Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1998-10-19SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1998 AT 7:40 PM Regular Meeting: San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman Paul M. Cohen, Member Barbara Heller, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary O. Phillips, Member Absent: None Also Present: Rod Gould, Executive Director Lee Rosenthal, Agency Attorney Gary T. Ragghianti, Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: PM None. CONSENT CALENDAR Member Phillips moved and Member Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Special Joint Public Approved as submitted. Hearing of Monday, February 23, 1998, Special Joint Meeting of Thursday, July 9, 1998, and Regular Meeting of Monday, October 5, 1998 (AS) 2. Unapproved Minutes of Citizens Advisory Committee Accepted report. Meeting of Thursday, October 1, 1998 (RA) - File R-140 IVB 7:40 3. Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File R-123 Accepted report for month ending August, 1998, as presented. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None ABSTAINING: MEMBERS: Heller and Chairman Boro (from the minutes of the regular meeting of Monday, October 5, 1998 only, due to absence from meeting). AGENCY CONSIDERATION: 4. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REDEVELOPMENT OF THE 'B' STREET PROJECT AREA (RA) - File R-406 Economic Development Director Jake Ours noted the staff report refers to financial assistance for this project, and clarified financial assistance was only in the realm of housing, to achieve affordability in housing. He explained the Agency would be "buying" lower rents with its housing money, noting this was an investment. Redevelopment Specialist Nancy Mackle reported last February staff presented a proposal from Monahan Parker Inc. for the redevelopment of the SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 2 "B" Street Project Area, and at that time the Agency asked staff to hold the project until the relocation of the St. Vincent de Paul Dining Hall had been dealt with. She stated a location site has been chosen for the Dining Hall, and staff was now bringing the "B" Street Project Area item back before the Agency. Ms. Mackle recalled the RFP (Request for Proposals) specified the Agency was looking for an active Mixed Use project, something that would enhance the historic character of the area, would have a mix of affordable and market rate housing, and make a significant entry statement on "A" Street. She stated the Agency received a proposal from Monahan Parker Inc., which is a joint effort of Thomas Monahan and Jonathan Parker, who is a property owner in the "B" Street area. She pointed out Parker Monahan Inc. had completed several projects in the Downtown area, including the Oacis Building on Fifth Avenue, and was also constructing the Kaiser offices Downtown. Ms. Mackle noted that as an owner in the "B" Street area, the Developers had a better ability to make this project "pencil out", because they already own some of the property, and do not have to purchase it at today's prices. However, she stated they had asked for some financial assistance from the Agency. Ms. Mackle stated the proposal now before the Agency was merely a concept, noting staff was not looking for approval of any of the details, such as the number of units, number of affordable units, density of the parking, or any of the other details that needed to be worked out. She stated what was before the Agency tonight was the selection of the Developer only, and the Agency would not be making any commitment to funding, or the actual details of the project. Ms. Mackle reported the original proposal had included a Rite-Aid store; however, Monahan Parker Inc. submitted a letter proposing that the offices of Restoration Hardware be the major tenant. She stated staff felt this made sense, and met the objectives of the RFP. Ms. Mackle reported the proposal had been broken down into three areas; Area One, along "A" Street, was where the Restoration Hardware offices would be located, taking up 40,000 square feet of a total 50,000 square feet along that corner. Area Two would be "B" Street, on the eastern side, where a portion of the existing older buildings would remain, to keep the historic character of that street. Area Three would be the property currently owned by Monahan Parker Inc., which would be a mix of affordable and market rate housing units. Ms. Mackle explained Agency assistance would be only for making the housing affordable, noting the Agency would have to take a close look at that issue. She stated the Agency had a financial consultant, Economic Research Associates, who has looked at these types of issues for the Agency in the past, noting staff would bring them into this analysis, and have them take a hard look at what it would take to really make these units affordable. Ms. Mackle stated staff was recommending the Agency move forward on this project in phases. The first phase would be on the corner of "A" and Second Streets, which is called Area A in the proposal; the second phase would be Area Three, and would involve the new housing, allowing the Agency to replace some of the housing that would be taken out for Area One, and keep the project moving along; the third phase would involve Area Two, and the older buildings on Third Street, and Ms. Mackle noted the obvious reason for that would be to give the Agency time to help St. Vincent's relocate, as well as other properties. Ms. Mackle stated there was a process the Agency would go through for any acquisition, as well as an entire relocation plan that would be put together, as required by law. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 3 Ms. Mackle stated staff was recommending an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement with Monahan Parker Inc., noting a document would be brought back to the Agency, hopefully within sixty days. She reported the terms of the Agreement would be approximately six months, and during that time they would work out the details of the project, getting ready for CEQA, having a Development Agreement go through the CEQA process, making a commitment to the Developer that the Agency would be working exclusively with that Developer, and working out the issues of parking, density, affordable housing, and any financial assistance. Economic Development Director Jake Ours reported one of the things staff would be doing in the negotiation of the D & D (Disposition and Development Agreement) would be ensuring that all three phases are built, noting there would be language in the Disposition and Development Agreement that would guarantee all phases to be built, and there would be penalties if something did not happen. Mike Durkee, stated he was representing R. C. Roberts and Company, owners of the building at 801 "A" Street, located in Area One, and scheduled to be demolished. Mr. Durkee reported the Roberts family has owned the property for more than twenty years, and the family still maintains their business at that location. He noted that on the bottom floor of the building is the Marin Furniture Clinic, a pedestrian -oriented retail/commercial use. Mr. Durkee pointed out this was an area which has been identified in the staff report as not being blighted, noting it was not the normal kind of property needing to be enhanced; in fact, it has been an attractive and well maintained use for twenty years. He pointed out that without any City intervention, the property owners, on their own, had landscaped the median, although it had to be removed when the street was widened. Mr. Durkee stated the owners have taken great pride in the property, and they question its inclusion in this plan, asking that it be removed. He stated if it is not to be removed, they would at least like the Agency to consider what uses should go on that property, before the Agency simply begins a process that assumes it should be demolished. He noted the Agency will have to go through a CEQA process, and will have to look at a mix of alternatives, one of which may very well be that the best and highest use of the property is to keep it status quo, integrating it with the other development done as part of the Agency's plan. Mr. Durkee pointed out the property is an historic structure, noting it used to be the location of the old Farmer's Market, as well as several other businesses since that time. He asked, if the Agency should decide the building should stay the way it is, why not keep it in the hands of the current owners, for whom it has huge sentimental value? Mr. Durkee stated they had huge concerns with the fact that as the current owners, the tenants have been contacted by the proposed Developers, acting as though they already have the mantle of the City's responsibility and obligation with them. He reported the tenants have been told they can continue to use the property under the Developers' new ownership. However, the proposed Developers have entered into a Letter of Intent with Restoration Hardware, in which the property is assumed to be demolished before action by the Agency has even taken place. Mr. Durkee stated they would like to be involved in this process, asking that before the Agency makes a decision which makes untenable their ability to show why the structure should perhaps continue, they would like the Agency's decision tonight to be fashioned that way. Chairman Boro stated he was very uneasy about the phasing concept, noting the Agency was interested in having a total project for "B" Street, and the SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 4 related parts of "A" Street. Therefore, the Agreement needed to ensure that, so the Agency does not start one piece, and then end up not getting it completed. Chairman Boro noted Ms. Mackle mentioned Restoration Hardware would come in with a 40,000 square foot office, and then there would be 10,000 square feet of retail; however, he was not very excited about another office building on this site. He stated when staff first spoke to the Agency about Restoration Hardware, he had the impression there would also be a retail component of the company on this site, which he believed would be ideal, because Restoration Hardware is truly a "destination type" organization. He felt that to merely have 10,000 square feet of retail did not seem reason enough to want to pursue this. Chairman Boro, noting that he was speaking only for himself, believed that as the Agency is negotiating this, assuming the Agency agrees to go forward, he was looking for something that would be unique, and he did not feel an office complex, and going this route to achieve that, was, in itself, sufficient. Member Heller asked how many employees Restoration Hardware would be bringing into the Downtown? Economic Development Director Ours stated they had no idea at this time, although he pointed out there would be a couple of hundred in the Oacis Building, and this would be a little smaller than that. Member Heller noted the Agency had received letters from two attorneys regarding the St. Vincent de Paul Dining Hall, and asked staff to comment as to whether they are relevant at this time, or whether the Agency needs to wait until we get to that portion of the project? Chairman Boro asked that Mr. Durkee's letter to the Agency also be included in the response. Agency Attorney Lee Rosenthal stated the first letter was from the California Affordable Housing Law Project, and objected to the Agency going forward at this time, based on the grounds that an Environmental Review had not been done. Mr. Rosenthal acknowledged an Environmental Review had not been done at this time; however, he noted it was not required at this time. He explained an Environmental Review would be done in connection with approval of any Disposition Agreement that might come out of the exclusive negotiating rights, when the Agency actually knows what the project is, and it is no longer speculative. Mr. Rosenthal noted there was also a letter written on behalf of St. Vincent's from the law firm of Broebeck, Phleger & Harrison, LLP, expressing objections similar to those expressed last February. He reported one of the objections was that they have not had owner participation opportunity. Mr. Rosenthal stated the Agency went through an entire owner participation process, and solicited proposals from all the property owners in that area, noting that was where the Agency got the Monahan Parker, Inc. proposal from in the first place; therefore, he did not believe that objection was valid. In addition, he stated the letter objected on the basis that this was a commitment to a project that would preclude the Agency's later acquisition of any property for the project. Mr. Rosenthal stated that was not accurate, because at this point, there was no commitment to the project, the Agency had not entered into an agreement with the Developer, and had not committed to acquire any property, noting that would only come after the Agency had considered the Agreement, and after it had considered a Resolution of Necessity, at which time the property owner would have the opportunity to object. Referring to Mr. Durkee's letter, in which he objected on the grounds that his client's property was not blighted, Mr. Rosenthal explained the Findings concerning blight were made at the time the Redevelopment Plan was SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 5 adopted, and they were not subject to challenge now. Mr. Rosenthal stated Redevelopment Law did not require that every property in a project, or in a project area, be blighted, noting that was not a prerequisite for the Agency going forward with the Monahan Parker, Inc. concept. Mr. Rosenthal stated Mr. Durkee's other objections actually addressed whether or not the Agency should go forward, pointing out the Agency Members had heard those objections from Mr. Durkee earlier in the meeting. Member Cohen referred to the CEQA issue, asking when the Agency reaches the point where they are faced with the decision that triggers a CEQA review? Mr. Rosenthal stated that would be when one of two things had happened; first, if the Agency comes back with a Disposition and Development Agreement, the adoption of that Agreement would be a project subject to CEQA, and before the Agency could approve the Agreement, we would have to comply with CEQA. Secondly, Mr. Rosenthal noted one thing that had happened within the City, on occasion, is that during the period of time the Agency and the Developer have been negotiating the Disposition and Development Agreement, the Developer has gone forward to the City with permit applications for a project. Mr. Rosenthal stated those permit applications would also trigger CEQA, so if it were to be done in that sequence, prior to the time of the hearings on the permits and the granting of first consideration of the those permits, there would have to be compliance with CEQA. Member Phillips referred to point Number 3 in Mr. Durkee's letter, which questions the Public Purpose. Mr. Phillips noted that apparently certain representations had been made to the existing tenants that the property would remain in place, "as is". Mr. Phillips asked if that was an appropriate representation, and if, in fact, that was going to happen? Mr. Ours reported the proposal staff was looking at would call for the demolition of the building, and that site was where the office building would be built. Mr. Ours stated it might be possible for the current retail tenant to be relocated into the new project, but noted that had not been part of earlier conversations. Mr. Ours stated the way the project was seen at this time, this would be the site of a 40,000 square foot office building, so the current building could not remain there. Mr. Phillips stated that if, in fact, the comments were made, they quite possibly might have been inappropriate, creating expectations that the Agency might have to come to grips with. He noted if that statement were correct, he wondered if it might be appropriate, in staff's dealings with Monahan Parker, Inc., to recommend, suggest, demand, at whichever level, that representations with regard to these properties not be expressed at this time. Mr. Ours agreed that would be highly appropriate. Member Cohen stated he had a concern with the phasing, which he acknowledged might not necessarily preclude the Agency from going forward tonight with the staff recommendation, but might be the topic for further discussions. Mr. Cohen referred to the discussion of subsidy requirement, noting the clarification had been that the subsidy requirement would be only to allow for the provision of affordable housing in the project. He stated he would not want to see the most commercially viable portions of the project all loaded into Phase One, and then Phases Two and Three turn out to require a lot more subsidy than anticipated. Mr. Cohen noted this was a package, noting that was how it was put out when the Agency did the RFP. He stated the Agency Members needed to make sure that if they agreed to this project being done in phases, it was also understood that although the project was phased, it was a packaged deal, and that there were adequate assurances Phases Two and Three were going to be carried out without having to revisit the issue once the first part of the project was done. Mr. Ours stated that was the intent. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 5 1.1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 6 Member Heller referred to the Restoration Hardware component, asking that in staff's discussions with Monahan Parker Inc., they discuss the possibility of having a Restoration Hardware retail component there, as she felt that might be an excellent part of the Downtown to bring people to as a destination location. Mr. Ours agreed that was highly appropriate, stating this would be a wonderful tenant to have as a retail tenant, particularly in an older part of town, noting it would seem like a natural fit, and was something staff would push for. Ms. Heller stated she would also like to find out how many employees there would be in Restoration Hardware's office, because the Agency would need to look at parking, on a permanent basis, for any employees working there. Mr. Ours stated the office building would be totally self -parked. Ms. Heller asked if there would be extra public parking for the retail component? Mr. Ours stated that was also something they would have to take care of. Ms. Heller stated those were points she would like to see clearly defined in the Agreement. Referring to the phasing, Member Heller stated she had no problem with it, but did understand Mr. Cohen's request for assurances that the entire project be completed. Member Cohen moved and Member Phillips seconded, to authorize the Economic Development Director to negotiate an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement with Monahan Parker Inc. for the redevelopment of the "B" Street Project Area. Chairman Boro noted the negotiations would include the issues discussed by the Agency, including the tenant mix, the entire project approach, and also the issue that the Applicant/Developer should not communicate with anyone on any of the sites, except through staff. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None UPDATE ON THE COURT STREET PLAZA PROJECT AND COORDINATION WITH THE MILLENNIUM PARTY (RA) - File R-394 x R-393 x R-380 x R-140 #8 Economic Development Director Ours reported that in the original Macy's proposal $150,000 had been pledged for a plaza on Court Street. In addition, he stated Century Cinemas had also pledged $100,000, so the Agency now had the funds in place to build the base plaza. Mr. Ours explained that would include all the concrete, and everything except the landscaping and trees, which would cost approximately $90,000. He stated that money would come from the Millennium party, which staff would be reporting on later in the meeting. Mr. Ours introduced Jim Schafer of Samuelson/Schafer, Developer of the former Macy's site, asking Mr. Schafer to bring the Agency up to date on what was happening with that project. Jim Schafer of Samuelson/Schafer, Developer of the Macy's project and contributor to the Court Street plaza, reported that at the direction of Mr. Ours, they had worked with the concept sketch and had discussions with staff, defining a basic plaza section. He stated they asked two of the contractors they were negotiating with to prepare preliminary budgets, to see how far $250,000 would go. He reported the base plaza design could be accommodated within the budget, except for the trees and fountain, which Mr. Schafer understood would be funded by the Millennium party. Mr. Schafer stated Samuelson/Schafer should own the former Macy's property this week, and the Agency would be receiving a check. He reported that during the past week, the Rubini property had been placed under option, and SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 6 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 7 they were studying how to develop it. He reported the principal issues they were still dealing with were how to balance the development of the project with the parking requirements, and how to re -utilize the Rubini building, noting it was their goal not to tear it down, but rather to recycle the property. He stated the base design was centered around 8,000 to 9,000 square feet of additional retail on the ground floor, and a residential scenario of between ten to thirty units, depending on how they can modify the garage, and its relationship to the Rubini property. Mr. Schafer reported their Architect, Rodney Freeman, has been studying this issue for approximately a week and a half, noting they were looking at this in a couple of different ways; first, they were looking at integrating it into the former Macy's site; and secondly, as a stand-alone parcel that would be next to the former Macy's site. Member Heller asked if there was a general timeline as to when we would see a new building? Mr. Schafer stated he hoped the current building would be removed right after the first of the year, and that we would have the new building within eighteen months after that. He noted it was their hope that they could bring the Rubini parcel into this process in a way that would not cause them any delay. He reported the money has been in escrow since July 1st, and they were rather anxious to get the money out of escrow and to the Agency. Mr. Schafer stated he did not see any problems at this point. Member Cohen noted there was one remaining corner, and asked Mr. Schafer if they had investigated whether or not that could assist them in tying those two parcels together? Mr. Cohen noted it was going to end up with almost all of the block under Samuelson/Schafer's control, and one small corner with a single-family house. Mr. Schafer stated it would cost $450,000 for 1,309 square feet of land. He reported the Rubini property would bring a certain amount of beneficial relationship between the two developments, noting the underpinning and shoring costs were impacted by the ownership of the Rubini property, which allowed them to pay a bit of a premium there. However, he stated the 1,309 square foot property had no use to them, and while they have tried to buy the property at a lesser rate, there has been no flexibility there. On the other hand, there had been enough flexibility with the Rubini property to spend the architectural, structural, and environmental money to see if it could be integrated; however, they have not found a use for the remaining corner property, although a number of times they have offered the owners numbers that would make sense, but have not received a response. Member Phillips stated he had been hoping for a different conclusion. He asked if it was correct that the Rubini property was not coming down, and was not to be rebuilt, as was the Macy's property? Mr. Schafer stated that was correct, noting the price of the property was too high to amortize its cost over the land, so the challenge for the architect will be to design to integrate it into the former Macy's building project. Mr. Schafer pointed out there were some interesting details that were not seen, but if properly brought out would make a nice contribution to the Downtown. Mr. Phillips asked if an attempt would be made to have it somewhat integrated, and appear to be a part of the total? Mr. Schafer stated there would be, noting it could not just remain sitting there like a "sore thumb". He noted that if they could incorporate it, and make it all work together, there would be some real advantages to the former Macy's site, such as window advantages, unit count advantages, and some efficiencies in the parking lot, depending on how the final layout comes together. Chairman Boro asked if they could potentially integrate the first floor with the main building, or if it would be a stand-alone building? Mr. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 7 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 8 Schafer stated they had not studied it that far, noting all the documents that relate to the old opening between the buildings required sprinkler and fire doors, and some concern had been expressed that this kind of opening between the two structures was not desirable if they are separate, although it might be a possibility if they are together. Mr. Schafer reported there were other problems, such as elevation problems between the former Macy's and Penney's stores, although that was a problem that could be solved later on. Mr. Schafer stated that if the basic economics could support the development, they could resolve how all that would work. Member Cohen asked what the timing looked like for the plaza, and what the state of the plaza would be by the time the Millennium party rolled around? Economic Development Director Ours stated this had not yet been discussed. Mr. Schafer reported the concept was to use the dollars when they are doing the demolition and the concrete, when they would be most efficient, pointing out they were not just going to complete the former Macy's site, and then go to work on the plaza. He stated that to get the most "bang for the buck", they wanted to be pouring all the concrete at the same time. Mr. Cohen stated that made sense, which was why he was raising the question, and asked if the plaza would be in a state of construction when the party occurs, and whether staff had given any thought to that? Mr. Ours stated they would love to have the plaza done at the time of the party; however, he doubted that would happen, noting it would be a year into the project, and while the concrete would be there, he did not know what the state of the plaza would be at that time. He stated he would discuss this with Mr. Schafer, and try to determine whether we could have something usable by the time of the party. Mr. Cohen felt this was an issue the Agency would want to look at, noting we would not want to have a rough, fenced, construction site right in the middle of the Downtown when we have the party going on, although he acknowledged it might be unavoidable. Member Cohen asked if the Agency would hear more about the plans for the Rubini property if that issue moves forward? He stated there were other questions that were tangential to what was before the Agency; for example, he noted there were rumors that there is a ceiling in the building which, if the rumors are true, would be the source of some public interest. Therefore, he felt at some point there would need to be public discussion about what the plans are, if this is to move forward. Mr. Schafer stated they needed to get a little further along in the discussions, so they could report something that was truly meaningful. Mr. Cohen agreed, but noted if they could have public discussion early in the process, it would make the entire process go much more smoothly. Chairman Boro asked that as soon as they know what they are able to do there, the Agency be given a timeline that would delineate that. Sharon Fox, resident of San Rafael, stated she had been asked to speak on behalf of Charles Brousse, a member of the Plaza Committee, and express three points he wished to make regarding the plaza. She reported Mr. Brousse wanted to know what funds were still available for the plaza. Referring to Mr. Brousse's notes, and the Agency's earlier discussion, she stated it had been Mr. Brousse's understanding that Century Theatres had originally pledged $500,000. Chairman Boro stated that was not correct, that Century Theatres' pledge had always been $100,000. Ms. Fox stated Mr. Brousse had made a note encouraging the Agency to move ahead with the project, and not necessarily wait for the Macy's project, and asking if plans were being made for additional funding? Chairman Boro stated this SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 8 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 9 issue would be discussed during the next item on the Agenda. Finally, Ms. Fox stated Mr. Brousse wondered whether there was any talk of having some kind of non-profit organization, or a fund drive, where people could donate funds? Chairman Boro noted there would also be further discussion of that issue during the next Agenda Item. Ms. Fox stated Mr. Brousse had also mentioned, and she agreed, that if there was to be commercial usage of the plaza, such as tables and chairs utilized by a commercial entity, there be compensation to the City for upkeep of the plaza. Member Cohen moved and Member Heller seconded, to accept the report regarding the Court Street Plaza Project. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 6. MILLENNIUM PARTY 2000 SAN RAFAEL UPDATE (RA) - File R-414 x R-394 x R-393 X R-140 #8 Events Coordinator Brigitte Moran reported the Millennium Party 2000 is to be held on New Year's Eve, Friday, December 31, 1999, from 8:00 PM until 2:00 AM. The main event will be held at Albert Park, and the party will run up "A" Street, along Fifth Avenue and Fourth Street. Ms. Moran stated the purpose and goals of the event are to celebrate ten years of Downtown commercial development; to raise funds for landscaping and an added water feature for the Court Street plaza, and if there are any funds left over, to add a water feature at Albert Park; to set in place a revenue producing mechanism for the City, through events; and to have the best party San Rafael has ever had. Referring to the entertainment, Ms. Moran stated staff was currently in negotiations with Ray Charles, Huey Lewis, and the Marin Symphony for the main event, noting once those three main acts were booked, they would look toward other special acts. She noted it was definitely a high -bidding evening to get entertainment acts for that night. Ms. Moran reported they had narrowed the proposals for the tents to two tent companies, who will be tenting the entire event and doing the flooring at Albert Park. Fifteen cable cars have been rented to transport people from the parking lot to different tents throughout the evening, and a West Coast fireworks company has been chosen to put on a fireworks display. She stated staff had decided not to advertise the fireworks to the community, noting this would be a gift to the people attending the event, and to the City of San Rafael. She reported there would be a test of the fireworks this year, at 8:00 PM on December 11th, to determine how far the fireworks can be seen. Ms. Moran stated there were presently two main sponsors of the event, Century Theatres and the Marin Independent Journal, and reported sponsorship booklets were being printed, and would be sent out within the next two weeks to major businesses in San Rafael, Marin County, and beyond. She noted the Marin IJ would be doing a countdown, and would also be helping out with a WEB site for the Millennium, and with advertising. Ms. Moran stated invitation packages would be sent out in January, 1999, first to San Rafael residents, and then after a three- week lead time, to Marin County residents. She noted tickets would go on SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 9 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 10 sale January 3, 1999. Referring to the fountain, Chairman Boro noted when this event was started, the intent was that the Agency and the City wanted to celebrate the past and commemorate the future, the future being the water fountain, with recognition to the people who participate in that by attending the party. He felt it was important, as staff finalizes the budget for this event, that the Agency actually try to develop the $190,000 cost in that budget, and make it part of the money the Agency is trying to recover, so we can achieve that goal as part of this project. Member Heller noted the staff report states if there are enough funds left, they might possibly be used for a water feature at Albert Park. She stated she had not heard of a possible second water feature, perhaps because one was expensive enough, and asked Ms. Moran to explain that suggestion. Ms. Moran stated that since they were using Albert Park, she and Community Services Director Carlene McCart had discussed the possibility of a water feature at the park, if there were extra funds. Ms. Heller asked if such a plan was something that would be brought before the Redevelopment Agency and the Park and Recreation Commission? Ms. Moran stated that it was. Member Miller moved and Member Phillips seconded, to accept the report. Chairman Boro noted the motion to accept the report included the issue and discussion concerning funding for the water feature. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 7. ADD A MOVIE LOCATION SITE TO OUR EXISTING WEB SITE (RA) - File R-140 #8 Events Coordinator Brigitte Moran reported California was currently losing $3 billion annually in the production of movies, commercials and television shows to other states, who are becoming more aggressive in luring film companies. She stated staff felt one way we could lure the film companies was through a WEB site location. She reported most times movie and commercial companies will use location scouts to find a particular type of house, such as Falkirk, or type of location, such as an ocean site. Staff believed that if they took pictures and placed them on our WEB site, and sent out announcements stating the Agency had a locator finder, then the location scouts could find the sites from New York, Los Angeles, or wherever their movie companies are. She pointed out that last week a movie company from New York was interested in doing a special about Joe DiMaggio in San Rafael, and needed photographs of three different restaurants. She reported staff went Downtown and took pictures of three restaurants, and E-mailed them within an hour, and now the movie company is coming to San Rafael. Ms. Moran showed the Community Development Department's WEB page, which is found at "sanrafael.org". She pointed out one could go to "Community Services", find out the locations and sizes of our facilities, and actually get a map to those locations. In addition, she reported there is a site for the Redevelopment Agency, as well as a site for the Farmer's Market, noting there have been over 1,700 "hits" for the Market. She also pointed out "Special Events", noting one of the things the Agency was trying to do was have a main site for Special Events, where anyone in San Rafael could log -in their special event, whether it is the City Council meeting, Farmer's Market, or community events, stating we now have a place to put them. She reported applications for banners can also be obtained on-site, and also noted Falkirk and the Chamber of Commerce were hooked -in, pointing SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 10 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 11 out that every day staff tries to hook -in to someone else. Ms. Moran explained staff would like to add the movie WEB site to this, noting that not only could it be used as a movie WEB site, but for other people, as well. She recalled a gentleman from Brazil who E-mailed last week, stating he wished he had pictures of San Rafael because he was coming for a visit, and wanted to know what sites to see. Chairman Boro asked if it was staff's recommendation that the Agency authorize $8,000 for a movie recruitment feature to be added to the WEB site? Ms. Moran stated that was correct. Chairman Boro asked if staff would have professional help in setting this up? Ms. Moran reported Phil Jacobson, who designed the current WEB site, would be helping with this project. Member Heller asked if this WEB site would be available to anyone, at any time, through computers? Ms. Moran stated that was correct. Ms. Heller noted the Agency had already successfully recruited one project, and asked when PBS would be coming? Ms. Moran reported PBS would be coming to San Rafael in November to film a special about Joe DiMaggio, and would be filming at Salute's Restaurant. Ms. Heller stated this sounded like an excellent project. Member Miller asked if staff had any other means of marketing, other than the postcard, such as a business plan or marketing plan, that would show other avenues in which we recruit? Ms. Moran reported staff advertises in The Reel Directory, which she described as the "bible" of the movie industry in Northern California. Member Phillips stated he was not clear about the appropriateness of Redevelopment Agency funds for this project, asking how this project fits with Redevelopment? Economic Development Director Ours stated this was an Economic Development project more than a Redevelopment Project, noting that was something the Redevelopment Agency has been spinning off, in making money, and Mr. Ours believed this project had a money -making center. Mr. Phillips stated he understood Redevelopment funds being used within specific boundaries, but pointed out this was beyond boundaries, and asked if this created a problem for Economic Development funds? Mr. Ours stated that, generally speaking, it served the Central Redevelopment Core, noting that was the area being served, pointing out the population of San Rafael would be served by spending this money, and that was the concept behind this. Mr. Ours stated the Agency would be doing something to promote San Rafael, noting it was not much different than the things the Agency does with the Chamber of Commerce or the BID (Business Improvement District), as they were all promotion. He stated this was also promotion, but promotion where we were going to be getting something back. Mr. Phillips agreed this was a good idea, noting he was excited about the possibilities; however, he wanted to make sure the Agency was within its bounds. Member Phillips referred to the BID, noting this seemed to be something that would be of benefit to a number of businesses throughout San Rafael, and particularly in the Downtown. He wondered if an attempt had been made to have the BID, or perhaps the Chamber of Commerce, participate in this cost? Mr. Ours stated they had not been asked to participate, mainly because staff just wanted to get the project going. He explained there were a lot of people looking for sites, and they had a lot of money to spend, so staff wanted to get this site up and running as soon as possible. He noted they had not asked the BID or the Chamber of Commerce to participate, but stated staff could discuss this with them. Mr. Phillips asked if this WEB site would be part of an existing site? Mr. Ours stated SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 11 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 12 that it would. Mr. Phillips noted that meant it would not be as though the Agency were out racing someone to the finish line. Mr. Ours stated the Agency would be racing to get the information out to the world. Chairman Boro clarified that we already had the Redevelopment Agency site on the WEB, and this would be an addendum to it, for promotion. Mr. Phillips stated he just wanted to be sure this was a legal, appropriate use of funds. Executive Director Gould stated movie shoots generate a tremendous amount of commercial activity in a short period of time, noting the major beneficiaries would be the businesses that supply goods and services to the movie companies during their shoots. He pointed out that would happen primarily within the project area; therefore, he did not see that there would be any problem. Sharon Fox, resident of San Rafael, stated she was very excited to hear this would be happening, reporting there had been a major article in the Wall Street Journal concerning the use of locations in Marin for commercials, and being a financier herself, and having a lot of friends in the movie industry, she knew the numbers being quoted in the Wall Street Journal, in terms of what Marin was making from these shoots, were very small. She reported she called John Kress and Hal Brown (Marin County Supervisors), telling them the County was losing a lot of money, over $200,000 if the statistics in the Wall Street Journal were correct, money she stated should be going to people in Marin County. Ms. Fox stated if Falkirk or the Boyd Museum were to be used, we would be taking at least $3,000 per day for shooting, which goes directly into the City. She pointed out there are location expos in Los Angeles, and representatives from cities such as San Francisco go there and set up booths. She stated film makers were looking for all kinds of store fronts and geographical areas, noting San Rafael really had a lot to offer in that area. Ms. Fox stated she supported the idea of the WEB site, but wondered why it would cost $8,000 to set it up, and include some digital photographs. She urged the Agency Members and staff to look at the criteria that would be used, noting one of the problems the Town of Ross experienced when the movie "Jack" was filmed there was that there was a lot of confusion concerning what to charge. She urged the Agency, before anything like this occurs, to get straight with what it is going to be charging, aside from the structural use, for such things as Police Officers. She pointed out the City also would not want to get into the kind of situation that occurred when American Graffiti was filmed, recalling George Lucas was given the go ahead to do the film in San Rafael, but because of the merchants, had to "pull the plug" after one night of shooting on it, and Mr. Lucas had to move the filming to Petaluma to finish the shoot. She stated that as a citizen of San Rafael, and someone in the industry, she would be happy to give the benefit of what she knows to any group that might be looking into what some of the criteria should be. Chairman Boro asked about the criteria. Economic Development Director Ours stated as far as the rental rates and other criteria, staff was currently working on that information, and it would be included on the WEB site. Mr. Ours explained the reason the cost was so expensive was because they were including a lot of information, noting there were hundreds of different locations that would be included, and it would take a lot of time to input that information. He stated staff wanted the site to be complete, and to appeal to the different segments of the film industry. SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 12 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 13 Member Cohen stated he supported this recommendation, and the direction the Agency was going; however, he believed something else the Agency needed to be concerned about was that use of these locations could have a real impact on the people who live in the selected neighborhoods. He felt that in addition to having criteria about what we were going to charge, and the money we were going to gather, we also had to regulate the impacts on the community when all the trailers show up. He noted there had already been occasions when people were tremendously inconvenienced, and stated we had to be ready to address that, as well. Mr. Ours explained street closures would still have to come before the City Council for approval, and although there had been instances in the past when this was not done, staff would make sure this was done in the future, and when something big comes up, it will first go before the City Council. Member Cohen moved and Member Phillips seconded, to approve funding of $8,095 for a movie recruitment WEB site. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None 8. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None. Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 10/19/98 Page 13