 1 ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meetings of Monday, Approved as submitted. April 3, 2000 and Monday, April 17, 2000 (AS) 2. Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File R-123 Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending March, 2000, as presented. AYES: MEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Cohen AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH WATRY DESIGN GROUP TO CONDUCT A COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROCESS. AND GENERATE A SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND A PRELIMINARY RENDERING FOR THE NEW THIRD AND "C" STREETS PARKING GARAGE (RA) File R-429 x (SRCC) 12-14 Senior Planner Katie Korzun recalled that at the meeting of April 3rd, the Agency Members directed staff to proceed with the development of a new parking structure, and to do so in an expeditious manner, indicating this was a very high priority for the Agency. In considering how to move this high priority project forward, staff determined they could perhaps do parallel tracking of some of the items that must be done, rather than sequential processing. She explained the items they would like to work in parallel at this time are the work being done on the Alternatives Analysis, the Parking Management Study, and discussions concerning the purchase of the property; in addition, staff would like to add the issue of design. Ms. Korzun noted it could take several weeks to find the designer, and to put together a process; therefore, staff would like to do that now, while these other items remain in order. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 2 Ms. Korzun stated that in trying to decide who the Agency should hire to work on the preliminary design, staff agreed there were several things they needed to look at. First, they wanted someone who specialized in parking structures; someone who would be able to respond to a high priority/short timeline project; and someone who could solicit and deal with public input. Ms. Korzun stated staff was very aware that while this is a fast -tracked project, it is also high priority, which means a lot of public input; therefore, staff wanted someone with expertise in that area. Finally, staff wanted someone familiar with San Rafael. Ms. Korzun stated staff believed they had found someone with all those elements, the Watry Design Group. She noted staff had been working with the Watry Design Group to come up with an alternative analysis, and has now gone back and asked for the additional alternatives the Agency Members requested. She pointed out the Agency also has a history with the Watry Design Group, as years ago they worked on some of the existing parking structures. More recently, the Watry Design Group did the design for the Fair, Isaac parking structures, and while that was not an Agency project, it was a local project. Ms. Korzun stated the biggest reason staff was attracted to the Watry Design Group was the fact that they insist on starting with public input, noting they do not like designing a public structure without public input. She stated they have a process they have developed and used many times before called a Collaborative Design Workshop, which staff felt very directly met the Agency's needs. Ms. Korzun explained the Collaborative Workshop would bring together all the stakeholders, and the Watry Design Group invited the Agency to determine who the stakeholders are. They quickly educate the stakeholders as to the constraints of the site, and then engage them in a process of working out what their priority issues are with the parking structure. Watry would then take the issues that come out of the public workshop, come before the Agency with the results, and the Agency Members prioritize and add anything they might want. From those Critical Issues, and after a major amount of discussion with staff, Watry would develop a schematic plan, schematic elevations, and a cost estimate, and based on what the Agency Members have asked for and what the community has asked for, return again to the Agency and make a schematic design presentation showing how big it would be, what it might cost, and what it might look like. At that point, the Agency Members could send the schematic design to any of the other Boards and Commissions. Then, once the Agency gives approval to move forward with the schematic design, the Watry Design Group would then do a computer rendering, which would drop the schematic design elevation into an actual photo representation of the street, and they would be able to come back to the Agency and show, in general terms, what it would look like on the street. Ms. Korzun noted this would give the Agency a very clear idea of what the Agency might be getting, and it could also be used in the environmental analysis, Ms. Korzun stated staff was attracted to this proposal because it not only brought in the public, it also was very structured, and it would be brought back before the Agency for review at each of the steps, so the process would not go forward without the Agency Members being involved and brought in at each step. Ms. Korzun stated at that point, after the Agency received the rendering, that portion of the contract would be finished; then, if the Agency wanted to go forward with the structure, or with Watry, the Agency would enter into a new contract. She reiterated this was not an ongoing thing, it was only a contract for the schematic design, which would come from a public process, and then a computer rendering. Ms. Korzun noted staff believed the Watry Design Group was the firm to go with, and explained what would be involved in the collaborative process. She stated staff would notify everyone they could think of, including everyone within 300 feet, everyone with a business license, all the property owners, BID, and homeowner associations. In addition, she reported Watry had informed staff it was very important to have buy -in and education by the decision -makers, so they would like to have two Agency Members and two members of the Design Review Board attend the SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 3 workshop, and members of the Planning Commission, as well, if there is going to be any kind of Planning Commission review. Ms. Korzun stated that if the Agency is going forward, she would like the Agency Members to consider a date, which was to have been May 24th, but it turned out that is also the first meeting of the General Plan 2000 Committee. She suggested that possibly they could meet on May 25th, and asked the Agency Members to consider who might attend, and to authorize staff to send invitations to both the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. Member Miller stated he liked the process; however, he felt this was being pushed too fast, and did not allow the opportunity to develop the interest and understanding of the public in the entire concept of the parking issue, which the Agency was now working through. He stated he would rather see this particular issue couched in the broader issue. He acknowledged this would be a great opportunity for the Agency in terms of positive public relations, explaining such things as why the Agency needs the additional parking, what is happening, and why the Agency is going with a parking structure. Then, when the Management Plan is completed, staff would be able to draw up several different strategies to bring people forward, and provide the context in which the design process would fit in beautifully. Member Phillips stated most of the people who have discussed the issue of parking with him, and whom he suspects reflect the greater majority, already recognize the Agency has a serious issue, and would like to move forward rather quickly, rationally, and with public input, as Ms. Korzun has suggested, and which he believed was a good approach. Mr. Phillips stated he would be in favor of moving more quickly. Member Heller stated she agreed with Member Phillips. She felt a group meeting would be called for, noting it would not preclude the Agency from having further community meetings, or meetings with the BID or the Chamber of Commerce. She stated, from what she has heard, the community would like to see the Agency begin to move faster, because people are beginning to complain about the lack of parking at lunch time. Ms. Heller noted there was a conflict with the meeting date of May 24th, but she believed the end of May or first part of June would be a good time to start. Chairman Boro acknowledged there was a problem; however, he noted the Agency has been waiting a long time for the Parking Management Study to come forward, and believed that was very important for a number of reasons. First, it would change the whole approach to parking, from the impact it will have on consumers, to the cost. He noted that when the Agency begins to discuss a garage such as this, and move forward to the issue of design, one of the first questions is going to be how much is it going to cost, and how the Agency is going to pay for it. He expected the Parking Management Plan would address issues that have not been discussed before in San Rafael, with respect to cost, how to run the lots, and how to man them, and he believed there were implications. He stated he would like to have something more definitive with regard to what the Agency would actually see from the Parking Management Study, noting that could be the introduction. He stated everyone knows the Agency needs parking, and everyone voted to pursue this site; therefore, there was no reason staff could not talk with the property owners. However, he also believed that if they were to have a public process, they should first go with the acknowledgement that everyone knows there is a problem, which has led to the Parking Management Study which, in turn, has shown the Parking District is not run very efficiently, indicating it might have to be managed differently, perhaps even going to the private sector to manage it for the Agency. Chairman Boro noted there would be cost implications to the users of the structures, and there will be questions SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 4 regarding how the Agency is going to finance a new garage, and whether that might be done through fees or bonds. Chairman Boro believed the Agency needed to have a little better understanding before just having everyone sit down and design a garage. He stated he was against doing this, and asked if there was some way staff could return to the Agency? Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle noted Ms. Korzun's idea of dual tracking would address that. She explained the Parking Management Study would bring up a lot of issues that were not going to be resolved by that one simple document, noting it was going to take discussion between management and the Agency, as well as with the community. She reiterated it would be a starting point, and the Agency would have to take a long, hard look at some of the recommendations made in the Management Study, explaining it would not clearly lay -out exactly what needed to be done. She reported staff currently has a draft of the Parking Management Study, and would be reviewing it and re -writing a portion of it. Next month the study would probably be reviewed by the Department Directors, and then staff would prepare it to come before the Agency Members for their input. She pointed out that even after that, it might still require additional refinement and further investigation, depending upon the implications addressed in the report. Referring to the actual parking structure, Ms. Mackle stated there was a certain level of the project that needed to be designed, regardless of such issues as whether there will be attendants, or the type of payment system. She noted the basics could be designed, including such issues as how much of the site was going to be used, how big it will be, and how to work with the neighboring properties. She reiterated this would only be the starting point, not the final design, and there would be more community input as these two processes dovetail, noting that by summer, they would have the Parking Management Plan and the reaction to it, as well as some of the initial design. She pointed out staff would not completely design the structure, and all the financing issues would first have to be worked out so Assistant Executive Director Nordhoff could raise the money to build it. Therefore, she reiterated it would all start coming together in the summer, and staff would not hold one phase until they were finished with the other. Chairman Boro stated it was not a matter of holding one until the other was finished; rather, it seemed staff had been working on one for so long that he felt the Agency should begin to look at that first before beginning another phase. He believed that if staff held a design workshop within the next three or four weeks, then everyone was going to ask when the garage was being built; however, at that stage, the Agency would not even know how it was going to finance it. He noted the last time the Agency had discussed parking in the downtown, he had been the one who suggested they not do things in a sequential manner, rather do some of them in tandem; therefore, he was not opposed to that. However, he felt there were certain things happening that really should be out there before the public, before the Agency states it is going to build a new garage. He acknowledged the Agency was at the point where it knows it needs the parking; however, it did not seem quite logical to design a garage and then have to wait many, many months, pointing out staff had not yet negotiated the sale of the property, which could take as much as two years. Therefore, he stated it did not seem logical for the Agency to jump into the design of something before some of these other questions are answered. Ms. Korzun stated she would like to do the workshop, find out what those who currently park think about it, and then before going into the schematics, clarify more of the management issues. Chairman Boro noted the staff report heading to this subject stated the Agency would generate a schematic design, which to him meant that for this contract, and for this period, the Watry Design Group was going to come up with one; however, Ms. Korzun had also stated she was going to ask the users what they want. He noted it would make sense for the Agency to first get reaction to the plan and find out what the SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 5 needs are, and then do a design; however, it sounded as though the Agency would be doing the design at the same time staff was talking to people about what their needs are. Ms. Korzun explained staff would be asking people what they would like to see in the new parking structure, and how they believed it should work, pointing out that at the workshop they would only be listing Critical Issues, not doing the design, and the people at the workshop would be providing staff with input that would be incorporated into the schematic design. Assistant Executive Director Nordhoff stated staff hoped the workshop would either compliment or contrast issues they were already working on with the Parking Management Study; however, that was something they would have to hear from the community's input, and get a sense of what is important to them. He believed the workshop would give staff another level of information that will help in finalizing and refining the Parking Management Study with regard to policy issues and direction that might be important to the Agency Members concerning the various types of parking customers who come to the downtown. Chairman Boro noted that was not what the staff report had indicated, stating it had been his impression, in reading the report, that staff would hold the workshop, and come up with the schematic design. He noted staff had not blended the two together in the report. Ms. Korzun pointed out the last sentence on the first page stated, "The workshop results are compiled in a Critical Issues Report which is presented to the Agency for review and acceptance". She explained the Agency Members would then add what they wanted to that, and direct staff to go forward. She stated she should have noted that prior to the Agency Members going forward with the schematic plans, there would be additional information from the Parking Management Study. She stated that could be dovetailed in, explaining they would do the workshop, and then stop until the Agency Members direct them to go forward with the next step, which would be the schematics. Ms. Korzun reiterated the outcome of the workshop would not be the design, it would be a list of the Critical Issues. Chairman Boro stated the reason he was so interested in getting the public involved in the Parking Management Study was because everyone knows one of the big issues that is going to be addressed is the cost of parking in San Rafael, noting it is going to be significantly different than it is today. Therefore, he believed the Agency needed to cross that bridge early and let people know that, rather than after getting into the new structure. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff could take some elements of the Parking Management Study that are already in place or already known, such as certain issues dealing with cost, operations, and types of equipment, and put that together as part of the public meeting, to let the public know that as this goes forward, those will be the types of issues the Agency will be dealing with. He noted they could discuss the type of use that will go in, the type of equipment to be used, the security levels that must be put into place, and then also point out that there will be a different rate structure and cost of service. Mr. Nordhoff stated that while staff does not necessarily have the answers to all those types of questions, that information would at least be out there, and people's awareness would be that this would be something different, that it would not be a building such as the Agency has had before, and the Agency would not be charging what it had been charging, rather it would be something much different than what they have been accustomed to. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff would really like to be able to get the public's input. Ms. Mackle also pointed out that it would be coming back to the Agency before staff went out to bid, and staff was proposing doing this in several steps; therefore, there would be multiple opportunities for the Agency to discuss it. She stated the actual cost would be laid out before going to bid, noting the Agency would have to review the revenue stream in order to raise the bonds, or whatever other financing scheme the Agency might come up with. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 5 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 6 Member Phillips felt that rather than two separate and distinct issues, they were very much related. One thing he liked about proceeding at this point, and perhaps having them converge, was that when staff does hold the public meeting, they would not be presenting just another study of an issue about which people already knew there was a problem. It went a step beyond that, by acknowledging the Agency has recognized there is a problem, has analyzed it in order to make reasonable decisions, and furthermore, is showing the steps the Agency has already begun taking to alleviate the concerns and problems facing the downtown. Mr. Phillips believed they went hand in hand, and that it would be a more distinct step if the Agency were able to state there was already a group coming in that would actually address the concerns, not just talk about it. Member Miller stated he still believed this needed a sequence, noting it took time to build the relationships and for people to understand it. In addition, it took time for the Agency to be able to really contact and get into the community, so it did not look like the decisions had already been made. Mr. Miller stated Ms. Korzun's explanation of going for the Critical Issues rather than the design made a lot of sense; however, he still felt more time was needed. He stated that once a public process is started, the Agency cannot just wait for people to come to the Agency, staff had to have time to go back to the community. He stated that would be his argument, in terms of doing it now, so staff would have time to go back to the community, show them the Critical Issues that had been developed, and then discuss the design. Member Heller asked what kind of timeline there would be, noting Chairman Boro and Member Miller were considering waiting until the Parking Management Plan is completed, which she believed was to be presented in July? Mr. Nordhoff reported he hoped to be able to present the Study no later than 45 days from now, or July 1st. Ms. Heller asked if Chairman Boro and Member Miller wanted to wait and begin the process at the same time? She stated she was not convinced the Agency needed to wait, noting staff would like to have the workshop, and then begin to take the information they get and move it forward. She also pointed out she did not see the public process as stopping with just one workshop. Chairman Boro noted he had not interpreted the staff report the same way the issue was now being portrayed by staff, and stated he would feel more comfortable if staff would return before the Agency, presenting a timeline for this effort and for the Parking Management Study, informing the Agency what was going to happen over the next six months, where the two intersect, and how they are going to compliment each other. He believed they could still do it quickly if staff came back in two weeks. Member Phillips stated he was willing to get on with it, noting he felt the Agency Members were micro -managing the process, and should turn it over to staff and let them continue. He stated staff had heard all of the comments by the Agency Members, and he felt confident they would integrate those comments into their process. He acknowledged the Agency did a lot of public input, and agreed that was very good; however, in this instance they were talking about a garage, and he would be in favor of moving more quickly. Ms. Mackle stated staff was planning to return at the Agency meeting of May 15th to present the site analysis, and seek direction on such issues as whether they should go underground, and whether they should include the corner retail properties. Therefore, staff could add the timeline Chairman Boro requested, showing how it would all come together. She also noted that staff could postpone the workshop. Chairman Boro noted staff was now planning to schedule the workshop the first part of June; therefore, it would only need to be postponed approximately ten days. Ms. Mackle stated that prior to noticing a meeting, she wanted to make certain, at the meeting of May 15th, that staff was doing what the Agency Members wanted. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 6 SRRA M'­1TES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 7 Chairman Boro stated he felt the Agency Members were still split on this issue; therefore, he suggested the issue be carried over for two weeks, to the Agency meeting of May 15th, with the understanding that it would be coming back for action, and with some of the specifics that had been discussed tonight. He acknowledged it might not address all of Member Miller's concerns, but would at least present a sequence. Member Miller stated he agreed with Member Phillips's statement that the Agency had to get on with this, noting he did not expect it to go on for three or four months. However, he believed a quick two-week breather would give staff a chance to get things a little more together, certainly with respect to the public outreach program, how staff was going to get the people there, and how things were going to meld. 4. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: a. RE: DOWNTOWN FARMERS' MARKET - File R-181 Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle announced the Annual Downtown Farmers' Market would begin this week, and invited everyone to attend on Thursday night. There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 PM. A JEAN til'. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 5/1/2000 Page 7