Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRA Minutes 1999-08-02SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, AUGUST 2, 1999 AT 7:30 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Chairman San Rafael Redevelopment Agency: Paul M. Cohen, Member Barbara Heller, Member Cyr N. Miller, Member Gary O. Phillips, Member Absent: None Also Present: Kenneth Nordhoff, Assistant Executive Director Gus Guinan, Assistant Agency Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, Agency Secretary ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: 7:30 PM None. CONSENT CALENDAR: Member Cohen moved and Member Phillips seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approval of Minutes of Regular and Special JointMinutes approved as Public Hearing Meetings of Monday, July 19, 1999submitted. (AS) 2. Monthly Investment Report (MS) - File R-123 Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending June, 1999. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None The following item was removed from the agenda for further discussion: 3. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE REDWOOD EMPIRE SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 FOR OPERATION OF THE CANAL AREA SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RA) - File R-411 Member Miller noted there were currently ten participating businesses, and asked if any of the business owners lived in the Canal neighborhoods? Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle stated she did not have that information, explaining that while she had a list of the businesses in the program, the Agency attempted to keep that confidential, and the Agency had not collected information on residency. However, she noted staff could ask the Consultant to begin collecting that information, and tally it in a general way. Mr. Miller felt that would be helpful. Member Miller referred to the seminar conducted by the Consultant for Canal area childcare providers, noting three women who had not participated in the first seminar have asked to participate in any future training sessions. He asked if the CCA (Canal Community Alliance) had provided a SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 1 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 2 schedule for additional workshops and conferences? Ms. Mackle stated she did not have a schedule for the series of workshops, as the Consultant has been working directly with CCA. Mr. Miller believed that particular project had great significance for the Canal neighborhoods, as that area has the highest population of young people in the City, and so many of the mothers work. He stated he would like to see where that program is going, suggesting perhaps the Agency could put more emphasis on it. Ms. Mackle stated the Consultant was preparing a thorough outline of this information, and staff would soon have a copy, which would be forwarded to the Agency Members. Chairman Boro asked staff to return to the Agency with an interim report. Member Miller acknowledged the Agency was also doing work in terms of small business development; however, he stated he was looking for a more holistic approach to a number of other things. He asked if SCORE was doing anything in this area, and also what the Agency's relationship was to the Canal Mercado, in terms of the incubation of businesses. Ms. Mackle reported SCORE was active at the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, and they were open to anyone who needed their help. She stated SCORE did a lot of start-up help, while the Consultant worked with existing businesses, noting there were a lot of referrals between the two. Referring to the Mercado, Ms. Mackle reported there were five local food vendors from the Canal area, some of whom already have restaurants. She stated it was very exciting that this market was helping people get started, with such things as getting health permits and the like. She pointed out the County Health Department had also been working with them on education. Ms. Mackle noted they have discussed having the consultant do something on a group basis with the food providers, as he has done with the childcare providers. Mr. Miller pointed out there was a kitchen at the Pickleweed Community Center where they could learn, as well as use the facilities. Ms. Mackle stated they saw this as a two-step process, first getting people to attend the market, and then addressing where the businesses can go from there. She noted the Agency had incubated businesses from the Downtown Farmers' Market, with some businesses going on to open restaurants and stores. With regard to recruiting businesses for consultation, Member Miller noted the methodology in the past has been to use a mailing list. Recalling the City's experience with "the Loop", he noted 750 mailers were sent out, but very few responses were received; therefore, he questioned that as an effective methodology. Mr. Miller believed telemarketing was very effective, as was sending a letter, and then following-up with a telephone call. He recommended considering this, rather than just sending out a letter. Ms. Mackle explained this was a "pilot year", as they were just getting started, and so far they had included only minimal marketing, partially due to staffing. However, she pointed out the Agency was now fully staffed, and they were considering other things. She noted they had done some telephoning during the first round, but found it to be very time consuming. She reported they have been considering working with some of the community-based organizations, updating that list for the new Canal Services booklet, and then sending flyers to those organizations, as they may have clients who would need these services. Member Miller moved and Member Heller seconded, to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 99-26 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO EXTEND THE EXISTING COOPERATIVE SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 2 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 3 AGREEMENT WITH THE REDWOOD EMPIRE SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER THROUGH JUNE 30, 2000 FOR A FEE NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. AYES: MEMBERS: Cohen, NOES: MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MEMBERS: None AGENCY CONSIDERATION: Heller, Miller, Phillips & Chairman Boro 4. STATUS REPORT ON MACY'S SITE RE -USE (RA) - File R-380 Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle introduced the Developer, Jim Schafer. Jim Schafer, representing the firm of Samuelson/Schafer, reported that since purchasing the land on October 21, 1998 they have spent the time negotiating to select the final contractor, and developing plans and submitting them to the City. He stated the project would be built on an addendum basis, noting the initial phase has already been submitted for plan check. Mr. Schafer explained the project was composed of two elements; one is a concrete structure that goes from 24 feet below the surface of the ground to one story above ground, and forms a podium for the apartment and office projects to be built upon. He reported the offices and apartments would be light steel frame, and the balance of the project was a concrete base, for which they are awaiting final plan check comments. He stated the shoring, underpinning, and demolition permits were essentially completed, the site was currently fenced and trailered, and they are awaiting temporary power from P.G.& E. Mr. Schafer reported the absestos removal was completed a month ago, and any asbestos found during the course of demolition will be abated. He noted, as part of that process, ACC Environmental, the firm that did the Agency's asbestos survey, keeps watch on that part of the job. Mr. Schafer stated it can be considered that demolition has begun, noting there is no power to the building, much of the structure has been damaged and is basically unsafe, and the building is coming down as fast as they can get it down. In response to questions regarding the schedule of activities, Mr. Schafer reported there were many activities involved, noting it will take approximately twenty and a half months to complete the project. He explained the activities ranged from the very rudimentary, at the start of construction, through the shoring and underpinnings of the adjoining properties, getting to the bottom and tying the foundations down with forty foot anchors so the building will not come out of the ground. Mr. Schafer stated their goal for that work is to be back out of the ground by March or April of next year; once they come out of the ground, the steel members will be placed, and the structure will come along after that. Mr. Schafer noted the details had been well charted out, and the project was "off and running". Member Phillips noted he had spoken with Mr. Schafer a couple of weeks ago regarding the status of this project, acknowledging there had been some skepticism within the community with regard to when the project might begin. He noted Mr. Schafer had, at that time, assured him they would begin the project by August 31st, and Mr. Phillips stated he was delighted that Mr. Schafer was now presenting such a positive report, and was going SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 3 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 4 to meet that deadline, noting the community was anxious. Member Heller asked Mr. Schafer to describe the demolition, noting there was another building around which they were going to have to do the demolition. Mr. Schafer reported the engineers had actually been inside the other building, and exploration was done along the east wall, where they found the buildings were actually separated by approximately one-half inch, as were the foundations. He reported that when the building was constructed, they had poured against an old plywood form, so the contractor's goal was to go in through the back of the building, collapse as much of the inside of the building as possible into the existing basement, which covers approximately two-thirds of the property, and then begin peeling the building back, away from the adjoining structure, and away from the street. He stated, in doing so, they believed they would be able to take the building down without damaging the adjoining structure. However, Mr. Schafer reported Rubini family representatives have granted a license to shore and underpin under their property, and in doing so, the Developer has the liability for making sure their property is not damaged. Member Heller asked how long it would take to demolish the building? Mr. Schafer reported the demolition would take five weeks, noting that in approximately five weeks, the outside of the building would be gone. Member Heller asked if the little house in back of the property was included in any of this? Mr. Schafer stated it was not, reporting the house was currently for sale, and the last market report he had received was that it was rapidly being bid up. Member Cohen noted he, too, had been pleased to see the fence go up. Regarding the actual construction, he stated it was his understanding the General Contractor to be used was from Arizona. Mr. Schafer explained White's Construction was a national contractor, headquartered in Kansas City, and the office he was currently dealing with was in Phoenix, Arizona. Mr. Cohen stated the way most of these projects go, the General Contractor does not actually do much of the construction, as the work is mostly sub- contracted out, and he believed, if they were a national firm, they likely followed the same trends in the industry. He reported he has had inquiries from local builders concerning the opportunities for local contractors to bid on this work, and asked if the General Contractor had put the sub- contracts out to bid, or whether they were going to be bringing contractors from out of State, or hiring local firms? Mr. Schafer stated all the line items had been bid to a level of approximately six responses, and they were in the process of making sure the scope of the work was complete. He noted the Plumbing Contractor was a San Rafael contractor; the excavation work had been narrowed to two contractors, one local; and the dry-wall/plaster, which is a $3 million element of the budget, was being done by a firm in Novato. He stated many of the contractors would be local, to the extent that local contractors could be competitive, pointing out there was no one from Kansas City, and no one from anywhere very far away. Mr. Schafer believed the contractor furthest away was the steel contractor from Modesto. Chairman Boro thanked Mr. Schafer for his report, noting the Agency would be watching, counting, looking, and supervising with him. Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle stated the Agency's agreement with Mr. Schafer called for twenty-four months to construct, and while he had just reported he expected the project would take twenty and one-half months, she wanted to reiterate he actually had twenty-four months to complete the project. Ms. Mackle also reported she and Mr. Schafer would be in regular contact, probably weekly, as the construction is done, and she will be his point of contact. She stated if anyone had questions SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 4 SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 5 concerning the project, they should contact her, noting she would be developing an ongoing report for the Agency Members. 5. AGENCY MEMBER REPORTS: None. There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 7:58 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, Agency Secretary SRRA MINUTES (Regular) 8/2/99 Page 5