Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1998-01-05SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1998 AT 7:55 PM Regular Meeting: Present: San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Absent: Also Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director Lee Rosenthal, Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary OPEN SESSION - 7:00 PM Chairman Boro announced Closed Session item. CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 PM Albert J. Boro, Chairman Paul M. Cohen, Member Barbara Heller, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary O. Phillips, Member None • Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation a. Consideration of initiation of Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(c)) Number of potential cases: One (1) - 616 Canal Street, San Rafael Agency Attorney Ragghianti announced no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: None CONSENT CALENDAR 7:38 PM Member Phillips moved and Member Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1 2 4 Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of Approved as submitted. Monday, December 15, 1997 (AS) Authorization for the Chair to Submit a Letter Approved staff recommendation. Opposing AB 923, Proposed Legislation Mandating the Dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies Effective January 1, 1999 (RA) - File R-140 x (SRCC) 9-1 x (SRCC) 116 Second, Third & "A" Streets Underground Utility District - Resolution Authorizing $145,773.00 in Additional Funding to Extend Harris & Associates Contract for Design and Construction Services (PW) - File R-360 x R-318 x (SRCC) 12-18-13 RESOLUTION NO. 98-1 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING $145,773.00 IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO EXTEND HARRIS & ASSOCIATES' CONTRACT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE SECOND, THIRD, AND "A" SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 1 AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 2 STREETS UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS. Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro The following item was removed from the Agenda for further discussion: 3. PROPOSED EVENTS COORDINATOR POSITION (RA) - File R-58 x R-140 Member Heller requested more information on what was planned for this position, asking if this would be only for the Thursday night Farmer's Market, and if the position would be phased out if the Agency chose to close down that particular function? Economic Development Director Jake Ours explained a major portion of the job would be as the Thursday night Farmer's Market Manager. In addition, he stated staff has become very aware that there needs to be coordination of a number of events that occur in San Rafael, noting we are very possibly missing a good revenue source by not being ready to respond to movie companies when they come to town, or to people who want to stage events. Mr. Ours stated the person in this position would be reimbursed for his or her time for these events, rather than having us pay outside contractors, reporting $5,000 to $6,000 is paid to outside contractors every year for such events as the Parade of Lights and the Snow Play. He stated this could be rolled into a full-time position for the management of all these events, noting staff sees this as actually being a positive money-maker. Member Heller stated she had not noted specific emphasis on getting the word out to the community, and asked if there would be a public relations campaign? Mr. Ours stated staff has been considering both a video and a brochure about San Rafael, and also a pamphlet telling how to put on an event. He noted this would be for any neighborhood group that wants to plan an event, indicating who to contact, how to do it, what fees may be involved, and general information for people who wish to do events geared toward activity in the Downtown. Member Heller asked when recruiting for this position would begin? Mr. Ours stated recruitment would begin as soon as possible, noting we definitely need someone in this position before the Farmer's Market season begins in April. Member Heller moved and Member Phillips seconded, to accept the report and authorize staff to recruit for the Events Coordinator position. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 5. RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMENCEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN ACTION TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AT 616 CANAL STREET, APN 014-162-02 (HOLIDAY MAGIC) (RA) - File R -57a x (SRCC) 3-6 Agency Attorney Lee Rosenthal stated that as a result of a letter the Agency received from Perry Litchfield, the property owners' attorney, staff's recommendation at this time is to request this matter be continued SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 2 0 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 3 to an unspecified future date. Chairman Boro invited Mr. Litchfield to address the Agency. Perry Litchfield, attorney for the property owners, expressed the frustration being experienced by the property owner in his attempts to renovate this project. Mr. Litchfield recalled that after the notice had gone out in September, extensive negotiations ensued with the Agency and its representatives, and the owner came to an agreement with the Agency to do certain things to the property to make it safe, and to improve its appearance. In addition, there was a joint assurance that the Agency and the property owner would work together to renovate this property, and provide a positive asset for the community. Mr. Litchfield stated that in December, 1996 he was urged to make certain an application was filed within 180 days. He reported that within those 180 days they met with various department heads, presented concepts of ideas for redevelopment and renovation of the site, and were given direction. Mr. Litchfield reported they visited the site with an architect and other consultants, and put together plans; however, since submitting those plans, they have been thoroughly frustrated in their attempts to have the Planning Department act on them. Mr. Litchfield stated they are baffled because they are at a standstill with the Planning Department, noting they do not feel the Eminent Domain procedure is the right one to follow. Chairman Boro stated it was his understanding they could proceed with their application if they chose to do so; however, that was a separate issue. He pointed out the matter now before the Agency was carrying forward the issue of Eminent Domain. Mr. Litchfield stated he understood this had been referred back to staff for additional research, and he was unclear as to whether the issue would be coming back before the Agency; however, if it was coming back, he felt there were other ideas that should be explored in the process of determining whether this is a proper piece of property to try to take. Mr. Litchfield stated he wanted to be open about seeking other alternatives, and whether there are other voluntary acquisitions that could be obtained before an attempt is made to take this property involuntarily. Member Cohen moved and Member Heller seconded, to carry this item forward to a date uncertain. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION OF PLAZA DESIGN COMMITTEE FOR A CONCEPT PLAN OF A PUBLIC PLAZA ON COURT STREET (RA) - File R-393 x R-394 Senior Planner Katie Korzun reported that in May, the Agency announced its intent to develop a plaza on Court Street, and established a Plaza Design Committee. She noted the Committee had representation from the Planning Commission, the Design Review Board, Cultural Affairs Commission, Redevelopment Citizens Advisory Committee, Downtown Business Improvement District, the management for Courthouse Square, and representatives from the Ad Hoc Citizens Group on Macy's. Ms. Korzun reported staff retained Landscape Architect Phil Abbey, and worked under the specific charge given them by the Agency. She stated the Committee had completed its task, and their proposal and recommendations were now being presented. Ms. Korzun presented a model of the proposed SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 4 plaza, which the Agency Members inspected as Ms. Korzun explained the various aspects of the model. Chairman Boro asked Ms. Korzun to describe the phasing of the project. Ms. Korzun stated the first phase starts at Fourth Street and continues approximately to the stairway of the new Macy's building. The other phases would be an expansion of the sidewalk in front of the Macy's building, an extension of the sidewalk along the Courthouse Square side, paving textures on the streets and crosswalks on Fourth Street and Fifth Avenue, a water feature in the middle of the plaza, and entry monuments at the end. Ms. Korzun stated the first phase, or core area, which goes from Fourth Street back to the stairway, has an estimated price of $500,000. Member Cohen asked if there would be a grade change? Ms. Korzun reported there would be an approximate twelve foot change in elevation between Fourth Street and Fifth Avenue, which would be taken up by a series of terraces. She noted the sidewalks would be at a continuous slope for handicapped access. Ms. Korzun noted staff called the three smaller areas "rooms" because they orient toward the openings. She noted, as an example, if the middle tenants wanted to extend out and use the space in the middle room, they could use that for seating or display. Ms. Korzun stated the Committee was very positive about the idea of actually closing off one of those rooms areas, and renting it to an adjacent restaurant. Member Cohen asked if they had decided on the material to be used? Ms. Korzun stated the material has not been chosen, but pointed out it should reflect what has been done on Fourth Street, as this is to be seen as an extension of Fourth Street. Ms. Korzun reported each of the various committees which made up the Plaza Design Committee had reviewed the plan, all of the committees endorsed it, and they all felt as much of it as possible should be built immediately. Ms. Korzun stated the Committee, as directed by the Agency, developed a cost estimate, which is first broken down into the $500,000 base phase, and then each of the add-on items are costed individually. She reported the total cost of the entire package is $756,000. Ms. Korzun stated staff felt the base area from Fourth Street to the stair entry of the new Macy's building was critical, and should be built first and at the same time as the Macy's building. Ms. Korzun noted there is a major benefit, both to the City and to the adjacent properties, through the construction of this project; therefore, some of the add-on items could be costed back to the adjacent property owners, such as the sidewalk widening along Courthouse Square and the Macy's building. She reported staff was suggesting the Agency pursue the construction of the core area, and look for funding mechanisms for that, with the other items directly related to Courthouse Square or to the Macy's building allocated to them and received through permanent approvals. She stated staff had listed the remaining items according to priority. The first would be the water feature, because it is the most visible element; the second item would be the expansions onto Fourth Street and Fifth Avenue; and the third priority would be the entry monuments on Fifth Avenue. Ms. Korzun stated staff was requesting the Agency accept the design concept, direct staff to pursue funding sources for the $500,000 base, and look for participation from the adjacent property owners. Secondly, to specifically assign responsibility for the additional scope items for the widening of the sidewalks to those adjacent property owners, and prioritize the remaining elements, in descending order, as the fountain, the extensions into the streets, and the entry monuments. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 5 Chairman Boro stated he found the design quite exciting, and a real attribute to the future of Downtown San Rafael. He noted we were looking for a gathering place, a place where people could come together, and this certainly would provide that. He thanked the members of the various committees, and the Plaza Design Committee in particular, stating they had done a great job. Member Heller asked if the issue of upkeep had been addressed, noting low- cost maintenance should be one of our primary goals. Ms. Korzun stated that was one of the reasons there were no flower beds, grass, or potted plants, noting instead there would be sprinklers on the trees. Referring to staff's recommendations for prioritization, Member Cohen noted that when we are doing significant events this would be used in conjunction with Fourth Street, and he felt this tie-in to Fourth Street was important; therefore, it would be his inclination to put the additional option of Scope #3, the extension onto Fourth Street and portions of Fifth Avenue, as the first priority. He stated he would also like to hear more about the fountain and how it fits, noting $110,000 is a significant expense, and a fairly high amount for something he was not yet convinced was as significant an element in the overall scheme. Mr. Cohen noted it was his understanding the enhancements to both Fourth Street and Fifth Avenue totalled $32,000. Ms. Korzun stated that was correct. He pointed out the design enhancements at Fourth Street and Fifth Avenue, together with the entry monuments, would be $55,000. Member Miller stated he was very pleased with the use of the trees, noting that in addition to being low maintenance, trees bring life and clear the air, and he felt this was a nice touch to the plaza. Mr. Ray Swanson, resident of the Bret Harte area, recalled that years ago the heirs to the owners of the Courthouse Square property objected and voted against the closing of Court Street, and he was concerned this might again be a problem. Member Cohen stated this was an interesting question, and asked if we owned the street "in fee", or if it was a roadway easement given to the City for public right-of-way, and if a legal issue would be raised if we abandon the roadway? He noted at some point in the past attorneys had raised this issue, and he felt this was something we needed to examine. Economic Development Director Ours stated staff had not looked at this issue, but noted the street would still be a public right-of-way. Mr. Cohen stated that since it had happened in the past, he would like to have staff address the issue. Mr. Swanson reported the same thing had happened with property on the Miracle Mile, where that project had been held up for years because of one property owner. Chairman Boro asked for further explanation on this issue. Ms. Korzun explained the question is, when the City took the street, did we get it "in fee", buying it for a street, or do we have an easement? She reported that if we obtained the street by easement, and if the agreement states we have an easement so long as we use it for a street, there could be a question as to whether the heirs could claim we were not using it for the appropriate use. She stated staff would have to check to find under what mechanism the City got the street. Executive Director Gould noted, as Mr. Ours had pointed out, the City was not going to be abandoning the public right-of- way. Chairman Boro asked if it would still be used as a street, and Mr. Gould replied that it would, under public ownership. Chairman Boro asked staff to pursue this issue. Chairman Boro clarified the item before the Agency was to accept the design SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 5 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 6 in concept, noting the issue of priority would come back to the Agency as funding becomes more defined. In addition, the Agency would direct staff to proceed with the issue of how this might be funded, and also to pursue the issue of ownership of the street. Member Cohen pointed out the action the Agency was being asked to take was to consider the recommendation of the Plaza Design Committee, and in addition to accepting the design concept and directing staff to pursue funding sources, the recommendation also states the Agency will assign responsibility for additional scopes #1 and #2 to the adjacent property owners, and prioritize the remaining elements. Mr. Cohen stated he agreed with the recommendation to assign the responsibility of the sidewalk widening to the adjacent property owners, and he assumed that was part of the action the Agency would be taking. However, if the Agency were to act upon the staff's recommendation, by motion, they would be accepting the priorities as recommended, which were, first the fountain, then the Fourth Street and Fifth Avenue extensions, and then the entry monument. He stated if the priorities were going to be part of the recommendation, he wished to reverse that order. Chairman Boro suggested the priorities be left open at this point, based on Member Cohen's comments. Member Cohen moved and Member Miller seconded, to accept the design concept, direct staff to pursue funding sources for the $500,000 base portion of the plaza, with participation from adjacent property owners, and assign responsibility for additional scope elements #1 and #2 to adjacent property owners. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF CITY CORPORATION YARD AT 750 LINCOLN AVENUE, APN 013-021-19, FROM THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RA) - File R-368 x (SRCC) 2-7 x (SRCC) 2-19 (SRCC) 12-4 Chairman Boro stated that since there is a nexus between this property and the ultimate development of the P.G.& E. site, he would recluse himself from this item, since he owns stock in P.G.& E. Chairman Boro turned the gavel over to Vice -Chair Heller, and left the Council Chamber. Vice -Chair Heller asked for a staff report. Economic Development Director Ours reported the transfer of property between the City and the Redevelopment Agency was being recommended so the Agency could sell the property to Fair, Isaac. Mr. Ours stated money would flow from the Redevelopment Agency back to the City for construction of a new corporation yard, so there will be no gain by the Redevelopment Agency, noting the Agency would not even get a commission. Mr. Ours stated this action was being taken so the Agency can have everything in place to proceed with the Fair, Isaac project. Gary Ford, resident of San Rafael, requested the Redevelopment Agency delay its vote to authorize the transfer of the corporation yard from the City of San Rafael to the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency for the following reasons: 1) The City has neither found nor acquired a corporation yard anywhere within the City of San Rafael, It is premature for the City to sell an asset prior to the time it has located a new facility, notwithstanding the one-year vacant notice under Section 5 of the Buy/Sell SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 6 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 7 Agreement. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to assume the City can, in fact, find a corporation yard within one year, do the requisite EIR (Environmental Impact Report), public hearings, design and build; 2) The City exposes itself to financial and economic damages if the City is unable to find an acceptable corporation yard in San Rafael at the time it must give up possession of the corporation yard to Fair, Isaac; 3) Regardless of whether reconveyance will take place or not, it is both premature and presumptuous for the Redevelopment Agency to even consider voting on a Resolution before the EIR has been formally reviewed by the San Rafael Planning Commission, and before the City Council has certified the underlying EIR and approved the project; 4) The purchase price of $2 million the Agency will be obtaining from Fair, Isaac for the corporation yard, and which, in turn, will be sent back to the City of San Rafael, does not reflect Fair Market Value; 5) The San Rafael Redevelopment Agency has not given any public information on how it has arrived at a $2 million figure for Fair Market Value; 6) There is a pressing need for a public garage in the vicinity of the San Rafael Transit Center, and because Fair, Isaac is refusing any public commuting parking at that site, Mr. Ford requested the Redevelopment Agency consider going back to the Golden Gate Bridge District and resurrecting the discussions they had about swapping properties. He recalled they had been interested in putting in a garage to swap property on Andersen Drive; 7) Looking at a legal opinion that was given to Mr. Ours from the firm of Goldfarb & Lipman, Mr. Ford requested the Redevelopment Agency look in particular at the last sentence, which allows this property to be sold for Fair Market Value, but does not discuss how Fair Market Value is arrived at. He stated that because there is only one buyer for this property, there is no public bid process; therefore, Mr. Ford made the assumption Fair Market Value was not, in fact, being determined at all, and stated this issue would come back to haunt us. Agency Attorney Lee Rosenthal referred to Mr. Ford's comments concerning the EIR, and explained all that was before the Agency at this time was a property conveyance, which by itself does not have environmental consequences, and which, under the particular circumstances involved here, does not require any environmental analysis beyond what is in the Resolution. Regarding the purchase price, Mr. Rosenthal reported this was based on the Fair Market Value of the property, as determined by an appraiser commissioned by the Agency. He further pointed out the agreement between the City and the Redevelopment Agency provides that $2 million is the minimum price, and in the event the Agency obtains a greater amount through its negotiations with Fair, Isaac, that greater amount would flow through to the City. Executive Director Gould noted the transfer of the property from the City to the Redevelopment Agency does not commit the Redevelopment Agency to sell the property to Fair, Isaac, stating that would be the subject of a public hearing before the Agency and the City Council next month, after the negotiations are complete. At that time, the Agency and the City Council will decide whether or not to convey the property to Fair, Isaac as part of this project. Member Phillips asked staff to respond to the comments regarding replacement of the corporation yard. Mr. Ours reported there were no specific sites at this time, but staff felt there would be sufficient land available when the City needs to purchase it, pointing out there were large tracts of land in East San Rafael. Mr. Ours explained staff had not chosen a specific site because they do not want to do that until all of the Fair, Isaac negotiations are completed, and they can then deal with the site as a separate issue. Executive Director Gould also noted he believes the issue SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 8 of the One -Year Notice to Vacate is in error, and stated there would be adequate notice so the City will have lead time to locate another site, acquire it, and move the corporation yard in an orderly fashion. Member Phillips asked if any of the points made by Mr. Ford had raised concern in staff's mind, with regard to the conveyance? Mr. Ours and Mr. Gould responded they had not. Member Cohen noted Mr. Ford had made one particular comment which Mr. Cohen felt the Agency should address, and that was the argument that no public bid process for the property precluded our ability to determine Fair Market Value. Mr. Cohen stated it was his experience that hiring a Certified Appraiser and seeking an appraisal on the property was a recognized way for the Agency to determine Fair Market Value, and the Agency was not required to put every piece of property we desire to sell or purchase into a public bid process in order to determine the Fair Market Value of the property. Agency Attorney Rosenthal stated that was correct on two levels; first, on the level of the sale from the City to the Redevelopment Agency, the purchase price is based on an appraisal that is based upon the definition of Fair Market Value as defined by law, and it is not required to be bid. Secondly, as Mr. Gould pointed out, when the Agency enters into a transaction with Fair, Isaac, if that goes forward, that is again subject to an appraisal and public hearing process, pursuant to which the Agency is required to produce a report outlining how the purchase price was determined, how much the developer is paying for the property, and explaining any difference between the purchase price and the Fair Market Value. He noted that would include appraisal information, as well, and would be a public hearing, at which members of the public could attend and express their opinion about the value and the purchase price. Member Phillips moved and Member Miller seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing transfer of the City corporation yard at 750 Lincoln Avenue from the City of San Rafael to the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency. RESOLUTION NO. 98-2 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY AT 750 LINCOLN AVENUE, APN NO. 013-021-19, FROM THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO THE SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Miller, Phillips and Vice -Chair Heller NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: Chairman Boro DISQUALIFIED: MEMBERS: Chairman Boro (due to conflict of interest). Chairman Boro returned to the Council Chamber. 8. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF $250,000 PER YEAR FROM THE HOUSING SET ASIDE BUDGET FOR THE PROPOSED CANAL AREA HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RA) - File R-404 x (SRCC) 9-2-43 x (SRCC) 9-3-85 x (SRCC) 13-1 x (SRCC) 13-16 x (SRCC) 218 Senior Redevelopment Specialist Nancy Mackle explained this was a housing improvement program for the apartment buildings in the Canal area. She stated Code Enforcement efforts have unearthed a lot of problems in that area, 30 Novato Street being the most famous. She reported a new buyer is in place to purchase the property, and as far as staff knows there are no rental restrictions in place, although it is hoped they will clean-up the property. Ms. Mackle reported that under this program non-profit developers would SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 8 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 9 purchase housing sites as they come up, and as staff identifies those with Code Enforcement problems, the Agency would provide funding to allow them to rehab the property, and also assist them in securing additional CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funding for the rehab. She stated this would provide for the first purpose of the program, which is decent, safe, and sanitary apartment housing in the Canal area. In addition, the Agency would place rental restrictions on the properties, so there would be affordable housing opportunities for Canal residents, specifically low and very low income renters. Ms. Mackle stated a third goal staff would like to see happen with this program would be to have a management program in place, so each of the apartment buildings, many of which do not have on-site managers, would have a manager, and we would not find ourselves in this situation again. Ms. Mackle explained staff envisions itself working closely with those in Code Enforcement and Community Policing to help improve the Health and Safety Code violations, and addressing such things as painting, landscaping, swimming pools, and possibly day care options. She pointed out each site would be evaluated to see what it needs. Ms. Mackle reported that in order to implement this program, staff has already applied for CDBG and HOME funds to be set aside for the program. She noted staff would then come back with specific sites, and if the Agency approves the funding, staff would apply to the Marin Community Foundation, asking them to support this project. She stated staff would then go through a Request for Proposals or Request for Qualifications process, and the Agency would select a non-profit housing developer, looking at their experience with this type of program, as well as their management programs, to determine who would bring the best product to the Canal area. She stated staff would be working closely with the developer, pointing out that through this process the Agency would secure rental restrictions, and make certain we had the management program in place. Ms. Mackle reported if there is relocation of existing tenants in the apartment complexes, the Agency would pay relocation benefits and assist the tenants in finding other units, as required by law; however, the Agency would try to minimize that to the best of its ability. With regard to fiscal impact, Ms. Mackle stated staff was asking for $250,000 per year, but explained each site would be a different amount, and they would have to see how it worked out. However, if they did not use all of the funding one year, they would accumulate the money for another project the following year. She stated staff envisioned these loans as perhaps being deferred, and which, at some point, the Agency would get back to fold into other projects in the future. She noted this was a traditional type of rehab program used by Redevelopment Agencies to create affordable housing. Chairman Boro noted Ms. Mackle had indicated this program would be ongoing, and asked if it would be evaluated each year, and not be an automatic allocation, rather the program would set the tone for what the Agency wants to do, and if we are successful each year, we will continue each year? Ms. Mackle stated that was correct, noting the funds would be set aside, and each individual project would be brought before the Agency. Member Cohen pointed out the Agency should be looking not just at affordable apartments, but encouraging a mix of housing types. He stated that as we go forward with this program he would be interested in seeing SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 9 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 10 whether we could get some ownership housing, not just apartments. He felt it would be very exciting to create an opportunity for people who are currently tenants in the Canal to become homeowners in the Canal community. He stated a mix of housing types, and providing for some ownership opportunities as we have attempted to do in the Downtown, is potentially valuable, and he felt it would be very good if there was a way to do that within the context of these funds. Economic Development Director Ours pointed out one of the good things about this program is that it gives the Agency control, noting for the first time the Agency would be stepping out in a leadership position, allowing us to state we would like to have ownership and affordability. Member Heller asked if the Agency, itself, would be attempting to acquire the property, or if we would be granting loans for rehabilitation of the apartments, and then placing conditions on the loans? Mr. Ours stated the acquisitions would actually be done by our non-profit partners, and the project would dictate the amount of money to be spent, based on whether it is a straight acquisition, or if there is a considerable amount of rehabilitation. He noted the Agency would want to be able to do both. Member Heller asked if there had been any encouragement from CDBG, noting there was a lot of competition for those funds? Ms. Mackle stated she had spoken to County staff, and they had been very supportive of our application for the program. She reported they would be meeting tomorrow to discuss further details of the program and our application. In addition, the Marin Community Foundation was also very supportive, although the Agency has not yet applied for funds. Member Phillips questioned the amount, asking why it was set at $250,000? Mr. Ours explained staff felt that if the Agency needed to do a project, this amount would be high enough to leverage other funds, and a large enough amount of money that we could go after a good apartment, noting they are very expensive, and it takes a lot of leverage to get these things done. Using 30 Novato Street as an example, Mr. Phillips asked how it would work if the Agency targeted that property for this program? Mr. Ours stated that would depend on the project, but with 30 Novato, we would probably be looking for the $250,000 to be combined with other funds to do a rehab. He explained someone may have the money to purchase the property, but not the funds to rehab it, and that is what the Agency would be looking to do. However, he noted there could also be another property nearby that needed purchase funds, pointing out the program would be very flexible. He stated the Agency gets approximately $350,000 per year in the Housing Fund, but does not want to commit all of it to the Canal area, noting the Agency wants to retain some money for other parts of the Redevelopment area, while putting as much as possible into the Canal. Member Phillips asked if the Agency would incur any liability because of its participation? Executive Director Gould stated that from a practical standpoint the Agency is putting itself in the position of being the developer, or the rehaber, of apartment housing in the Canal. He noted the Agency is finding the qualified non-profit that has this expertise, and then serving as a conduit for the funding to make these projects happen; therefore, the Agency is insulated a great deal by forming this partnership. Ms. Mackle reported the loan agreements typically address the issue of liability, including insurance documentation. Member Phillips asked if the same principal applied to management, whereby the Agency would be facilitating and making arrangements for the management, but not actively managing the property? Mr. Ours stated that was correct, the same as we do at Centertown, where we have a full-time manager, but we do not tell him what to do. Member Phillips asked if other cities or agencies had SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 10 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 11 this kind of program in place? Ms. Mackle stated it was common for Redevelopment Agencies to do rehabs, but explained what is different about this program is that the Agency will be putting the money aside before we actually have the project. She noted the way we are going about it is a little different, but the Agency wants to be poised to act quickly. Member Heller moved and Member Cohen seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the allocation of $250,000 per year from the Housing Set Aside Budget, for the proposed Canal Area Housing Improvement Program. RESOLUTION NO. 98-3 -RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF $250,000 PER YEAR FROM THE HOUSING SET ASIDE BUDGET FOR THE PROPOSED CANAL AREA HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 9. ELECTION OF NEW VICE -CHAIR OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR 1998 - File R-58 Member Cohen nominated and Member Heller seconded, to elect Member Gary Phillips as Vice -Chair of the Redevelopment Agency. Mayor Boro declared Member Phillips Vice -Chair, by acclamation. 10. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 1/5/98 Page 11