Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1996-12-02SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 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 Cohen moved and Member Phillips seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Monday, November 18, 1996 (AS) 2. Unapproved Minutes of Citizens Advisory Committee Accepted report. Meeting of Thursday, November 7, 1996 (RA) File R-140 IVB 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. REQUEST TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF AGENCY FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 TO PURCHASE TRAFFIC MODEL SOFTWARE (TRANPLAN), COMPUTER EQUIPMENT (HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE), TRAINING AND FURNITURE FOR TRAFFIC MODELING PURPOSES (PW) - File R-376 x R-140 #8 Member Cohen questioned the relationship between the traffic model software and hardware we are purchasing, and the $150,000 we paid for the model that was developed by W -TRANS, which the Agency accepted earlier this year? Assistant Executive Director (Public Works) David Bernardi stated this would allow us to do the model runs in-house, noting the new Engineer in the Public Works Department was expert in running this kind of software, so all the modeling will be done in-house. He noted some of the large projects, because of the data entry, might still need to be done outside, but all the day-to-day types of "what if" questions staff needs to ask will be done in-house. Member Cohen stated the Agency was clearly much better off than it was before we got this model, when we did not even own the model we had paid to have developed; however, over time we will need to do some reality checks to test the model against what is actually happening, and update it. He asked if that would also be done in-house? Mr. Bernardi stated staff had the capability of SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 2 upgrading the model as conditions change in our roadway network, so it would be something we could do in-house. Member Cohen moved and Member Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96-86 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF ADMINISTRATION FUNDS (6911-9000-8501) NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 TO PURCHASE TRAFFIC MODEL SOFTWARE (TRANPLAN), COMPUTER EQUIPMENT (HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE), TRAINING, AND FURNITURE FOR TRAFFIC MODELING PURPOSES. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 4. REPORT ON PROPOSED TIMELINE AND PROCESS FOR THE "B" STREET PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST (RA) - File R-140 XVI Economic Development Director Jake Ours stated the first part of his report showed the actual steps the Agency must go through during this process, and pointed out the Agency was now at Step 3 of a ten step process, noting there were still a number of things which needed to be done in order to make this project go forward. Mr. Ours stated this was somewhat similar to the Request for Proposals the Agency was doing for the Macy' s building, but was much more complicated, in that there are more individuals involved, and a lot more individual situations with renters and tenants, and all the types of special things the Agency has to take care of and cover, by law; therefore, this would be a longer process than anything the Agency could do with the Macy's building. Mr. Ours stated staff was proposing they develop the Request for Proposals in May, which would be after they have gotten the bulk of the Macy's proposal done, and then the process would go through October or November of next year, when we would have a developer in place. Mr. Ours noted in looking at this realistically, with all of the different work to be done with consultants, and the relocation plan to be done, this would be as soon as they could finish the project. He stated he would likely have another person on staff by that time, and this would probably be one of the first projects this person would work on. Member Cohen stated it seemed this could really get bogged down when we get into steps #4 and #5, when we are negotiating an agreement with the developer, and when we begin talking about relocation assistance. He stated he was concerned about the length of this process, noting there was a lot of support for the Agency moving forward with this, and an expectation that something was going to happen, and if the Agency were to say it would take a couple of years, there would be a fair amount of dismay. Mr. Cohen acknowledged this would be a complicated procedure, and there was not much we could do about that. However, he wondered if there was any way to start the project earlier, knowing it was going to take a while to complete? He also asked if there was any way to interweave this project with what is happening with the Macy's building, whether we could develop the RFP/RFQ package and send it out some time in the Spring, which is when it appears things will be heating up with Macy's, and see what type of response it generates? He asked if we could use the two to three month SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 3 peak effort of the Macy's project, to ask developers if they would be interested in looking at this project, and if so, what type of project they would propose? Member Cohen stated as he recalled the Macy's proposal, very shortly we will be down to the "short list", and by early next year we will have selected the developer. He noted one of the things that occurred to him was that we would have a number of other parties who had just expended a fair amount of time, effort, and money analyzing market conditions in San Rafael, and they may well be interested in taking that knowledge and looking at another opportunity. He noted that although it might not be the same, while they are here and we have their interest, we might ask them to look at this project and make a proposal. Mr. Cohen asked if perhaps we could have someone come in on a consultant basis, or if there was some other way we could expedite putting together the RFP, noting it seemed we could get a jump on this by a couple of months if we worked it that way? Mr. Ours stated he would look into this, and see if there were some economy of numbers in doing the two projects this way, noting it would be natural to talk to all the developers about this project during the Macy's deal. He stated this was already happening, with some of the developers mentioning this project was also coming up. Mr. Ours stated he understood Mr. Cohen's concern, noting he would look at the schedule and try to do it quicker if they possibly can. Member Heller asked if we would have a developer come in who would completely redesign the entire thing, and if they have to submit a plan that will level all of the buildings, or if some of them could be left, and was the project just open to anyone's imagination as to what they feel should be there, or will the City give them guidelines? Mr. Ours stated the proposal was not definite, and it could leave some buildings if they would have a positive impact on the remainder. He noted some of the corner buildings were fairly good buildings. Mr. Ours pointed out the goal was to clean-up the non-productive uses there, and that would be the bottom line we would be looking at. He noted we already know the Zappetini yard really does have to go because it is just in the way of everything, and most of the other interior buildings are very inferior in terms of construction and amenities, and we would not want them left; however, we might be able to tie something in to some of the existing buildings. He felt there would be a number of people concerned about the historic nature of the area, and we may have to designate that we want the facades of the buildings preserved, noting this was something they do on the East Coast, where they actually keep the front of the building and construct a whole new building behind it. He stated this may be something we look at here, because there seems to be a lot of attachment to the fronts of those buildings, noting he had received approximately ten phone calls, as well as a letter from the Marin Historical Society, telling the Agency to make sure to save those buildings. Mr. Ours stated these were the types of things the Agency would have to think about when they are putting the request together, and they will also come back before the Council for further discussion, visit with the Planning Commission, and get a lot of ideas about what we are really looking for in improving this whole section of town and making it more attractive. Member Cohen felt we were really going to have to ask people to take a hard look at saving the facades, noting St. Vincent de Paul's and the building adjacent to it are two of the nicest fronts in the area, and that block has been designated SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 4 a Historic District. He noted he was not aware of any real historical significance to the actual buildings themselves, and he felt it would be feasible to have someone come in and just preserve the fronts of those structures. Mr. Ours stated that was the type of direction the Agency wanted to give the developers right from the beginning, so we get the right proposal, not one that just says level the whole thing, if that is not what we want done. Member Phillips asked when the Agency Members should have in mind what they would like to see there, and also what the Agency Members' involvement in the project was supposed to be? Mr. Ours stated, as with the Macy's building, the Agency Members need to generally define what the Agency's goals are for the area, what they would like to see there, such as housing or a better retail mode, and then put out general guidelines to the developers stating what the Agency wants to see, and asking them to use their imagination and "fill in the blanks" for us, and to tell us the best way to accomplish it. Mr. Ours noted the Agency had to be fairly firm in what we think we should do, and what our goals are. He stated this area represented a housing asset we should take a hard look at, as we could probably improve our downtown housing there. He also noted we could definitely make "B" Street a prime retail frontage, if that was our goal. Chairman Boro suggested that between now and when the Request For Proposals are sent out there should be an Agency study session, where the Agency Members can go over Mr. Ours' recommendations, and make sure they agree. Mr. Ours agreed, stating it would make for a much stronger proposal. Member Miller noted the Vision and the General Plan provide a lot of specificity in terms of what can be built, and real direction as to which way we can go, and they would be valuable as part of the study session discussion. Member Miller agreed with Member Cohen's concern about expediting this project, noting the Agency had done this as publicly as we could, and if there is a big lag time, it might seem as though there is a lack of effort; that we are doing this for other motivations. He noted Member Cohen had suggested a consultant, and Mr. Ours had stated he would be adding on to his staff, and Mr. Miller asked if perhaps we could accelerate the addition of staff, so we could begin this project. Chairman Boro stated the Agency was ready to accept the report, but would like Mr. Ours to come back before the Agency and see if he can accelerate the May start date. Chairman Boro stated, unlike what we have been through with Macy's, the critical item on this whole process was going to be Item #4, where the Disposition and Development Agreement comes in, because our financial participation was going to be very limited, and it was going to be interesting to see how this is handled by the private sector. Member Miller moved and Member Phillips seconded, to accept the report for proposed timeline process for the "B" Street project development request, subject to accelerating the beginning of the process. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 5 5. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: DOWNTOWN HOLIDAY EVENTS - File R-181 Mr. Ours stated the reports from the Merry Marketplace are that it has been very successful. Chairman Boro noted Mr. Ours, his staff, and Brigitte Moran of Celebrations had worked very hard on the Parade of Lights and the Merry Marketplace, and should be congratulated. He stated Fourth Street was great on Friday night, as well as the entire weekend, noting the new lights looked great and Macy's had never looked so good. Mr. Ours noted Mr. Bernardi's staff really pushed to get the new banners in place before the parade, and Member Heller stated the lights looked wonderful. Member Cohen stated he and his family had a wonderful time at the parade, but noted the caroling was very disorganized, and he wondered if perhaps there could be some kind of sound system so everyone could sing together, adding he felt it would be worth the expense. Mr. Ours stated staff had discussed this problem, noting it was difficult to keep a moving group of people in sync, and staff had not come up with a solution for this. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 12/2/96 Page 5