Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1996-12-16SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1996 AT 7:30 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Barbara Heller, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary Phillips, Member Absent: None Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman Paul M. Cohen, Member Also Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE 7:30 PM None CONSENT CALENDAR: Member Phillips moved and Member Heller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Monday, December 2, 1996 (CC) 2. Assignment of City Housing Fund Loan to RESOLUTION NO. 96-87 Agency for Payment of $100,000 from Agency RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE Housing Fund (RA) - File R-173 x REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO ASSUME (SRCC) 115 x 13-16 THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL UNDER LOAN AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND MARIN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 4. Resolution Approving the Payment of a Portion RESOLUTION NO. 96-88 of the Phase 1 Environmental Consulting Services RESOLUTION APPROVING PAYMENT for the Mahon Creek Conceptual Restoration Plan OF A PORTION OF THE PHASE 1 and Fair, Isaac Office Complex, (not to exceed ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING $4,975) (RA) - File R-368 x (SRCC) 4-10-296 SERVICES FOR THE MAHON CREEK CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN AND FAIR, ISAAC OFFICE COMPLEX (NOT TO EXCEED $4,975). AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None The following item was pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion: 3. RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PUBLIC NECESSITY REQUIRES THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 700 "A" STREET, PORTIONS OF AP #013-012-04 AND #013-012-16, TO IMPLEMENT THE ANDERSEN DRIVE EXTENSION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (RA) File R-359 x R-246 Chairman Boro announced he had pulled this item from the Consent Calendar in order to allow members of the public to speak on this item. There was no public SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 2 discussion. Member Cohen moved and Member Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96-89 - RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE PUBLIC NECESSITY REQUIRES THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR THE ANDERSEN DRIVE EXTENSION PROJECT, A.P.N's 013-012-04 and 013-012-16 (portions) (located at 700 "A" Street) AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 5. CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL OF DOWNTOWN SIDEWALKS (RA) - File R-258 x R-140 XIII Senior Planner Katy Korzun reported the project area for the Sidewalk Improvement Plan was Fourth Street from "D" Street to Lincoln Avenue, stating staff was also asking the Agency to authorize the negotiation of a Scope of Services and a contract with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh for the preparation of the construction drawings. Ms. Korzun stated this project had begun with the Vision for Downtown San Rafael, which identified walkable tree -lined streets as having a major community value for Downtown. The Agency set aside a budget of approximately $1 million, and proposed looking at the sidewalks between the corner planters in the area Downtown. The project was given to the Downtown Vision Committee to coordinate, and the Vision Committee began working on this a year ago in August. The Committee visited ten other cities and drew up a list of criteria they wanted to see in the sidewalks, and then looked at the deficiencies in the sidewalks we currently have. Ms. Korzun stated the next step was to hire George Girvin & Associates to work with the Vision Committee and the community to design a project for the Fourth Street sidewalks. George Girvin & Associates had developed a project called Baseline Plus, which was the concept that the City would install a baseline of improvements, and the merchants or property owners in the area could add to or augment those improvements, if they so chose. Ms. Korzun stated they began the project by inviting 210 merchants and property owners to a meeting, explained the concept of Baseline Plus, and then began a series of block by block meetings with merchants and property owners. Sketches were brought back which had been drawn up at each of these block meetings. Ms. Korzun stated they called this process "Sketching with George", because literally what they did was to lay down a base map, discuss the concept, and then George would lay a piece of yellow flimsy over the top of the baseline, and ask the merchants what they wanted. Many different concepts were worked through at each of these meetings, then a consensus drawing was circulated, both by mail and by hand, to all 210 merchants and property owners in the Downtown. Ms. Korzun reported that at the end of the "Sketching with George" sessions, a composite was brought to City staff to work out any anomalies they could see, and then it was taken to various City Boards and Commissions, noting the composite sketch had gone to the Planning Commission, Cultural Affairs Commission, and Design Review Board, and all the Boards and Commissions recommended approval. Ms. Korzun stated the baseline would increase the sidewalks to a minimum of ten SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 3 feet on the three blocks which currently have less than a ten foot sidewalk, and all the sidewalk areas would be colored concrete, which would match the corner improvements, and there would also be a decorative brick banding. She noted street trees would also be installed wherever possible, and they were looking for trees having a shape that related to the building, grow tall enough to see underneath them, and have either fall color or spring flowers. Ms. Korzun stated the "Plus Items", extra items selected by the merchants to be added on to the sidewalk project, were primarily outdoor seating areas, which most of the restaurants chose. Mr. Girvin will draw -up a series of design standards or suggestions as to how the outdoor seating areas could be dealt with. Referring to the "Plus Items", Ms. Korzun reported eight merchants had indicated their initial interest, and Rafael Joes, Nautilus and T & B Sports were opting to install a locked hose bib in the sidewalk, noting one of the issues Downtown has been that it is difficult to wash the sidewalks if there is no water out there. Ms. Korzun stated Maria's Taqueria, San Rafael Health Center, the Albert Building, the Rafael Theater, and Red Boy Pizza have all elected to look at outdoor seating areas, and pointed out a seating area would be the responsibility of the merchant and owner to maintain, and it would be up against the building, not up against the curb. She stated staff had preliminary cost estimates as to what each of the seating areas was going to cost, and noted the Agency would not be requiring those to be installed, explaining the merchant could opt out of that program once we have the final cost estimates and working drawings; therefore, the cost estimate being presented was only an estimate, it was not a bid. Ms. Korzun stated staff had tried to take a conservative look at the funding, and Mr. Girvin had worked in a 25% contingency. She stated the initial budget allocation was $1 million, and the total price of the City improvements was $1.3 million, which was over budget. She stated there was also an additional $100,000 merchant participation potential. Ms. Korzun stated staff strongly recommended the total project be approved, which would be the entire length from "D" Street to Lincoln Avenue, and would include the larger budget, noting this was a "no frills" project, and there was nothing to cut out. She reported they had looked at cutting out certain blocks, but they were unable to find where they could narrow down the options given to any particular block. She noted the areas that do not need much improvement, such as in front of Courthouse Square, would not be getting new sidewalk; all they are getting are street trees. Staff had looked at where they might be able to come up with the additional funds, and Economic Development Director Ours was able to identify a recalculation of interest payments that would, in the first year, recoup most of the money we would be expending on the sidewalks; therefore, staff's recommendation was for the full project at the full cost. Ms. Korzun explained the next step would be to get into the working drawings, noting the initial contract with George Girvin was a two-step contract, whereby Mr. Girvin would do the design, and Stuber-Stroeh would do the working drawings. This project has now been handed over to the Engineering Department, and once the project area is nailed down, they will come back to the Agency in January with the price, and actually have the project ready to go. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 4 Ms. Korzun stated we are on a very tight timeline, noting it would have to be an expeditious set of working drawings for them to be ready to go to bid in the Spring, start construction, and then finish construction, which could be four or five months and take the project to November, when it starts to rain. Ms. Korzun reported staff had received correspondence regarding this project, including a letter of support from the Business Improvement District, and a letter from Mr. Berry, owner of the Albert Building. She stated Mr. Berry had some concerns regarding the corner treatments, noting his current proposal for the corner treatments was that the existing seating areas be changed so they would no longer be seating areas. She stated staff did not support this particular proposal for a variety of reasons; first, it was outside the project area, and second, those areas were originally designed as seating areas, and staff felt that was the way they should remain. Ms. Korzun stated staff' s recommendation was approval of the full project, approval of the full price, and direction to the Public Works Department that we negotiate a Scope of Services with Stuber-Stroeh. Member Heller noted Ms. Korzun had stated the project would begin in the Spring, and asked if that meant Spring of 1997, with completion in November, 1997, making this only a six month project? Ms. Korzun stated that was correct, noting we should be able to walk up and down new sidewalks at this time next year. Member Heller asked who would be making decisions on the issues of the signs for parking and the newspaper racks? Ms. Korzun stated there was limited satisfaction with the newspaper racks, and since staff wanted to move forward on this project, it was decided to hold over this issue, and discuss at a later date how the Agency Members wanted to handle it, noting this issue was going to need more public discussion than the last time it was addressed. Regarding parking signs, Ms. Korzun stated staff would have to decide if there were funds for this, noting if the Agency Members would like to see this brought up as a project, then staff would begin working on the issue sooner, rather than later. Ms. Heller felt it would be a good idea to look at bigger and better signs, noting a lot of people still do not know where the parking is. She stated she was also very interested in the newspaper racks, and had very limited enthusiasm for what we have out there now, as she believes most of the community does, and would definitely like to see this discussed and a solution reached. Chairman Boro agreed we definitely need to look at the parking signage. He also referred to the twenty -minute meters, and the response that the answer would require a major change in the patrol effort. He stated this was a restraint which could be overcome if there is truly merit in the short meters being placed in certain strategic parts of Downtown, and noted he would like this to be looked at more seriously, and not let the route of the Meter Maids be the restraint. Member Cohen referred to the issues of the corner treatment and seating areas, asking if any alternatives were studied? Ms. Korzun stated the question of whether something could be done had come up at one of the meetings, and some ideas were discussed. She stated these issues were discussed later at staff level, SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 5 as a policy of whether we want to prevent seating, and staff decided, regardless of the solution, these were seating areas and should remain seating areas, noting if there was a problem with particular people who are using them, then we should be addressing the people, not what they are sitting on. Member Cohen stated testimony on this issue would be given later in this meeting, noting he felt the issue merited further study, and the most appropriate thing would be to see what kind of testimony we receive, and then come back to this issue. Robert Berry, property owner on "B" Street, stated this was a major issue, and one which should be addressed by the Agency for a couple of reasons. First, the Agency is taking action, and he applauded the action of relocating St. Vincent de Paul's; however, even if St. Vincent de Paul is gone, the problems that exist will not go away 100%. He stated "B" Street was a freeway between Albert Park and Boyd Park, and it was more impacted on the corners than any of the other streets, with "A" Street being the second most impacted. He noted the street monuments further down, toward the Macy's Building and the parking lot, get a considerable amount of action, and to make beautiful new sidewalks we would then create something to attract more people. Mr. Berry stated he has had written complaints in his building regarding this issue, because 75% of the office building tenants use the City' s garage on Third Street, and they have had to quit using the staircase on "B" Street because they feel it is unsafe. He noted his employees have asked him to try to do something about this problem, as they feel intimidated by people in the garage. Mr. Berry stated he would prefer to have the monuments remain as they are now, allowing people who need a place to sit down to use the monuments rather than the garage. He noted the problem was more serious on "A" and "B" Streets, and asked the Agency to reconsider and take some kind of action on the "A" and "B" Street monuments, stating he would even be willing to do the initial installation of one or two of the monuments on Fourth and "B" Streets at his own expense, to see whether it would solve the problem or not. Mr. Berry believed there were two ways to solve the problem; one would be to have an attractive pyramid shaped structure which would go on top of the existing concrete structure, attached with re -bar or bolts, allowing the structures to be epoxied together. This would allow the top structure to be removed in the future, if the problem goes away. Mr. Berry stated a second alternative would be to use a decorative wrought iron structure which could be screwed directly to the top of the existing concrete monument, noting this would make it uncomfortable for someone to sit on the monument. Mr. Berry asked the Agency to consider trying an alternative design, at least on a trial basis, particularly on "A" and "B" Streets, noting he would participate as required. Chairman Boro noted one option would be for the Agency to pursue the issue independently of this project, but concurrent with the project as far as the sidewalks. Chairman Boro read from a letter the Agency had received from Peter Bassing, an attorney at 1010 "B" Street, "I am not here referring only, or even primarily, to homeless persons, but also to young persons whose clothes, coffee and tobacco budget, and apparently limitless amounts of spare time, indicate that they are somehow free of the pedestrian need to make a living which nags others of us". Chairman Boro stated the fact of the matter is that the Agency is SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 5 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 6 addressing the issue of the dining room, noting we have three foot patrol officers now in the Downtown. He stated the Agency was dealing with some of the issues we have had in the community for quite a while; however, he felt the tenant mix in some of the buildings might also be attracting some of the people who are there, noting people are going to be attracted to a particular use, and this problem was not something that just government could handle. Chairman Boro stated he was open to looking at this to see if there was some way it could be solved, but noted it was very difficult to legislate people's lifestyles and how they wish to conduct themselves if they are doing it in a way that is not against the law. Member Cohen stated this was the point, and his response to staff was that there is not an answer available to us to say there is going to be seating, and we will just deal with the people we do not want sitting there, while we let others sit there. Mr. Cohen noted this was not a feasible, constitutional solution available to us, and stated this would not work, it was not constitutional, and was not the right way to deal with the problem. He noted it seemed this was not working out the way we had intended, and stated his observation was that those areas are not used as seating areas by the general public, and people who sit there tend to occupy them for longer periods of time, and in some cases just seem to take up residence. Member Cohen noted the problem was not just at the corner of "B" and Fourth Streets, although that was the worst location, but was also on "A" Street, and tended to be near the coffee houses. He stated the coffee houses were a double edge sword, because they bring activity into the Downtown at night, which was a goal that had been stated for the City and was clearly of benefit, and they also bring activity during the day; however, not all of that activity is desirable. Mr. Cohen acknowledged he did not know how we could regulate the users of this, and he felt the Agency needed to revisit this issue. Member Cohen felt Chairman Boro's suggestion was a good one, and stated that overall, this was an outstanding project and he was prepared to vote for it to go forward. He noted he was excited about the opportunity, and did not want this particular discussion to detract from that. He urged the other Agency Members to go along with him in directing staff to revisit this issue, and see what our options are. Mr. Cohen stated he had discussed this with a couple of the Police Officers, particularly those who work the Downtown beat, and reported their view was that their options were fairly limited as far as moving people along, and they were sympathetic to the idea of putting something on those monuments that would eliminate them as seating areas, unfortunate as that may be. Mr. Cohen stated one thing that had come up during a discussion with one of the Officers was the idea of putting flower boxes on top of the monuments. Mr. Cohen felt there were some things, as Mr. Berry suggested, somewhat short of iron spikes or ground glass, which could be bolted to the tops of the monuments, and if there came a time in the future when we felt it was appropriate to remove them because the climate of the Downtown had changed, they should be removable. Member Cohen stated he would like the Agency to explore the issue further, and would like this to be reviewed in conjunction with the current project as we go forward. Member Miller stated he was more inclined to hear other presentations, noting public seating in public places was an amenity strongly recommended in every public place he had seen. He stated that although we may have problems with it along the line, we should not take away the public's opportunity to rest, or the opportunity to leisurely be Downtown. Mr. Miller stated the design was correct, it was a people problem, and what we were really talking about here was a policing SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 6 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 7 problem. He felt the structures should remain as seating areas, and the Agency should explore ways in which the people problem could be addressed. Member Phillips stated the Agency had an obligation to at least consider those businesses which are directly impacted by the arrangement, noting they were sending the Agency a clear signal this was not what they would like to see. Mr. Phillips stated we might look for other more appropriate uses for what is now seating, noting he agreed that with the changes we are seeing, it should be a requirement that whatever is in place be temporary, or able to be modified in future years. He noted the message was loud and clear, from many of those who have had discussions with the Agency Members, that they would like to see a different configuration there, and now is the logical time to do this. Member Phillips asked if a business or restaurant wished to expand into the existing parking area and provide outdoor seating, and with the turnover we see Downtown, where a restaurant today could become a bookstore tomorrow, would a permanent configuration be an appropriate solution? Ms. Korzun stated staff had discussed this, noting the five people who have proposed expanded seating areas all own their buildings, and in the case of Mr. Berry, for example, would have contributed toward the enlarged area in front of the business. She noted that since it was a definite enhancement to a restaurant, it would probably encourage the replacement of a restaurant; if not, this meant there would be a wide spot in the sidewalk, and there would be no particular problem with having that. She noted this was not a gift to the City, it was a landlord issue. Regarding the monument seating, Member Heller stated she was not ready to give up open space in public places for people to rest, noting we should review and study this, and come up with suggestions, such as the flower boxes, which would be an enhancement and perhaps be a temporary solution. She stated she would argue to look at any other way, rather than give up that seating. Chairman Boro stated perhaps the combination of his and Member Cohen's statements would lead to looking at multiple options, from physical to other considerations, as far as the role of the Police Department. He felt the tenant mix was an issue, which was why he had read from Mr. BassingIs letter, noting there could be people who populate a certain establishment, and they will be standing out on the street if there is no place to sit, as that is just the nature of what happens at that particular establishment. He stated a lot of this might rest on the property owner and manager of the facility, as well as the City, noting it was very difficult for the City to attempt to regulate a lifestyle. Chairman Boro stated it would be appropriate to have a motion to approve the two recommendations, and then specifically to incorporate in the motion that staff review the issue of seating, and look at the issues of the newspaper racks, short-term parking, and signage for the parking lots. Member Cohen felt the first step was for the Agency to recognize the problem as it had been described in terms of the seating areas, noting he was open to any kind of solution, whether it be a "people solution" or construction solution. He stated in some way the Agency would have to pursue one of the goals the City set for itself, which was to reclaim our public spaces. He agreed it would be ideal to have the seating spaces without the problems. Member Cohen moved and Member Phillips seconded, to recommend conceptual approval of the Street Improvement Plan as outlined in the staff report, and authorize negotiation of the Scope of Services and contract with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh for preparation and drawings, with the direction laid out by Chairman Boro, as SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 8 well, for additional staff work. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None Chairman Boro announced Economic Development Director Ours had indicated the remaining items on the agenda might be carried over until the end of the City Council meeting, as there were members of the audience awaiting the presentation of Resolutions of Appreciation, to be made during the Council meeting. Chairman Boro recessed the meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, announcing the meeting would be reconvened at the end of the City Council meeting. Mayor Boro reconvened the Redevelopment Agency meeting at 9:30 PM. 6. ANNUAL MEETING TO ACCEPT 1995/96 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUDIT AND ANNUAL REPORT (RA) -- File R-62 Economic Development Director Jake Ours noted the Auditor's report indicated the Agency was in compliance. Member Phillips moved and Member Cohen seconded, to accept the Redevelopment Agency Annual Report, and forward to City Council for review and approval. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 7. LONE PALM COURT RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON "C" STREET: (RA) - File R-372 Economic Development Director Ours reported this item was the second to be brought before the Agency regarding the Lone Palm Court Project, noting it relates to the financing, Bond Counsel, and an extension of the Memorandum of Understanding. Mr. Ours stated the project consisted of 60 rental units on "C" Street, between Second and Third Streets, and displayed the drawings and renderings which have already gone before the Design Review Board. The project would have 20% of the units at affordability of 50% of Median Income, 20% of the units at 60% of Median Income, with the remainder of the units at Market Rate. Mr. Ours noted this was a mix staff felt would work very well Downtown. Mr. Ours stated a lot of work had been done in an attempt to make these units look like individual homes, rather than one massive building, pointing out there was a lot of texture in the building, and arches which feature the "Lone Palm" tree, which Mr. Ours reported had historical significance. Mr. Ours referred to the drawings and pointed out the Third Street and Second Street elevations, noting the elevation on Third Street is higher, and drops down to Second Street. He also pointed out the main entry on "C" Street, which will be through an arched gateway. Mr. Ours pointed out the view at Second and "C" Streets, noting this was the most controversial part of the project, and a lot of work had been done to make it look residential and pedestrian SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 8 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 9 friendly. Mr. Ours stated these drawings represented a very nice project, with a lot of cooperation from the developer, staff, the Design Review Board, and everyone else working to try to get a really good project going. Mr. Ours stated this would be a "podium" project, which meant there would be parking underneath the structure. There would be six studio units, nineteen one bedroom units, and thirty-five two bedroom units, with a play area for children, a grass barbecue area, and a center court area. The residents would also have the ability to come and go from the apartments at the street entry, so it would feel more like a house than a regular apartment building where the residents must walk down a corridor, making it a much nicer living environment. Mr. Ours reviewed the low-end rent structure, noting the two bedroom units at the affordable to very low income (50% of Median Income) would require that a two person household earn $24,500 total per year, a four person household earn $30,000 per year at the affordable to very low end (50% of Median Income), $41,000 at affordable to low income (60% of Median Income), and $61,000 for Market Rate units. Mr. Ours noted this represented a good spread, and he felt these units would appeal to the people who work Downtown, which was one of the Agency's goals. Mr. Ours stated staff was recommending the Executive Director execute an agreement for Bond Counsel, the Agency pass a Resolution declaring our intent to issue bonds on this particular project, and we extend the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), which we now have between the developer, Mr. Schafer, BRIDGE Housing and the Redevelopment Agency, so we can take care of some of these items while the Memorandum of Understanding is still in place. Mr. Ours stated on the first item, staff was recommending the Bond Counsel of Jones, Hall, Hill & White be employed, noting they come with very high credentials; BRIDGE Housing recommends them, and our attorneys recommend them. He reported a reference check turned up very positive, noting that in checking the references, staff had been told by those who had worked with them in the past that they would not work with anyone else. Mr. Ours reported the second item would allow the Agency to go forward with planning for the project, and allowed the cost associated with the project to be covered by the Bond Financing, noting these bonds were not going to be an obligation to the Agency, they would be an obligation of the project. He stated the Agency would not be responsible for any of the costs associated with the project, it was just that the Agency' s name was being used, which was the real issue here, and why we must take this step. Chairman Boro asked if we had done this with any other project, and Mr. Ours stated this was the first time the Redevelopment Agency had done this. He noted there had been Bond Financing from other sources for other projects, such as Centertown, but they did not originate with the City's name on them. Chairman Boro recalled the City had loaned its name on some special assessment areas, and Mr. Ours stated the City had done that on assessment districts, but not in housing areas. Member Heller referred to the statement in the MOU, "The developers will construct and manage the property. The Agency and the City will not have responsibility for operation of the project". She asked who was going to operate the project? Mr. Ours stated the developer and BRIDGE Housing would be the managers of the project, noting this was included so we would never have the nightmare of the City having to actually be the operator of the project. Mr. Ours stated if something were to go terribly wrong, the City could always step in, but that was not the intent of what we were doing. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 9 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 10 Member Phillips asked if any action the Agency was taking this evening did, in fact, offer approval of this particular project? Mr. Ours stated it did not, noting this project had been approved by the Design Review Board, it still must go before the Planning Commission, and another item would also be brought to the Agency at a later date which would include the lease for the project, the Disposition and Development Agreement, and all the other official documents which would be developed from the work that will be started tonight. He stated once we have the Bond Counsel onboard they will start to develop all the other documents, which will be the official Agency approval. Chairman Boro asked if the design itself would come to the Agency or the City Council at some point? Mr. Ours stated it would not, noting the design review being presented tonight would probably be what is in the package they look at. Chairman Boro asked if this would be after the Planning Commission approves it, and Mr. Ours stated there was no requirement for that happening, and Planning Director Pendoley stated it would not come before the City Council unless there was an appeal. Chairman Boro stated he would like to pursue this, and have it come before the City Council for review, noting we are the sponsor, and it is a very major project. He stated this was not because he thought he or any of the others would have objections to the project, he just felt they should understand it. Therefore, he asked that it be brought before the City Council so they can look at it, understand it, and discuss it. Mr. Ours stated this could be done in the Disposition and Development Agreement, expanding that and bringing it before the Council. Member Cohen noted one of the Resolutions now being presented stated the Redevelopment Agency would issue tax-exempt limited obligation revenue bonds, loaned to the borrower for the purpose of acquiring and constructing the project, and noted that given this is a type of approach we have not taken before to finance a project, he asked if it was Mr. Ours' understanding that this would then trigger wage requirements on this project? Mr. Ours stated that was correct. Chairman Boro asked if these bonds would be insured? Mr. Ours stated they probably would not be insured. Paul Thimmig, attorney with the firm of Jones, Hall, Hill & White, stated it was highly likely the bonds would be backed by a Letter of Credit from the bank, or a mortgage insurance type Fannie Mae, so they would either be AA or AAA rated bonds, and they would bear a legend that the Redevelopment Agency was not responsible for their repayment. Chairman Boro asked who would be the ultimate Guarantor? Mr. Thimmig stated it would be the Letter of Credit bank. Chairman Boro asked if they would be looking to both BRIDGE Housing and the developer? Mr. Thimmig stated they would look to the project, noting it would be non-recourse debt, and they would look to the developer's equity. Member Heller noted the Redevelopment Agency now owns the land, and asked if we would continue to own the land, or would we be giving up ownership to the developer and BRIDGE Housing? Mr. Ours stated the Redevelopment Agency was proposing to lease the property to the developer, and that would call for lease payments to be made to the Agency. There would be an option in the lease every ten years for the developer to purchase the land at Fair Market value, and this would be an item that would come back to the Agency at that time. However, he stated at this time the Agency intended to continue ownership of the property. Member Heller asked if the Below Market Rate units would carry the 50 year requirement? Mr. Ours stated they would. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 10 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 11 Member Miller asked if they would have the "floating" situation with the BMR units, as long as the percentage of units was maintained? Jim Schafer, developer with Samuelson & Schafer, reported the way the lease was structured, the 40% component was initially achieved, and if people's income rose above that level, they could continue to stay in their unit, and the developer would take the next available unit and convert it, always maintaining 40% of the project as affordable housing. Member Miller asked if that model had been used elsewhere? Mr. Schafer reported it was currently being used at the "H" Street project. Dick Bornholdt, Housing Consultant for the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency, stated he felt this was a fine project, and offered an excellent opportunity to provide more housing Downtown at a mixed income situation, and this would be a big help. He reported Mr. Schafer had been excellent to work with, and was agreeable to extending a significant degree of affordability in this development, noting 50 years was a long term, and more than he had seen in other situations. Mr. Bornholdt stated he was looking forward to continuing this development, and to the completion of the lease and other documents, and bringing them back to the Agency early next year. a. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR BOND COUNSEL SERVICES WITH JONES, HALL, HILL & WHITE Member Heller moved and Member Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96-90 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR BOND COUNSEL SERVICES WITH JONES, HALL, HILL AND WHITE -- Lone Palm Court Rental Housing AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None b. RESOLUTION DECLARING OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS RELATING TO PROPOSED LONE PALM COURT APARTMENTS AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS Member Cohen moved and Member Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96-91 - RESOLUTION DECLARING OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS RELATING TO PROPOSED LONE PALM COURT APARTMENTS AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None c. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO EXECUTE AN EXTENSION OF THE MOU (#1) WITH BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION AND SAMUELSON & SCHAFER, LLC Member Phillips moved and Member Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96-92 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO EXECUTE AN EXTENSION OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (NO. ONE) WITH BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION AND SAMUELSON & SCHAFER, LLC -- Lone Palm Court Rental SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 11 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 12 Housing AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 8. DEPARTMENT REPORT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RA) - File (SRCC) 237 x R-140 #8 Chairman Boro announced this item would be continued to the Redevelopment Agency meeting of January 6, 1997. 9. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: a. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR MACY'S BUILDING - File R-140 IV Chairman Boro reported he had asked Member Phillips to assist him in reviewing the applications for the Macy's building as they come in, and noted this would begin after the 7th of January, 1997. Member Heller observed the Macy's building, being used during the holidays for the Merry Market, had been looking great, especially the decorated windows. Mr. Ours stated Brigitte Moran had been the driving force behind this project, and under her direction the windows were decorated by Burns Flowers, Expressions, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Marin County Humane Society, with a lot of individual effort. Member Phillips stated the street lights, and particularly the banners, were terrific. There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/16/96 Page 12