MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
***
JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING

December 4, 2000

REDWOOD CITY CITY COUNCIL

MAYOR  IRA RUSKIN
VICE MAYOR  RICHARD S. CLAIRE

 
COUNCILMEMBER JIM HARTNETT
COUNCILMEMBER DIANE HOWARD
COUNCILMEMBER JEFF IRA
COUNCILMEMBER COLLEEN M. JORDAN
COUNCILMEMBER BARBARA PIERCE



ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.
December 4, 2000



The Redwood City Council, Architectural Review Committee, and Planning Commission, jointly held this public meeting for community members to come and give their comments regarding the proposed downtown retail-cinema project.

1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL

Council Members Present: Hartnett, Howard, Jordan, Pierce, Vice Mayor Claire, Mayor Ruskin

Council Members Absent: Ira

Staff Present: City Manager Everett, City Attorney Schricker, Police Chief Bolanos, Senior Deputy City Clerk Ponte, Redevelopment Attorney Kessler, Community Development Services Director Nelson, Community Development Services Manager Patterson, Planning and Redevelopment Manager Church, Public Works Director Ingram, City Engineer Lynch, Traffic Engineer Haygood, Economic Development Coordinator Webb, Parks Recreation and Community Services Manager Hover, Information and Technology Technician Robles.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Ira Ruskin, Mayor

4. INVOCATION - Jeff Langskov, Senior Pastor
Peninsula Christian Center

5. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - None

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Dave Simpson addressed the topic of the Pacific Shores Center Project, and its Environmental Impact Report (1994) which did not address the issue of electrical usage on the complex. He stated that these facts should be included in the Environmental Impact Report, since California is going through an energy crisis.

Vice-Mayor Claire responded by clarifying that at that time deregulation was not in place, in fact the conservative wisdom indicated that there would be sufficient electrical power for the complex. Additionally, there was nothing on the horizon that would indicate otherwise. Furthermore, when PG & E sold some of its generating capacity to private firms (as part of the deregulation process), it was anticipated that the free enterprise system would build the generating capacity that would be required for many projects within the State of California. In reality, the whole generating scheme has changed dramatically.

Jeff L. Norris representing "Tis The Season" event (parade and fireworks), shared his gratitude to the Redwood City Council, Civic Cultural Commission, City Police, Fire Department and department of Public Works for all their help and cooperation. An invitation for next year's event, which will be held on the first Saturday of the month, was also offered.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR - None

Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and are enacted by one motion and one vote. There is no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests, in which event the item is removed from the consent calendar and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda.

M/S Hartnett/Claire to waive the reading of the Consent Calendar except the ordinances by title, adopt the resolutions and ordinances, and approve additional items.

7.1   Minutes

A. Motion to Approve the Minutes of the Study Session of November 6th, 2000 and the Minutes of the last Regular Meeting of November 13th, 2000 as submitted:

MINUTE ORDER 00-342

7.1   Motions

A. Motion to Approve Appointment of Administrative Clerk III in the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department with a Salary Above the Bottom of the Range;

MINUTE ORDER 00-343

7.3   Section - Agreements/Resolutions

A. RESOLUTION 14090 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SERVICES (Manna Consultants, Inc.);

B. RESOLUTION 14091 ACCEPTING BID FOR THE REDWOOD SHORES STREET SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR SAID WORK; AND DIRECTING RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSITS;

C. RESOLUTION 14092 ACCEPTING BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) UTILITY TRAILERS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF PURCHASE DOCUMENTS THEREFOR (Action Trailer Sales, Inc.);

D. RESOLUTION 14093 ACCEPTING BID FOR THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE CENTER PERIMETER FENCE REPLACEMENT PROJECT (PHASE II); AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR SAID WORK; AND DIRECTING RETURN OF BID SECURITY DEPOSITS (Northern California Fence, Co.);

E. RESOLUTION 14094 REQUESTING AND AUTHORIZING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT TO PURCHASE AN EMISSION TEST ANALYZER SYSTEM AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF PURCHASE DOCUMENTS THEREFOR;

F. RESOLUTION 14095 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF PURCHASE DOCUMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF STARTERS FOR SELECTED STORM PUMP STATIONS (Consolidated Electrical Distributors);

G. RESOLUTION 14096 ACCEPTING BID FOR THE 2000-2001 WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR SAID WORK; AND DIRECTING RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSIT (Scientific Environmental Lab, Inc.);

H. Job Description and Salary Range for Webmaster Classification:

  1. RESOLUTION 14097 APPROVING JOB SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE POSITION OF WEBMASTER;
  2. RESOLUTION 14098 AMENDING SECTION 1 AND EXHIBIT B-3 OF RESOLUTION NO. 13875, RELATING TO THE SALARY AND WAGE PLAN FOR EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE REDWOOD CITY MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, BY ADDING THE POSITION OF WEBMASTER AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALARY FOR SAID POSITION;

7.4   Claims and Warrants

A. Reject the claims of Dora Mendez, Claim No. 1850; Diane Giusti, Claim No. 1851; Gerard Tachis, Claim No. 1854 as submitted:

MINUTE ORDER 00-344

B. Approve warrants dated through December 4, 2000 and usual and necessary payments through December 11, 2000;

MINUTE ORDER 00-345

7.5   Ordinances (second reading)

A. ORDINANCE 2205 AMENDING SECTION 2.20 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY RELATING TO THE TIME OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS (first reading on 11/13/00);

Council Member Jordan clarified that with the adoption of this ordinance the Council meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. versus 7:30 p.m. This new schedule will be effective January 2001.

The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote.

8. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST - None

7:20 p.m. - Brief Recess

7.30 p.m. - Meeting Resumed

Session on Proposed Retail Cinema

Mayor Ruskin explained that the goal of the second public meeting was to address concerns and listen to public comment on the issue of the proposed retail cinema project. Mayor Ruskin also clarified that because this is such an important matter, the meeting included two other bodies: the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Committee.

Mayor Ruskin further stated that a decision on the viability of the project will probably be made early next year, however it is very important for Council to listen to opinions and concerns from residents.

ROLL CALL -

Planning Commission Members Present: Foust, Giannini, McCoy, Paulson, Piulle, Vice Chair Moore and Chairperson Garcia

Planning Commission Members Absent: None

Architectural Review Committee Members Present: Gee, Howard, Spotorno Vice Chair Morrison and Chairperson Gilman

Architectural Review Committee Members Absent: None

9. STAFF REPORTS AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION -

Second Public Meeting to Discuss the Retail Cinema Project;

Mayor Ruskin gave an overview of what transpired during the first public meeting and proceeded by presenting the proposed schedule for the evening. Firstly, staff was to provide a brief report, and subsequently public comment would take place. After that, the staff would address some of the points brought up. The rules of public democratic meetings were explained (three minutes for each speaker, no applause was going to be permitted).

Community Development Services Director Nelson explained that contrary to the agenda the staff report was going to start with a visual three dimensional presentation. This approach intends to show the earlier exterior elevations proposed by the developer and as previously explained in the EIR.

Nelson also clarified that following her presentation, John Field and Rob Anderson of Field Paoli Architects were to present a new design showing a different picture of the general mass of the project. Mark Feldman, of Feldman & LaBarre was also to provide a presentation of the interior of the cinema and the retail portions of the proposed project.

Matt Prichard, of Multigen Paradigm, Inc. ran a graphics computer program that provided a visual image of the area surrounding proposed retail cinema project. Comparisons were made between the Fox Theater (60 feet), as well as the County Court house dome (123 feet). After showing graphics, which represent the current state of the area, the proposed retail cinema was imposed on the image to better visualize its impact on the landscape.

Community Development Services Director Nelson provided a full explanation of all the different aspects of the proposed retail cinema project.

John Field and Rob Anderson, of Field Paoli Architects provided a presentation of the new design for the project. Vince, landscape architect with Carducci Landscape Architects was also introduced. John Field explained that in the opinion of the experts, this project represents a retail complex which will revitalize the downtown, and includes the following components: a theater, an office building near it, and a parking garage to take care of all the new uses. The theater itself represents only 20% of the façade. Similarly, and in order to create a far better street front, as accomplished in Santa Barbara, the auditoriums are located upstairs. Currently, what we have is two blocks: on block one we have Middlefield and Jefferson, block two has the parking garage on one end and the office building on the other extreme. The intention is for block one to attract two major stores (prime retail corners).

John Field, of Field Paoli Architects further explained accessibility to the complex, access via train, automobile and public transportation. Vince, with Carducci Landscape Architects, explained that an interactive plaza would be the first thing a transient getting off the train would face. Such Plaza would incorporate a celebratory fountain, kioskes, cafes, historical markers, intersecting grids on the floor where the old and the new intercept. After passing through this Plaza, one would enter (via an arch) into a street that is being renamed "Theater Street". When exiting the Plaza one can view the garage with its very welcoming elements such as a bike transit station, showers, and bathrooms welcoming bikers, drivers and transients.

Vince further explained that "Theater Street" will be a place of movement and activities, i.e. stage or amphitheater, historical markers, art and sculpture, lighting and celebratory elements such as special events, farmer's events, or even jazz festivals. A sectional view of the street shows that only pedestrians will be allowed, even though emergency vehicles will have access. "Theater Street" will be located along what is now Winslow Street running and dead ending into Middlefield.

Vince continued by stating that along the corner of Jefferson and Middlefield (immediately opposite to City Hall), the proposal is to have a curved office building with a civic window that looks at City Hall. In the center is the retail building with the major tenant. The office building has a lower segment that is along the street.

Vince also explained that when considering the project as it goes along Jefferson, and since it is a very long façade, the experts opted to make the facades as varied as possible. So a series of buildings is visible, with different heights, e.g. small shops, restaurants, etc. This project is supposed to simultaneously serve the daytime and nighttime customers.

Mark Fehlman, architect for the Century Theater, showed slides about possible looks for the proposed cinema. Century lobbies and show rooms samples were shown, namely from: Albuquerque, Reno, and Las Vegas. Mark Fehlman, explained that part of his job is to try and pick up the local culture, which will be reflected in the theater. Marc Fehlman elaborated on each of the theater elements: entrance, seating, walls, sound, décor and accessibility. He further explained that Century Theater meets and exceeds all AVA standards as well as Title 24. Marc Fehlman, also mentioned that theaters have always been a strong element in downtown areas, and it has been found that mixing the downtown experience with theater going can be very positive. This combination brings people to the downtown at night, and over the weekend creating positive partnerships between theaters and cities.

Mayor Ruskin reiterated the fact that the drawings and elevations shown had not been reviewed or approved by the Architectural Review Committee, Redevelopment Agency, or the City Council.

Council Member Jordan, inquired about when answers would be given to questions posed on the first public meeting. Mayor Ruskin's suggestion was to give the public the opportunity to speak versus going into answering the myriad of questions posed. Chair Garcia from Planning Commission concurred with Council Member Jordan, and suggested that if some answers are given it might eliminate some of the speakers present.

Ed Everett, City Manager explained that questions were split into areas of interest. Everett, also stated that as point of clarification the city staff was asked by the Council to provide the facts surrounding the viability of this project, and indeed that is what is being accomplished. Staff has simply shared facts neither attempting to paint a rosy nor bleak picture. Furthermore, Everett mentioned that the several consultants involved, are impartial parties in this process.

Everett explained that the first set of questions was to be answered by Joe Syufy, President of Syufy Enterprises, which includes the Syufy theaters and Century 12.

Joe Syufy began by thanking the City Council and public for showing interest in getting involved and informed on this issue. Joe Syufy explained that while his main offices are in San Rafael, the Syufy family has operated movie theaters in Redwood City for many years. More specifically in the Peninsula, the Syufy's own theaters between Daly City and Santa Clara. Because the company is privately held and family owned, Joe Syufy reiterated his interest in seeing this project not only come to fruition but succeed as well.

Syufy, responded to the following questions (posed at the previous public meeting of November 27, 2000):

Syufy, stated that between Daly City and Mountain View (inclusive) there are approximately 15,000 seats including four full screen theaters, and one discount theater located in a shopping center. When all the theaters planned to be built are completed (including the one in Redwood City), there will be approximately 25,000 theater seats within the same region. Additionally, the number of screens will increase from 47 to 99. Syufy explained that this increase is justified because the current communities are extremely underserved. Syufy also mentioned that Redwood City is short on movie theaters, possessing only 12 screens in the market.

Syufy, reassured the audience that his company puts about 5 million dollars a year back into existing theaters, through remodels, retrofitting, replacement of seats and other accessories. Syufy also added that it was part of their business plan to maintain the facilities that their company owns. Syufy clarified that the company was founded by his father, and has been in business for 50 years. Additional reassurance comes from the fact that within the lease agreement, there will be a clause making the developer as well as the occupant accountable for the appearance of the structure.

Syufy, stated that this is a really tough issue because if someone really wants to get into an R rated movie, they probably will. However, what the theater does is checks the ID's at the box office, check the tickets at all check points, ushers wonder through the hallways and only 15% of the titles at any given time are R rated. Most films that come out are PG 13, because of the broader audience. Recently, the National Association of Theater Owners adopted a standard for placing trailers, because one of the current problems is that you take your child to a PG 13 film, but an R rated trailer is playing on the front. Consequently, the Syufy Company does is places their own trailers, so that no R rated trailers are placed prior to the PG 13 movies.

Syufy explained that the Syufy Theaters have never been in a position of such proximity to the train station. Of course, in this context the opportunity does present itself to looking at the schedule of the train and making sure it is convenient to coordinate the arrival train time with the theater schedule. However, with 20 screens there are multiple starting times, and generally there will be something on that appeals to the public.

Syufy said that the numbers of 16 to 18 screens is simply ideal. However, in this particular setting the Syufy's know that it will need 20 screens because of the local market, and in order to properly serve the demand. This assumption is based on observations of number of people going to the movies, and based being aware of what the potential for this area is. This knowledge is also based on a number of indicators, i.e. demographics, natural barriers (streets that people won't cross), educational level, diversity, economic status (median income, etc.) etc. Based on these factors the company figures out how much each person will spend annually on movies. From that number conclusions are draws as to the expected attendance and revenues.

Syufy clarified that the most successful components in having a successful theater are, amongst many other things: location, and making sure that all the blockbuster movies are offered. As far as revenue per seat and per screen it really varies dramatically from one place to the next. However, in this setting the Syufy's Enterprises are certain that this project will be successful, and have no doubts that it will revitalize the downtown of Redwood City.

Tim Kelly, from Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., Economic Development Consultant addressed the council and responded to the next set of questions. The first question involved speaking to the issue of the "health" or lack of health of the industry when one operator controls the market (monopoly). Kelly's response included statement that clarified that in the history of theaters control of a certain region is not uncommon. The major challenge is that operators have a tendency to not upgrade and upkeep the physical facility of existing theaters, this in terms of the technology available. This includes: digital sound, stadium seating, wide screen, etc. Sometimes there also is a lack of number of screens, and other times there is a lack of proper maintenance of the theater. However, today the consumer is demanding state of the art theaters. Therefore, the consumer is driving the quality of the theaters.

The second question answered by Kelly requested that the expert present data about cities where cinemas have failed. Kelly, stated that the only cinema he is aware of that failed is the downtown United Artists cinema in downtown San Jose. Some of the reasons for its closure are lack of free parking, and the fact that it was a freestanding structure without a surrounding retail environment. Some possible options when theaters shut down are: the structure is can be teared down, reused, or the theater stays and it becomes a discount theater.

Kelly then answered the following question: how to address mechanisms to assure and guarantee percentage mix of retail usage (small, medium anchor, nighttime and daytime tenants)? Kelly stated that the contractual agreement between the developer and the City does require that such mix be present and preserved. However, Kelly reiterated that a City could not fully control the types of tenants in any project because if there are too many controls the project is not finnancable. A reasonable balance is the best solution.

The final question addressed by Kelly was if there are any downsides to the project? Kelly's clarification covered the fact that this is a land use issue. The City might choose to utilize this land for the retail cinema project versus other uses such as housing. Therefore, it is more of a policy issue than an issue of finding negative points in the project. However some of the concerns might be: if a tenant doesn't work out this might cause the property to be vacated, also parking might be a concern.

The next consultant to address questions was Roberta Mundie, President of Mundie and Associates. This firm performed the economic and fiscal analysis for the project. Mundie, stated that she had been asked to specifically address three questions. However, prior to answering the questions Mundie made wished to make very clear that her firm, is neither a proponent nor an opponent of the project. The stock and trade of Mundie and Associates is objectivity, and their work is only valuable to the degree that Mundie accomplishes that objectivity in the analysis and reporting the firm produces. Mundie further stated that her firm has been in business for twenty years (next month), and that represents several hundreds of reports.

The main questions Mundie was to address were:

In response to the first question, Mundie explained that in this case (developing a project such as the retail-cinema) the opportunity cost is the outcome of any other course of action that this Council might have taken, which the council is foregoing by opting for the retail cinema. In the case of the retail cinema project there are two kinds of opportunity costs: the land (what could one have gotten for the land if it was to be used differently), the other is the proposed project's contribution to downtown revitalization (meaning what other downtown projects could be embraced in lieu of this project which would also promote downtown revitalization).

Looking at the issue of land issue, Mundie stated that one must consider that the City only owns part of block one, and secondly its purpose and allowed zoning uses will also determine its cost. This is addressed by looking both at the City Zoning and the characteristics of the area. Based on the previous study, this area will demand parking. Such parking could not be at a subsurface level because the conduit for Redwood Creek goes underground and just about cuts the site in half. Consequently, the maximum office space usable would be 80,000 square feet (because a considerable amount of the area was dedicated to parking). The hypothetical land value of the building described would be in the 4 to 5 million dollars range, which is considerably less than what the proposed project would yield.

Block 2 also has the same parking issues, and probably the maximum office space available would be 11,000 square feet. The price would probably be $600,000 to $650,000. Mundie's conclusion then is that these projects would be smaller than the actual proposed project, and the smaller size and the parking requirements, make it doubtful that the City could obtain a higher price for the sites.

Mundie further stated that when considering the revitalization process one could reason that since the alternative projects would be smaller scale, the opportunity cost for the revitalization of the downtown would also be smaller.

Addressing the second question Mundie stated that one thing to remember is that the cinemas were brought into the project because the commercial district in that area was already failing. The idea was to have the cinemas improve those conditions. From Mundie's observations and studies in other areas such as San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, the revitalization effect seems to be so positive that it is feasible to have the commercial districts hold their own, even if the cinemas were to fail. Consequently, the brief answer is that the City does not lose any more than the benefit that the cinema brought with it in the first place.

Mundie said that the final question, which focused on the issue of parking, required a brief answer. While the success of the cinema does depend, to some degree on the parking, the degree of such correlation is not clear. Mundie said that this is particularly true in mixed-use areas. A good guideline is to remember that if the City offers enough parking for retail, in the mixed used districts, that supply will probably be sufficient (in a shared parking setting) to meet the demand from movie goers and avoid economic impacts on the cinema.

Everett, informed that staff was also available for comment. Mayor Ruskin initiated the process of public comment.

Public Comment - 9:00 P.M.

Stan Smith, stated that he really enjoys the downtown, however there is a lack of things to do. Smith fully supports the project, and hopes that after further review the City will decide to go forward with the project.

Pat Mahoney, commented that she opposes the project because she does not think Redwood City needs another theater. The traffic should be a very serious concern because it will affect residents.

Victor Torreano, resident of Redwood City for 10 years shared his excitement about the project. He stated that this is a good project because it will provide families with a place to go and enjoy themselves.

Claire Felong, shared concerns about what will happen to PAL and High Schools. Felong also has concerns related to traffic issues. Felong commented that this project must seriously consider the youth since they are under serviced in this community.

Ted Hannig, spoke on behalf of Rob Souflan, Peter Betrosion and PowerHouse Gym. Hannig opposes the project because it is flawed, and the parking created will not be sufficient; instead he suggests housing be built on that site. Hannig requested data on the cost of City's mailing campaign.

Mayor Ruskin stated that the cost of brochures sent out was going to be researched. In reference to the statements published, Ruskin clarified that what he meant was that "the retail cinema complex project is a good concept but the devil was on the details."

Vice-Mayor Dick Claire reiterated that the assumption that he has made up his mind about approving the project is erroneous; Claire has not decided whether he is for or against the project, and he will wait to complete public comment before making a decision.

Edmund Schiffer, requested information on how much money has been spent in the project. Schiffer stated that his major concerns are the thousands of cars, and how this will create a traffic nightmare.

Chip Krug, stated that with this project what is the City is giving up is the "Redwood City Charm"; his main concern is the traffic, and how the character of this city will change drastically (pollution, traffic, etc.). The rents will also increase and we will probably lose small stores because they will be unable to compete. Krug would like to see Spanish speaking films due to the diversity in this area.

William Nack, representing the Building and Construction Trade's Council of San Mateo County, (membership of approximately 18,000), stated that his organization is in favor of the project, not only because it represents hundreds of jobs (with good and fair wages/benefits) but also because it will revitalize downtown, and provide something to do to the new Franklin Street residents.

Richard Wallace, mentioned that he would like to find out what other proposals were received. Wallace stated that information has not been disseminated appropriately, and that a proposed six-story office building that will come with it, is not public knowledge. A request for a scale model has also been made and not provided.

Ken Rolandelli, mentioned specific concerns around two structures on Jefferson Ave. 858, 852 and 870 (constructed in 1918) showing Spanish eclectic styles. Strongly urges that the shells (walls and roofs) of these buildings be incorporated in the project due to their historical value.

Brian Chapman, called to the podium but absent.

Elizabeth Travers, property owner in Redwood City for over 40 years, Travers concerns are related to traffic, pollution issues, and another unpleasant buildings like the previously built County Jail. Ms. Travers submitted two newspaper articles that defended the case that revenues from project don't always cover the costs of mega theaters, and strongly encourages housing instead.

Vice-Mayor Claire clarified that statements about the County Jail and council members approving such action are incorrect. Claire further stated that the council at that time worked diligently to avoid such construction, however the county is a stronger governmental institution and therefore they went forth with the project.

Susan Keely, resident of Redwood City for 42 years stated that this City needs to "reinvent" itself and strongly supports the project if there is a quality vision for the future. Keely would like to see similar structures as those used in City Hall, the Library, Raiser's housing complex. Keely said that young children would meet our expectations if we provide them with clear boundaries.

Pamela Hester King, commented on the fact that sometimes the dialogue sounds like "us versus them". Instead we should be focusing on creating things and places for our young people to enjoy; this retail cinema project is a great and creative approach, especially if this is a collaborative effort between cinema and merchants. Cordial police presence should also be a priority.

Rick Greenley, stated that the city is a very "dead" town at night, since it is a government town by day and ghost town by night. While the traffic issues will emerge, if we have enough traffic planning and with a satellite police station, this project might have a positive outcome.

Tiffany Papageorge, commented that her main concern was youth hanging around the cinemas, creation of long lines, and no seats in the theater. Papageorge's main concerns were loitering, hanging out by young people, and creating a bad environment.

Petra Reed, presented council three major concerns: architectural elements for conversion, number of seating (4200) for the Redwood City complex, and traffic increase. Reed stated that Long Beach and San Jose are comparable projects that have failed, therefore she would like to see comparable studies. Appreciates the public forum, and it has been a quality dialogue.

G.H. McKibbin, shared an article on film producers networking with Internet providers and providing movies straight into the home (in Wall Street Journal, Nov. 30/ 00). Therefore, this Council should be really aware and certain of the financial viability of this project, before committing itself.

Keith Bautista, received additional time since Louisa Gasparini donated her time towards his presentation. Bautista played the song "Downtown" by Petula Clark to better illustrate the point that a downtown is extremely meaningful. He commented that this project will create new synergy downtown, where people will go shopping, go to the movies, go eat out, etc. He believes in the adage that "It is better to have tried, than to not have tried at all".

Dave Simpson, requested thorough semantics clarification on the meaning of "revitalization", and if it means that we are hoping stores will be open in the PM time, and 7 days a week. His concern is that the current business owners might be displaced if they don't comply with the new concept of "revitalization."

Richard Panelli, stated that the staff presentation was very good, however his main questions focus is on capital expenditures and an alternative plan in case we need to convert to something else. Panelli, shared that if he was a downtown merchant he would be at every public meeting applauding the developers and council because of the possibility of 40 million increase in sales. Encourages council to involve downtown merchants more.

Gary Dilley, resident of Redwood City for 48 years, shared concerns about increased traffic. While Dilley is not against development and change, he does believe that the project will attract too much traffic.

Peter Eberle, received additional time donated by Fred Ganjei. Eberle, director of the Downtown Association of Santa Cruz, wanted to share the first hand effect of a cinema complex in a downtown. While in the beginning there were concerns, with time the retail began to develop and flourish because people were downtown and were willing to shop. Additionally, not all business chose to stay open late, but with time more and more business did. He stated that for Santa Cruz, it has been a complete success.

Randy Blair, said that he is the owner of "Pizza and Pipes" and he stated that there are only very few merchants open on Friday or Saturday night. Mr. Blair fully supports the idea of the retail project and knows that it will bring business and continuous action. The other issue is that currently, there are a lot of vacant lots downtown.

Dave Redfern, is a business owner who started in this town in 1957, his main concern is that the city is deserted at night. Consequently, he believes that the project is important and will make a difference. While it will create traffic, the reality is that families will spend time and money in Redwood City during the evening and weekends. This type of traffic congestion is welcome.

Judy Buchan, called but not present.

Lisa Blanton, called but not present.

Catherine Fraser, called but not present.

John Lisher, was a 10-year president of the Downtown Plan of Santa Cruz, and prior to the earthquake the downtown was 8 a.m.-5 p.m. However, part of their plan and vision after the earthquake was to increase the retail hours and to build a cinema. The result has been a 14 to 18 hours downtown, and a 9-screen theater that has brought energy and economic vitality.

Thomas McDermott, started by thanking Syufy for his presentation and all the information provided. His concern for the "new downtown" include the following items: will special processes be instituted to improve the class of the theater, are art and foreign films to be part of the offerings, what are the possible anchor retail stores in mind, why were we not provided with multiple choices in the prior stages of this process? Darcy, donated her three minutes so that Dermott could explain his last two points: what will happen to the old century lot when it closes down, and is the final goal revitalization and growth for the city and its downtown.

Rudolph Luca, resident of Redwood City for 47 years, presented to the council a petition with 52 signatures of residents who oppose the project. Luca's major concern is the traffic, and in reality the residents are very concerned about what will happen. Luca is aware of many reasons why in the past many other retailers were chased out of Redwood City, and because nothing was done to support these merchants we are now in this predicament. He requests that this be taken to the vote of the Redwood City residents

Don Warren, stated that he was representing the Board of Directors and membership of the San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce, with a membership of 1,100, and after much consideration and deliberation that body voted unanimously (two members excused themselves due to project involvement) to give the strongest possible support to the project. One of the reasons for the support was the level of experts involved, their experience and knowledge will take us into a new phase of Redwood City.

Gary Desantis, spoke about the fact that people don't want to leave things the way they are, however people also want to have more concrete answers. The fact that there are doubts about the success of a combination of retail and cinema, he questions the wisdom of devoting 50% to the theaters. Desantis also thinks we should not disregard the traffic problems that this project will bring with it. Requested to find out who the anchor tenants are, stated that it is not a given that they will come.

M/S Vice-Mayor Claire/Hartnett - motion to extend the meeting to 11:15 p.m. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.

Council Member Jordan stated that she would like to have another hearing.

Soon Keum Lee, said that for eight years Lee has lived in an apartment in Redwood City, and has been looking for a house for 2 years. However, the housing is too expensive. Lee is hoping the City will address the needs of the people of this city, which are housing. Because the housing is so expensive many people are forced to leave this city, even though it has the best climate.

John Anagnostou, commended the previous council for acquiring the property that now is City Hall, and having the vision and wisdom to relocate services. Anagnostou appreciates the opportunity for this public forum to occur where residents can share their opinions and concerns. He reiterated the fact that currently, downtown is extremely quiet at night and we need some revitalization.

Cliff Scott, while previously a resident of Rockridge (Oakland), he has adjusted very well to this area and sees a lot of potential in terms of architecture, streets, transportation and services. Scott stated that this city needs a catalyst for this change to occur. Scott fully supports the project.

M/S Vice-Mayor Claire/Hartnett - motion to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.

Phillip Raiser, resident and business owner in the city of Redwood City, said that while he owns retail he is not concerned about competition. Reassured the council and public that his wife Erin Raiser and himself are very much in favor of the project. Raiser stated that when he organized a Jazz Festival during the summer months of 2000, there was an amazing turn out (between 300-600 people showed up). The complaint from most of these people was that there was not enough places open at night.

Frank Bartaldo, said that while he has been a businessman in downtown Redwood City for the last 20 years, he is representing the Sequoia YMCA, more specifically the youth. Bartaldo, strongly supports the project as well as all the youth he is representing; they are excited about the job and entertainment opportunities this project might bring.

Brett Prahl, resident for the last 12 years, is also a small business owner and is excited about a possible "facelift" of some of the buildings in downtown. In some cases, Prahl has gone as far as San Francisco (Metron) to find a place where they can watch a movie and then get something to eat, or walk around. Prahl strongly supports the project.

Ethel Robinson, stated that she is very interested in the "revitalization" process however she does not believe that there is enough public transportation being provided. Therefore, she would like to have more shuttle services from certain neighborhoods to downtown and senior centers (maybe starting on Thursday nights). Robinson is aware that other towns are using this method to bring different segments of their population to the downtown.

Ben Paul, would like to inquire about the types of tenants that will be in the complex, and would also like to congratulate the redevelopment agency and all consultants on their efforts in presenting this project to the public. Paul is slightly concerned about the traffic, however he is looking forward to having more options when it comes to going out on the weekend. Paul supports the project.

Vice-Mayor Claire suggested that the next Public Meeting take place in early January 2001. After some discussion, consensus was for the City Manager to discuss this matter with the Mayor and arrange for an available date.

Steven Howard, Architectural Review Committee would like to add some more questions to be answered at the next meeting.

  1. What are the age demographics in regards to the people that attend the movies?
  2. Is it possible to anticipate a traffic reduction because some people will be able to walk downtown, versus driving;
  3. Can the developers elaborate on possible names of tenants and stores that will be in the complex?

M/S Jordan/Vice-Mayor Claire- motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. until the next regular meeting of December 11th, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote.



Respectfully submitted,

Silvia M. Ponte,

Senior Deputy City Clerk

About Redwood City | Community and Recreation | Education
City Services | City Government | Business and Industry

Copyright © 2000. The City of Redwood City. All rights reserved.