Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1997-09-15SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY HALL OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1997, AT 7:30 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Barbara Heller, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary O. Phillips, Member Absent: None Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman Paul M. Cohen, Member Also Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director Eric Davis, Deputy Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None CONSENT CALENDAR 7:35 PM Member Phillips moved and Member Cohen seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Special and Regular Meetings of Tuesday, September 2, 1997 (AS) 2. Acceptance of Statements of Disclosure for Jeff Kirchmann, Bruce Scott, and Theresa Smith, Planning Commissioners (AS) - File 9-4-3 3. Unapproved Minutes of Citizens Advisory Committee Meetings of Thursday, August 7 and Thursday, September 4, 1997 (RA) - File R-140 IVB 4. Quarterly Housing Report (RA) - File R-173 x (SRCC) 187 x (SRCC) 13-16 5. Monthly Investment Report (Admin. Svcs.) - File R-123 Approved as submitted. Accepted Statements of Disclosure. Accepted reports. Accepted report. Accepted report. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 6. STATUS REPORT ON DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF "B" STREET PROJECT AREA (RA) - File R-396 x R-140 XIV Executive Director Rod Gould explained the decision before the Agency at this time was to consider the Draft Request For Proposals and receive public input, and then on October 6th, if the Agency concurs, it will be released to the public. The Agency would then receive proposals, and based on those proposals, the Agency could choose to undertake a Redevelopment project by accepting one of those proposals and entering into a Disposition and Development Agreement, or reject those proposals and do something else all together. He stated SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 2 tonight' s discussion would be strictly on the Draft of the Request For Proposals. Senior Redevelopment Specialist Nancy Mackle reported in November, 1996 the Agency determined a particular portion around "B" Street was in need of redevelopment, specifically the southern half of the block bounded by "A", "B", Second and Third Streets, and a portion of the block across from "B" Street. In May, 1997 the Agency authorized the contract with Economic Research Associates (ERA) to work with staff to help make sure this was a feasible project, and that it could be redeveloped into something. Ms. Mackle stated they learned from working with ERA, and looking at the project a little more closely, that there is great redevelopment potential for the "B" Street area, noting there are many advantages to this site, including its proximity to Fourth Street, the fact that it is very close to the Fair, Isaac project, and when Andersen Drive is completed it will come all the way up to "A" Street, so this will be right at a new entrance to the Downtown. Ms. Mackle noted the project also has constraints, as defined in the Draft RFP, including replacement housing, which the Agency is asking be included on-site, and because we are asking to preserve the historic character of "B" Street, which will restrain some of the development potential. Referring to some of the highlights of the Draft RFP, Ms. Mackle noted staff has laid out goals and a concept for the project, based on the Vision and the General Plan. She stated they are asking for an Office/Retail/Residential Mixed -Use project, and in accordance with the Vision, an active Pedestrian Use. She pointed out they have not gone into detail regarding the specific number of units or specifically how many square feet it should be, leaving these issues general and waiting to see what they get back from the Development community. Ms. Mackle stated they are asking that if any housing units are taken out, those units be replaced with comparable, affordable rents, noting there are approximately 21 units on site. Ms. Mackle reported staff would lay out zoning, height, and parking requirements for the Developer, and discuss maintaining the historic character of "B" Street within the development. However, she pointed out staff is not addressing the detail of the design, noting they would let the Developer come back with that, and when a Developer is chosen, he will have to go through the normal City approvals, through the Design Review Board and City Planning processes. Ms. Mackle reported staff would take comments from the Agency and members of the public, and noted the Draft RFP had been sent to other stakeholders, such as the Cultural Affairs Commission and the Marin United Taxpayers Association, and copies of the staff report had been sent to all the property owners. She stated staff would like to get written comments back by September 29th, work with those comments and incorporate them into a final form, and then bring a final version of the RFP back to the Agency on October 6th. She stated if this was done, they believed they could get Developer proposals in over the next month, and make a selection by December. Ms. Mackle noted there was no fiscal impact at this time, but there could be, based upon what they get back from the Developers, noting part of the requirements are for the Developers to tell us if they need Agency financial subsidy to make this project work. She stated this might be the case, noting it depends on such things as how far they go with this project, how many people are displaced, and how large a project they require. Member Phillips asked if the Agency would be identifying the maximum limit we can go with regard to support, so the Developers have some parameters? Economic Development Director Jake Ours stated staff had an idea of what our budget would be, but would rather keep that to themselves and deal with it on a negotiated basis with the Developers as they submit their proposals. Mr. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 2 David SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 3 Phillips asked if it would be helpful for the Developers to know what our absolute maximum would be? Mr. Ours stated that would not be helpful at this time. Sheldon, 16 Ritter Street, stated the St. Vincent de Paul dining facility is a religious sanctuary which offers spiritual, physical, and emotional subsistence to the homeless and/or impoverished. Quoting Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi he read, "If the individual ceases to count, what is left of society? If freedom is wrested from him, he becomes an automaton and society is ruined. No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom. The 'homeless' do not drop from the sky, nor do they spring from earth like evil spirits. They are the product of social disorganization, and society is therefore responsible for their existence. In other words, they should be looked upon as a symptom of corruption in our body politic". Mr. Sheldon urged the Agency to not force the eviction of the St. Vincent de Paul dining room from its present location. Jonathan Parker, Monahan Parker Company, reported his company currently had a project underway on Fifth Avenue and another on Third Street, and they own two of the properties on the west side of "B" Street. He stated his company looked forward to coming in with a proposal to do this redevelopment, noting they have already been planning it for a couple of months. Mary Casey, Attorney representing the St. Vincent de Paul Society, reported the evaluation of the properties had been done in October, 1996, noting some of the facts regarding St. Vincent's property may be dated. She asked if they would be revised before the final report is made? Mr. Ours stated he had not been aware that there was misinformation or dated information in the report, noting he had thought the information was still current. He stated he would discuss this with St. Vincent's, and determine what issues they would like to have included. Chairman Boro asked staff to evaluate two additional parcels, 1212 and 1214 Second Street, which he believed the Agency might want to have included in this project, noting these properties would back up to the new Lone Palm Court, and could add quite a bit to the entire project. He asked staff to evaluate the pros and cons of including those two parcels, and report back to the Agency. Member Cohen clarified that when the Agency put out the RFP we would not be mandating that the Developer come forward with a proposal to include those parcels, we would merely state that this was the potential scope of the project. He noted a Developer might come forward with a project limited to the half block between "A" and "B" Streets, and argue that they had a viable project that excluded the other side, and he asked if that would be a "fatal flaw" in their proposal? Mr. Ours stated it would not. Mr. Cohen pointed out the Agency could add those two additional properties, and inform the Developers that they were also welcome to look at those properties, and if extending the project further to the west along Second Street makes it a more viable project, then the Agency would be fully prepared to consider that. Member Heller asked Mr. Ours if staff had already looked at including these properties? Mr. Ours reported they had looked at the economics of including one of the parcels, because they found that for a certain configuration they would need more space. He stated it would be very simple to also include the second property, noting they were two very small parcels, approximately thirty feet across the front of each one, or a total of sixty feet. Member Cohen moved and Member Heller seconded, to direct staff to return with a final RFP for Agency approval on October 6th, to extend to September 29th the opportunity for comments, and to take part in discussions with St. Vincent de Paul and correct any inaccuracies in the report prior to October 6th. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 4 AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 7. AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE OWNER PARTICIPATION PROCESS FOR PROPOSED SAFEWAY PROJECT AT SECOND AND "A" STREETS (RA) - File R-397 x R-140 XIV Senior Redevelopment Specialist Nancy Mackle reported staff has been approached by Robert Lalanne, President of the development firm Lalanne Volckmann, for Agency assistance for the proposed new Safeway. She stated the Developer has been working over the past year on assembling the parcels for this project, and is now asking for Agency assistance to do this, and would like to work with at least one of the property owners as participating owners. Ms. Mackle stated the first step for the Agency would be to determine if this is really a project the Agency would be interested in pursuing, and if so, to direct staff to initiate the owner participation process. Explaining how the Developer foresees this project, Ms. Mackle stated the Developer envisions a 40,000 square foot store located at "A" and Second Streets, basically across the street from the existing Safeway store, noting this would be adjacent to the Fair, Isaac property, and catty -corner to the "B" Street project. She reported the project would consist of nine parcels and seven owners, and would be approximately 2.7 acres. Ms. Mackle reported the overall area does, indeed, look blighted; however, the Agency would need to make further findings if we were to initiate this process, similar to what we did with "B" Street, with a project summary report of all the details of the project. Ms. Mackle stated the existing Safeway store is only 25,000 square feet, and Safeway has reported that is not their typical size anymore, noting it is outdated, and stating they need to expand but feel they cannot do so at the existing site. Ms. Mackle stated any businesses that might be displaced by this project would need to be paid relocation benefits, and staff is proposing that would be something the Developer would pay for as part of a Development Agreement. In addition, any housing units taken out would have to be replaced, and again, this would be the responsibility of the Developer. She noted there were approximately ten housing units on that site. Ms. Mackle reported increasing the store size would result in an increase in Sales Tax of approximately $20,000 to $25,000. She stated the project would have to go through all of the normal City Planning approvals, including traffic and parking issues. Ms. Mackle stated if there was interest in this project, the Agency would initiate the owner participation process, sending Requests for Proposals to all the property owners, and then the property owners would be able to submit proposals if they have the qualifications to do so. Ms. Mackle stated staff is not proposing any Agency subsidy for this project, noting it would merely be helping to assemble the land, with the Developer bearing the cost of relocation expenses and any other acquisition related expenses. Ms. Mackle stated staff recommended the Agency authorize staff to proceed with the necessary steps for the owner participation process for the new Safeway. Member Phillips noted there have been negotiations which have failed to bring these parcels into common ownership, and the Agency has been asked to step in to facilitate the acquisition, at no cost to the Agency or the City. He asked what the extent of the negotiations has been, stating he was somewhat reluctant for the Agency to step in unless there have been serious on-going negotiations, SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 5 and if the Agency feels it can be successful in bringing the parties together to the satisfaction of all of the parties. Robert Lalanne, President of Lalanne Volckmann, stated his company had met with all property owners, except representatives for the Ducasse Trust, and have submitted offers and received counter-offers. He reported that on two of the properties they are apart on the price, but the major issue is the Ducasse property, which is currently tied -up with the City with regard to taking the land for Andersen Drive. Mr. Ours explained the Ducasse issue was a condemnation action which is going to court, noting Mr. Ducasse wants that settled before talking to anyone about any of the remaining property. Mr. Ours stated the Agency has possession of the right of way, but the price has not been settled yet. Mr. Phillips asked how the Agency establishes the price? Mr. Ours stated the Agency has the land appraised and submits the appraisal to the court, along with the money to pay for it, and the other party submits whatever information they have if they feel it is not an accurate price, and then, ultimately, the court will decide what the price will be. Mr. Ours pointed out you never know what you are going to spend, because everything depends on the Judge's or the jury's decision. Mr. Phillips asked if there was any cost to the Agency in taking the matter to court? Mr. Ours stated there was, noting we had to pay the lawyers. Mr. Phillips asked if we recovered that cost from the ultimate purchaser of the property? Mr. Ours stated that was correct, it would be part of the package we put together, and all costs would be recovered. Member Cohen clarified that the current action in court has to do with the Agency's project on Andersen Drive, noting we are responsible for those costs because it is our project. Should there be legal action involving what the Agency is being asked to do now, all of those costs would be borne by the Developer as part of his project costs, and fully reimbursed to the Agency. Mr. Cohen stated his concern was that the Agency not be fronting money to do this, or at least that we have some assurance the money will be repaid even if the project does not ultimately go forward. Mr. Ours stated we would have those assurances before we go forward. Member Cohen referred to the re -use of the existing Safeway, noting the Agency should be sure, as we go forward, that this was going to happen, and there would be some resulting improvement and re -use of that building. Mr. Ours stated that was one of the benefits the Agency sees coming out of this project, noting the Agency is aware that this is a very important piece of property, and will make certain we have some input into that. Mr. Cohen stated he was very supportive of an expanded Safeway for the Downtown area, and also noted this will be an increasingly important site as Andersen Drive opens up. Therefore, he does not want to get one benefit by seeing this project go forward, but then see the current "B" Street Safeway site fall into disrepair. He noted this would take quite a bit of work, because it will be facing both "B" Street and Andersen Drive, and like the redevelopment projects that were just discussed, the current Safeway site will be an important entry point, because it will be what people see when they are coming up Andersen Drive; therefore, we need to make certain that this is handled sensitively. Patrick Burke, real estate broker with Keegan & Coppin Company, addressed the Agency on behalf of the Diamond family, owners of parcel 22. He stated they believe this project may be beneficial to the City of San Rafael, and that Lalanne Volckmann is a good company, with a very high reputation. Referring to Mr. Lalanne's statement that Lalanne Volckmann has been working on trying to assemble this property, Mr. Burke acknowledged that they had made an offer three months ago; however, at that time a representative of Lalanne Volckmann made statements that the owner was under the threat of condemnation, and that there was a diminution of the value of their property and the utility that SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 5 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 6 the property might be used for. He noted that during that same time, the Diamond family retained Keegan & Coppin Company to evaluate the property, as well as their options. Mr. Burke stated since that time they have had only a couple of contacts with Lalanne Volckmann, and all of those contacts were initiated by Keegan & Coppin Company; therefore, he would not agree with the characterization that there are a lot of recalcitrant property owners who are hard to work with. Mr. Burke referred to Attachment C in the staff report, which lists the owners and tenants of the various properties. He noted the business at parcel 22 is listed as "the former Nautilus", when in fact, it is still Nautilus. Mr. Burke stated that although Nautilus does have another location, many of Nautilus' clients remain faithful to this facility, and at this time, no plans have been made to close the Nautilus facility at this site. David Hellman, attorney, stated he represented the Ducasse and Poimiroo family, owners of the property at 700 "B" Street, which is where Marin Produce was located and where Marin Cleaners is currently located. Mr. Hellman reported they are currently in litigation with the Agency regarding the value of the strip that was taken for purposes of Andersen Drive. He stated it is their position that the ultimate value to be determined for that strip will have a very significant impact on what the parcel is worth as this project moves forward; therefore, they have not responded to Lalanne Volckmann in terms of their proposal, as they felt it was very low. Mr. Hellman noted that in considering this project, the Agency and the Developer should be aware of the cost of relocating a cleaners, which will certainly be part of what comes out of this project, and is definitely a concern of his clients, as the landlord of these tenants who have been there for a long time. Member Phillips asked for Mr. Hellman's reaction to staff's recommendation? Mr. Hellman stated they anticipate that this project is going to happen and move forward, noting they will have to deal with that, and if litigation becomes necessary, they are already in litigation on the one strip, and they will just have to deal with it at that level. Mr. Phillips asked Mr. Hellman if he felt that was the best approach? Mr. Hellman stated he did not believe that was necessarily the best approach. He reported they still have their appraiser working on the value, noting one of the issues they have discovered is that the appraisal on their parcel did not take into account many of the severance costs. For example, the sidewalk that runs in front of the new Andersen Drive sidewalk is four inches higher than the floor in his client's building, so if they are to re -use that, they are looking at a four inch high addition to their flooring along the entire width of the building, and for a fifteen foot depth. In addition, they have roll -up doors that would have to be removed as part of the process because Marin Produce is no longer there. Mr. Hellman stated many of these kinds of costs have not been considered, and he felt the Agency and the Developer would find that for all of the parcels that are going to be taken in this area, there are substantial values to the real estate that are not being considered by the Developer, whom Mr. Hellman believed was only looking at land value. Therefore, Mr. Hellman felt there might be quite a bit of resistance in terms of the proposal. Bill Casassa, who operates Marin Cleaners at 700 "A" Street, reported he and his brother had received a bid on moving their laundry. He stated theirs is a very large laundry, noting they have twenty-five employees, and do over 700 pounds of laundry per hour. He reported the cost is in excess of $300,000, and does not include water rights. He pointed out that according to the Marin Municipal Water District, water rights remain with the property, not with the water user; therefore, when he discussed having new water meters installed at a new location, he was told it would cost them over $130,000 just to purchase the right to use water again. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 6 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 7 Matt Brown, commercial real estate broker with Meridian Commercial, pointed out that in moving from a two acre existing Safeway to a 2.85 acre assembled site, not a lot was gained in land area. He felt that perhaps other ideas should be pursued. He noted the City owns property on either side of the existing Safeway, First Street and the Recreation Center, and he suggested perhaps this could be assembled into a larger size, so a more marketable supermarket could be constructed on that site. Additionally, Mr. Brown felt the subject site would be better served as something other than a supermarket, and he believed there was an opportunity for the Developer or the City to consider something along the lines of a major entertainment center that could conceivably share parking with the Fair, Isaac property adjoining it. He stated theaters and office buildings typically provide a perfect opportunity to share parking, because they are used at different times of the day, noting this seemed to be a better use of the southeast corner of Second and "A" Streets, and then Safeway's expansion could be accomplished on the southeast corner of "B" and Second Streets. Mr. Brown did not feel all of the alternatives had been considered, and was not certain condemnation for Safeway was the correct conversation to have at this time. He stated more study needed to take place. Chairman Boro explained the process, as outlined on Page 3 of the staff report, stating proposals could come in from other interested parties, either on these properties or adjoining properties, noting if Mr. Brown had something different to propose, this would be the time to do it. Mr. Brown asked if this project was specifically a Safeway project? Chairman Boro stated the issue was Safeway, but the Agency would be interested in hearing other ideas. Mr. Brown suggested broadening the use for this proposal to include other uses, and perhaps other properties. Chairman Boro asked for clarification on that issue. Executive Director Gould stated the current project before the Agency was for a Safeway store at this location, noting the owner participation agreement the Agency is being asked to consider would offer the opportunity to all of the property owners to develop it for this particular use. If this is not successful, and Safeway continues to wish to expand its premises, it might consider another location. However, this is the project that has been put together by private parties over the past year, and which the Agency is now being asked to assist in. Mr. Gould stated if the Agency would like to hold the matter and consider other configurations before entering into this, staff could conduct that analysis and bring it before the Agency at a future meeting. Member Cohen stated he was interested in hearing about ideas pursuing the concept of developing Safeway on the site of its currently location, although he was not interested in giving up any portion of the Community Center to do so. Mr. Cohen noted the process description states the Agency has to give the owners of the parcels to be developed an opportunity to submit proposals for redevelopment of the assembled parcels. Mr. Cohen asked if that proposal necessarily had to include Safeway, since it is Lalanne Volkmann's proposal to build a Safeway, or are they eligible to submit proposals for redevelopment of the site, in some fashion making use of the assembled parcels, and then those proposals would be considered by the Agency? Mr. Gould stated the Agency could specify that it would receive proposals for different uses for the sites, including, but not limited to, a Safeway store. Mr. Cohen asked if the Agency was legally entitled to state they have to submit a proposal for building a Safeway on this site? Referring to the "B" Street project the Agency had just acted upon, Mr. Cohen noted a developer had not been designated, and any property owner within that district would have the opportunity to come forward and propose SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 8 redevelopment of the site, as assembled by the Agency. Mr. Cohen asked if the same thing applied in this case, or could the Agency, if it chose, mandate that it must be redeveloped into a Safeway store? Mr. Ours stated the only one, at this time, who has come forward with a proposal for the site is Safeway. He noted Safeway had written a letter stating they were interested, and the Developer and some of the landowners were also interested in that proposal; therefore, the Agency was trying to deal with that package. However, there is nothing to preclude the Agency from going outside of that envelope, but at this time, the only interest the Agency was aware of was from Safeway, and that is why the Agency has been referring to Safeway. Chairman Boro asked if the individual property owners decide they want to pursue this or some other alternative on this site, was that what staff meant by stating they have the opportunity to submit proposals for that development? Mr. Ours stated that was correct. Member Heller asked if this meant any of the property owners involved in this could bring forward a development proposal? Mr. Ours stated that was correct. She asked if it must be a Safeway, or if it could be five movie theaters and three stores, or something else on the site, and if that had to be spelled out in the proposal? Mr. Ours stated the proposal could be whatever type of uses would fit into the Zoning and the General Plan. Mr. Ours stated it did not have to be a Safeway, and the Agency could not preclude someone else from coming in and making a proposal. Mr. Brown stated he believed it was very important that Safeway expand somewhere within San Rafael, otherwise the City runs the risk of losing them. He believed the merits of the project on this particular site required further study, as well as other alternative sites in San Rafael. Chairman Boro acknowledged other alternatives could be pursued, but noted what the Agency will be asking the Redevelopment staff to look at, as far as a recommendation if any of the groups ask for participation on the part of the Agency, is the feasibility of whatever is being proposed. He stated that would be evaluated with whatever comes back to the Agency. Member Heller referred to the issue of re -use of the existing Safeway building, and asked if Safeway owned the property, or if they had it under a very long term lease? Mr. Ours stated they have a long term lease, which was renewed very recently. Chairman Boro noted there had been discussion on a few points concerning relocation and housing, as well as the re -use of the old Safeway, and stated, based on the proposal before the Agency, especially with respect to the old Safeway, he would like to see some concurrent proposal for re -use at the time this project comes back to the Agency, so they do not approve one, and then wonder what will happen in the future. As far as someone else coming forward with a proposal, if they are dealing with Safeway that would apply, and any relocation or housing expenses need to be addressed so the Agency can have a full understanding of what the plans are of the proponents, so the Agency can address those three issues. Member Cohen pointed out the Agency had received testimony this evening about some of the difficulties that may or may not exist, which explains why the Agency is being asked to proceed with this action, and while he was willing to proceed, he felt it was appropriate to reassure those people who had spoken this evening. Mr. Cohen explained it was his understanding that while the issue of value SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 8 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 9 may be disputed, it was the proposed Developer's responsibility to fully compensate the property owners, and to relocate the existing businesses, both Marin Cleaners and Nautilus of Marin, to suitable facilities within a reasonable distance. So even if it costs $300,000 to get a water meter, it is the Developer's responsibility to pay the cost to relocate Marin Cleaners, and give them what they have now, merely in another location. Mr. Ours reported staff has not actually been involved in this up to this point, other than to be monitoring what is going on, but what happens this evening will allow them to take a more active role to answer the Agency's questions, to deal with the value issues, and to find out what the costs are, noting this would allow them to start their process of investigating this project in more detail. Member Cohen believed that in the long run it would be better for all concerned, and less costly, if the Resolution could be negotiated as opposed to being resolved in court. He noted one of the suggestions is to hold off and require the Developer to make further efforts, although he is not certain he would recommend that, particularly if by getting staff involved we could move the process along. However, he noted this must be done in a way to encourage all parties to take a realistic look at what the costs are, analyze the project based on that, and make sure everyone is fairly treated if the project is going to go forward. Member Heller pointed out there were 10 housing units involved, noting it was very important to be sure those are taken care of, and that we do not lose the housing stock. Mr. Cohen agreed, stating that was a requirement of the redevelopment. Member Phillips stated he was unclear as to the amount of negotiation that has taken place, noting it seemed the Redevelopment Agency has not been directly involved, and a couple of the property owners had indicated there had not been any significant negotiations. Therefore, he wondered how thoroughly the property owners, the truly interested vested parties, have entered into negotiations? He wondered if perhaps the Agency should consider the third possible option shown in the staff report, to request that the Developer make further efforts to accomplish the project through private land assemblage over the next several months, prior to the Agency taking any action. He stated it struck him that the Agency could do what has been suggested by staff, which is to intercede, at almost any point in time; however, he noted it did not feel to him as though very significant negotiations had taken place, and he believed that should be the first step, before the Agency intercedes. Mr. Ours stated staff's first take on this would be to try negotiate a price; however, they have not done that, and he does not know what information has gone over the table to the parties. He stated staff would like to get started in the process of gathering information, finding out what the state of the negotiations are, what has been offered, and what can be offered. Mr. Ours pointed out this has been going on for more than a year, and if it is going to get done, it is time for the Agency to do it now. He stated staff would like to be able to move forward with this, and either make a "go" or "no go" decision, and have that information back before the Agency in a timely manner. Mr. Phillips asked, with all the projects we have going on in Redevelopment, are we in a position to take on something as substantial as this and determine costs, noting it did not sound as though the costs are all that simple? Mr. Ours stated staff was ready to do this. Member Cohen asked if Mr. Ours felt the Agency would be disadvantaging the property owners by taking this action, and if they would still have the right to recover full value for their property, if the business owners would still have the right to full compensation for relocation of their businesses, and if the housing SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 9 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 10 units would still have to be reestablished? Mr. Ours stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen asked if the Agency would be disadvantaging anyone by taking this initial step? Mr. Ours stated the Agency would simply be stating that it is interested in this project and would like to see it happen. Acknowledging the fact that there will be people relocated, he noted they will be compensated for that, and all of their costs will be covered, although there will be disruption, and that was the only thing that he could see as a disadvantage. Mr. Cohen asked if the Agency was still in a position to encourage a negotiated solution that might, in fact, not actively involve the Agency at all. Mr. Ours agreed that would be our very first choice. Addressing Member Phillips' comments, Chairman Boro noted he had also looked at the third option, but it seemed as though this effort has been going on for a long time, and by the Agency getting involved at this point, it does not mean that we have to commit to buying any parcels. He noted, hopefully, we could become involved, get some fair estimates and see if it can be negotiated, and if not, if the Agency still believes the project has merit, then we could move in as an Agency. Chairman Boro stated this would get the ball rolling, and that was what we were trying to accomplish. Member Cohen moved and Member Miller seconded, to authorize staff to initiate the owner participation process for the proposed Safeway project at Second and "A" Streets, with the inclusion of his earlier comments regarding staff's involvement in trying to solve this. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 8. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 9/15/97 Page 10