Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPJT Minutes 1997-01-21SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/21/97 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1997 AT 8:05 PM Special Joint Meeting Present: Paul Cohen, Vice-Chairman/Vice-Mayor San Rafael Redevelopment Agency/ Barbara Heller, Member/Councilmember San Rafael City Council Cyr Miller, Member/Councilmember Gary Phillips, Member/Councilmember Absent: Albert Boro, Chairman/Mayor Others Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director/City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency Attorney/City Attorney Jeanne Leoncini, Agency Secretary/City Clerk 1. PUBLIC HEARING - TO CONSIDER THE LEASE OF .79 ACRES OF AGENCY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF "C" STREET BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD STREETS IN SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA (RE: LONE PALM COURT RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT) (RA) - File R-372 x R-173 x 13-16 x 140 Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Cohen declared the Public Hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Economic Development Director Jake Ours reported this Public Hearing was a follow-up to meetings previously held regarding Lone Palm Court, the City's affordable housing project on "C" Street, between Second and Third Streets. Mr. Ours presented a Lease between the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency and the developer; a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency, BRIDGE Housing, and the developer; and a Monitoring Agreement, which is the agreement by which BRIDGE Housing and the Redevelopment Agency will ensure the affordability requirements of the project are carried out for fifty years. Mr. Ours reported the project consisted of sixty units, 40% of which would be affordable housing to persons in the 50 and 60 percentile range of median income. Jim Schafer, project sponsor representing Samuelson & Schafer, stated it was interesting to note what was meant by a 50% median income unit, as compared with a Market Rate unit. He explained that a studio loft rented to someone who makes 50% of the median income for Marin County resulted in a rent of $536 per month, while that same unit, on a Market Rate basis, would equate to $850 per month; two persons living in a one bedroom unit, making $24,500 per year, would pay $612 per month, versus $925 at market rate; and three or four persons would pay $766 per month for a three bedroom unit, versus $1300 per month at market rate. Mr. Schafer noted there was a very real consideration to the creation of affordable rents for people who wished to live in the Downtown area. Mr. Schafer stated the project would be constructed on 36,198 square feet, noting the site was slightly irregular, and bounded by Second, Third, and "C" Streets. He reported the project included 47,300 square feet of residential area over a parking garage structure of 23,750 square feet, which would consist of 77 parking stalls. Mr. Schafer stated there would be six studio lofts, seventeen one bedroom flats, and thirty-seven two bedroom townhouses and flats, and the project was designed with the concept of orienting the units, wherever possible, to secondary entries on the street level, noting the units on Second Street were built at ground level. Mr. Schafer pointed out the main entrance was halfway up the block, in the center of "C" Street, and was centered around the only palm tree in that area. Mr. Schafer noted the main courtyard was designed to reflect the palm tree theme, and the north area was centered around a public area for barbecues and picnics, while the south area was a play area for children. Mr. Schafer stated he felt the project would be a handsome addition to the location. Councilmember/Member Heller asked when these units were expected to be available for rental? Mr. Schafer reported it would take approximately nine months to construct, noting they planned to begin construction in mid-April, and hoped to begin renting the units in January or February of next year. Councilmember/Member Miller complimented the developer on the outstanding design of the project. He noted the plan called for 77 parking spaces, and asked Mr. Pendoley to recall why they had addressed the parking issue the way they did, when working on the General Plan Amendments, and how this fit into the Plan? Planning Director/Assistant Executive Director Pendoley pointed out the parking requirement for this structure was only 60 spaces; however, it would be providing 77 spaces. Mr. Pendoley reported the City's standard used to be for much more parking, but in the course of developing the regulations to implement the Vision for Downtown, staff surveyed apartment structures all over the community and found that, generally, we were "over -parking", noting SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/21/97 Page 1 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/21/97 Page 2 that was much more true for the Downtown locations, including some of the most recently built structures. He stated people were simply taking advantage of the opportunities to walk to work, or walk to the Transit Center; therefore, the City needed a much lower parking ratio than in the North end of San Rafael, for example. Mr. Pendoley stated they also found the rate of parking required varied somewhat with the size of the unit, noting a break point was 900 square feet, and pointing out all of the units in this project would be less than 900 square feet, which also qualified them for one parking space for each unit. Mr. Pendoley stated staff had also found that tandem parking could work, noting this had already been approved and was working at One "H" Street, and some of the parking spaces above the sixty required for this project were tandem spaces. Councilmember/Member Miller noted there had been some concern about the traffic generated by this project. He recalled they had done traffic models for the General Plan Amendments for the Downtown area, and asked Mr. Pendoley to address the concept of the traffic model. Mr. Pendoley stated that rather than trying to explain traffic modeling, he would prefer to give an "order of magnitude" explanation, explaining how much they had looked at and how this compared. Mr. Pendoley reported that in February and March, when the Council looked at the Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendments and Re -Zoning to implement the Vision, staff did an analysis of how much traffic would come as a result of another 600,000 square feet of office and/or commercial development, as well as another 600 units of housing. He stated they found, with only one significant change to the roadway to accommodate the development of P.G. & E., all of the intersections, with three exceptions, were upgraded to Level of Service level "D" or better. Therefore, the General Plan was changed to accommodate those three exceptions, with two of the intersections now operating at Level of Service "E", and the intersection at Mission and Grand Avenues operating at Level of Service "F", although that intersection was really a freeway problem, and not a local street problem. Mr. Pendoley stated the Lone Palm Court project would only generate 43 trips, as compared to the total amount of traffic which would be generated by 600,000 square feet of office development, noting that amounted to approximately 1% or 2% of the total that could result from the General Plan Amendments and Negative Declaration considered last Spring. He pointed out this meant the impact would be almost unmeasurable, it was so small. Referring to the parking, Mr. Schafer pointed out a good example was right across "C" Street at Centertown, reporting they average thirty vacant and unused parking spaces. He noted they built under the old criteria and included 97 parking spaces, and they have always had a surplus of parking. Therefore, if this project was going to have 60 units, staff should feel very good about the parking situation with 77 parking spaces. Vice-Mayor/Vice Chairman Cohen referred to the financing, recalling the concept of Mortgage Revenue Bonds had been discussed at an earlier City Council meeting, and asking if the proposal now before the Council and Agency included this as one option that may or may not be pursued, and was still going forward? Mr. Ours stated that was still going forward, but would be presented at a later date. Mr. Cohen stated in reading the report it almost seemed as though they would be looking at other financing, and the Mortgage Revenue Bonds were just a fallback position, which Mr. Cohen stated was not consistent with previous discussions. Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Cohen stated there had also been previous discussions regarding the issue of an Option to Purchase, and asked if that was also included in this presentation? Mr. Ours stated this was also included. Mr. Cohen asked if there was treatment in the proposal for establishing Fair Market Value, given the rental restriction the City/Agency had imposed on the property? Mr. Ours stated this would be established based on a Market Value of the land, and would be tied to what similar property could be sold for. Mr. Ours noted this issue would also be addressed at a later date. Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Cohen invited members of the public to address this item. Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, complimented the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council on this project, noting that for San Rafael to get a project with 40% affordability was really wonderful. She stated the lack of affordable housing for the workforce was still one of the major issues affecting the ability of businesses to operate in San Rafael, noting this situation would continue. She stated it was really wonderful that San Rafael had taken the lead in affordable housing. SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/21/97 Page 2 Ms SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/21/97 Page 3 Giambastiani stated she had not been able to attend the Planning Commission meeting when the proposal was presented, but understood there was some opposition to the project, noting she found it difficult to understand why there would be any opposition to this project, noting even the environmental groups have stated more housing should be in the Downtown. She stated there would be enormous business support for this project, and asked the Council and Agency to keep in mind there would be great support from the Chamber of Commerce and the individual businesses. Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Cohen stated he appreciated the compliment, but felt it should be directed toward those who really deserved it, the developer and staff, who worked so hard to get the project to this stage. There being no further public comment, Vice-Mayor/Vice-Chairman Cohen closed the Public Hearing. SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL a. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CONTINUUM HOUSING ASSOCIATES, AND BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION. Councilmember Heller moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 9772 -RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CONTINUUM HOUSING ASSOCIATES, AND BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION. AYES: COUNCIL ERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Mayor Cohen NOES: COUNCIL ERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL ERS: Mayor Boro SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY b. RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CONTINUUM HOUSING ASSOCIATION, AND BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION, A GROUND LEASE BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND CONTINUUM HOUSING ASSOCIATES, AND A MONITORING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND BRIDGE HOUSING. Member Miller moved and Member Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 97-4 -RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMONG THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CONTINUUM HOUSING ASSOCIATES, AND BRIDGE HOUSING CORPORATION, A GROUND LEASE BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND CONTINUUM HOUSING ASSOCIATES AND A MONITORING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND BRIDGE HOUSING. AYES: MEMBERS: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Vice -Chairman Cohen NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Chairman Boro There being no further business to come before the Joint Meeting of the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency/San Rafael City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 PM. Agency Secretary/City Clerk JEANNE M. LEONCINI, SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/21/97 Page 3 SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/21/97 Page 4 APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1997 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CHAIRMAN OF THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SRRA/SRCC MINUTES (Spec. Jt.) 1/21/97 Page 4