CITY COUNCIL MEETING

January 29, 2001

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

REGULAR MEETING
7:00 P.M.
January 29, 2001

The City Council Meeting and Redevelopment Agency Meeting were called to order simultaneously. The Redevelopment Agency Meeting was convened concurrently, following the consent calendar section.

1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:02 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 Clerk Howe; City Attorney Schricker, Agency Attorney Kessler, Financial Services Director Ponty, Community Development Services Director Nelson, Planning and Redevelopment Manager Church, Economic Development Coordinator Webb, Traffic Engineer Haygood, Assistant Planner Lynch, Volunteer Balsamo

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - led by Colleen Jordan, Council Member

4. INVOCATION - Steve Tiebout, Pastor (New Hope Community Church)

5. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - None

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

John Wise representing Boy Scouts of America announced and introduced the Boy Scouts in the audience presently working toward their merit badge.

G.H. Armour introduced Miss America and thanked the community for the opportunity.

Rita Ng, Miss America, spoke of the competition and encouraged youth in the city to participate in the competition.

Mayor Ruskin gave an update on the Peninsula Marina issue. He stated he had met with Mr. Batinovich who has agreed to meet with the tenants in mediation with Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center. He further stated that Mr. Batinovich agreed to an extension of 60 more days for tenants to vacate the marina.

Allen Shepherd stated he is a boat resident, has been at the marina for over 10 years as a liveaboard, has no place to go and is asking for assistance.

Alexander Montalvo disputed an article on January 23 in the Independent Newspaper regarding insurance issues on the property. He stated the eviction is a hardhearted injustice.

David Kaiser has resided on various boats for 15 years on Redwood Creek. Although he as a single professional individual is able to move into an apartment, he stated others are less fortunate and may be homeless and suffer personal bankruptcy. He asked whether the City would be will to make some moorings available on a temporary basis to some people proving hardship.

Reginald Burgess thanked Council and stated that the issue is that the developer has the right to develop the property within State law. He further stated there is a question as to whether the marina is a liveaboard or a floating home marina. The marina should be closed under the terms of California Civil Code Chapter 800.71(f). The code provides for a hearing before City Council and a plan proposal for the change in use, which would allow sufficient time for the tenants to relocate. He stated the tenants have permanent rights as long as in conformance with their contract to continue permanent berth there.

Karen Sparks Burgess stated Mayor Ruskin's call to Mr. Batinovich was a positive move, however, additionally an agenda should be produced delineating the legal issues and how Mr. Batinovich plans to address the issues. She further stated that because this is not simply a real property issue, but a liveaboard floating home marina where the vessel is their home. The issue is not so much a 60 day extension of time, but that of dealing with the marina in compliance with Code Section 800.71 which then gives the developer the legal right to come through the process set up with the municipality. Displacement and relocation is very serious as most tenants work in the Peninsula area and have children and personal situations to consider. She stated that all interests of both the developer and the tenants should be delineated and considered.

Attorney Schricker stated that the dispute is solely a private matter between the marina tenants and the landlord. All correspondence the City has received proves no authority or reason for City involvement. A remote issue for City response as discussed, is a discretionary offer to facilitate mediation, which requires consent of both parties. The issue of whether the marina qualifies as a floating home marina must be determined in a court of law and not appropriate for the City to rule on.

Rudy Luca thanked City Council and staff for securing a new van at the Senior Center for the Fun After 50 Club and AARP. He stated he is happy to report the issue has been resolved in their favor with a better van, better equipped for disabled, a lift and capacity for two more passengers.

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/Howard to waive reading of the Consent Calendar except the ordinances by title, adopt the resolutions and the ordinances, and approve other items. Item 73E. was removed from the Consent Calendar to be considered at a later date. The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote by those present.

7.1   Minutes Approval

A. Approve the Minutes of the joint meeting of January 8, 2001 as submitted;

MINUTE ORDER 01-12

7.2   Motions

A. Motion to Acknowledge Receipt of and Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000;

MINUTE ORDER 01-13

B. Motion to Partially Accept the Sport Field Improvement Project at Taft Elementary School, and authorize the partial release of bonds and retention;

MINUTE ORDER 01-14

7.3   Section - Resolutions

A. RESOLUTION 14135 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF CITY-OWNED SURPLUS PROPERTY TO THE REDWOOD CITY POLICE ACTIVITIES LEAGUE;

B. RESOLUTION 14136 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO FIRST STEP RECYCLED WATER PROJECT - YEAR 2 (Environmental Water Management);

C. RESOLUTION 14137 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIAL COUNSEL SERVICES (Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP);

D. RESOLUTION 14138 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE REDWOOD SHORES PARKWAY WIDENING PHASE II PROJECT (Smith-Emery Company);

E. RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR THE 2000-2001 BIKE PATH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS THEREFOR;

This item was removed from the agenda for consideration at a later date.

F. RESOLUTION 14139 REQUESTING AND AUTHORIZING CALIFORNIA STATE OFFICE OF PROCUREMENT TO PURCHASE CERTAIN HEREIN DESCRIBED VEHICLES AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF PURCHASE DOCUMENTS THEREFOR;

7.4   Claims and Warrants

A. Approve warrants dated through January 29, 2001 and usual and necessary payments through February 5, 2001;

MINUTE ORDER 01-15

7:34 p.m. - CONVENE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CONCURRENT WITH COUNCIL

8. PUBLIC HEARING -

1. Public Hearing on the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for Downtown Retail/Cinema/Office Project;
   
   Mayor Ruskin explained the project has had several Planning Commission hearings dealing with the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); the scoping of the EIR; hearings about the Draft EIR; final decisions on the EIR; an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission to the Council, community meetings on November 27, December 4, 2000 and January 8, 2001 devoted solely to consideration of public comment on the subject. The Council, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee were all present for the three community meetings. Various issues were expressed and discussed in regards to traffic, parking, pedestrians, noise, alternatives, and esthetics and massing. Some expressed opposition while others expressed support in areas of concern.
   
   Planning and Redevelopment Manager Church explained a history of the project, the actual project itself, summarized the actions before the Council, the elements of the contract and agreement between the developer and the City including the proposed schedule. He stated the summary report is required due to the proposed conveyance of land, which is related to funds. It is designed as a disclosure document to provide a third party analysis of the benefits and costs in the agreement and if given a choice the summary report would be preferred over reading the DDA to obtain a general sense of the proposal. The conclusion from the report is that the Agency and the City are receiving more than the value of the land conveyed.
   
   Mayor Ruskin opened the public hearing.
   
   Elizabeth Travers stated recently United Artists lost a lawsuit because of limited seating availability for wheelchair bound persons and this developer has shown in slides that all theatres in the complex will have stadium seating. She further stated that Mr. Syufy stated except for a few identifiable successes, there would be no foreign films shown. She stated theatres make their profit with their food sales. A recent proposal for 10-20 story condominiums at Pete's Harbor has been eagerly discussed by some. If this is a positive concept, why can the theatre developer not use the air space and go up, developing housing downtown. She stated the proposed project could be reduced by 75%, to 1,000 seats, which is still one half of the present seats at the Century 12. She also cited traffic issues at the site.
   
   Memo Morantes, advice Chairperson of the Community Development Committee of the Redwood City/San Mateo Chamber of Commerce, representing 1,200 members, stated that the Chamber has studied the proposal, is in favor of the project and encouraged Council to move forward.
   
   Julia Feldstein stated she has the experience of the Glendale project and for her shopping and movies do go together. She further stated her concern relates to the decline of options in the downtown area where she cannot shop at a small retail store and participate in some activities important to her and her family. She stated she sees the project as a way on ensuring these options locally in the future.
   
   Gary Saunders spoke in favor of the project as well conceived. He stated the project would provide jobs for the members of Plumbers and Steamfitters Union #467. He stated the Union supports the project as presented and has received a commitment from Innisfree Ventures to hire from his union.
   
   Alan Bygdnes (Audrey Lehnan yielded time) used overheads to summarize his alternate parking lot proposal. The summary slide showed the following comparison:
   
   

   	Current Proposal	Alternate Proposal
   Cost:	$8,850,000.00	0
   Annual oper./maint. costs:	$200,000.00	0
   Funds of current plan income:	0	$8.6M
   Total annual income:	$21,000.00	$ 848,000.00
   Annual taxable income	$826,000.00	$1,674,000.00

   
   
   Steven Howard made a comparison to Cathedral City where a theatre project is to be used for revitalization. In that proposal, the City is giving the developer the land, handing a check to them for $5,000,000.00 to please come, so that in the long haul it will be a better result. He stated that if parking were an issue the developer would be addressing that concern and that traffic is not a deterrent to business. The design at this point is merely a mass at this time. His vision for Saturday morning is having people stroll through the Farmers' Market in a closed Broadway Street, walking into stores or the new park and then dining at the new cafes before taking in a matinee.
   
   William Nack of the Building and Construction Trades Council stated they continue to support the project and is pleased to report that they have received the commitment in writing from Innisfree Ventures to use their highly skilled men and women to construct the project. He stated it makes sense to give the future residents of the Franklin Street Project someplace to walk to rather than driving their cars elsewhere. He stated he looks forward to working with the general contractor to provide a quality project so Redwood City can look at it with great pride.
   
   Brian Douglas asked how much the parking structure will cost and whether there will be a net to the City or a cost to the City.
   
   Rudy Luca stated he opposes the project. Although he appreciates the interest in revitalizing the downtown, he does not feel it is the answer. Safety is his concern for both adults and children and that the location is best used for something else. He stated the majority of the citizens are against the project because it will not revitalize the downtown and the retail stores it brings will not be to their liking. His questions regarded the $300,000.00 per year agreement with Sequoia Station and asked what the developer will get from this project.
   
   Ann Marie Sulzbach stated she is not against development but that the 20-plex proposal seems overkill in developing downtown Redwood City. She stated that every time she has frequented the Century 12 theatre she has encountered a traffic problem. She further stated the need for a theatre with foreign films and quality restaurants. Her questions are which quality shops and restaurants have committed themselves to being in a town with a 20-plex theatre.
   
   John Anagnostou stated this is the right project for downtown Redwood City and the majority of people who do business in the downtown support it. He stated he has done his own research and has looked at theatre projects over the many months since the project has been proposed. He stated that he has discovered the projects have revitalized all downtowns that were dead for years, because it has also created a stimulus to all retail businesses during both daytime and nighttime hours. He further stated that the project would have a synergistic effect for the businesses and local community at large. He agreed that the project will be such a success that the only concern is that it be done right.
   
   Merrily Robinson stated that her opinion is that she wants to go downtown. If the traffic is difficult in one area, she suggested taking different routes. She stated she would like to see some art films to add to the culture. She continued with safety concerns and requested a drop off safety zone.
   
   M/S Hartnett/Howard to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote by those present.
   
   8:45-9:00 p.m. - Recess
   
   City Manager Everett responded to questions posed in the public hearing.
   
   

   1. What is the cost of the parking structure?

   A rule of thumb throughout the industry is $15,000.-20,000. Per space. The cost has been calculated using the upper limit conservative estimate for a 1,000-space garage for a total of $20,000,000.00.

   2. Will the City make money or lose money on that?

   We hope to make a little money, we believe we might break even, the least likelihood is to lose money.

   3. Is it true that at Sequoia Station, the developer gets back $300,000.00 a year?

   Yes, that is true. It is a deal that was struck in 1992 or 1993.

   4. A follow-up question is what does the developer get back from this deal?

   The developer gets nothing back from this deal. There is no Agency and/or City Council General Fund money going back into the deal.

   5. What are the names of the shops going into the structure?

   Until the developer has a development agreement, he is unable to sign a lease with any shop owner, especially any national chain. He has spoken with many of them, there is lots of interest, but not until a development agreement is in hand from the City can the developer seek signed leases.

   6. The separate funding alternative proposal for the garage.

   The structure of the garage agreement must be put in context with the entire deal, not just the garage. The finances must cover the entire financial deal.

   7. If the developer must spend more than the $20,000,000.00 for the parking lot, will the City pay the override amount?

   If it is over that amount, the City pays the difference, if the cost is less, the City receives the difference.

   Tim Kelly of Keyser Marston addressed the alternate financial option. He stated for the project to move forward there must be a 1,000-space parking garage or the project is not adequately parked. After long discussions with the developer, there is a total amount of money concluded to be a fair consideration of $20,000,000.00. The alternate proposal presented allowed for the developer to pay $8.6M for the land and build a 1,000-space garage. This proposal is beyond the financial parameters. The alternative is one where more consideration for land but less consideration for the garage is proposed. The structure presented to the City is one where the City owns the garage and the land underneath it, maximizing the private investment in the garage.
   
   Council Comments:
   
   Council Member Hartnett clarified that the parking lot would be a public parking structure.
   
   Council Member Pierce requested more information regarding art films or foreign language films. Tim Kelly responded that the business is that of showing first run commercial movies, however, with 20 screens there is an opportunity at different times of the year to fill in with art form films.
   
   Council Member Jordan commented that she had perused the San Jose Mercury News movie guide listing several times and Century theatres throughout the Bay Area had no art films listed.
   
   Vice Mayor Claire thanked Mr. Bygdnes for his presentation. He referenced the recession in 1991 when it was extremely difficult to bring development forward such as Sequoia Station.
   
   Council Member Howard commented that the parking policy has been to charge, not so as to make a profit for the City but for maintenance of the lots.
   
   Council Member Jordan stated she would be voting against the project although she was very excited about it from the beginning because of the concept of other activities being accessible prior to going to a movie. She further stated that San Mateo's 12-theatre complex would provide a more charming and sophisticated experience. She stated she would have rather seen a visioning process for the community rather than the theatre being the driving force in the downtown revitalization process. Council Member Jordan stated that unless the DDA were amended to provide fewer screens she could not support the project.
   
   M/S Hartnett/Claire to adopt:
   
   

   RESOLUTION 14140 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY ACCEPTING AND APPROVING SUMMARY REPORT REGARDING PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DOWNTOWN RETAIL-CINEMA-OFFICE AND PARKING PROJECT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW;
   
   The motion passed by a majority roll call vote, with Council Member Jordan voting no; Council Member Ira absent.

   Council Member Hartnett stated he was not satisfied with the DDA as currently written. He requested amendments as provided to the City Clerk and specified in the motion below.
   
   Vice Mayor Claire stated he will vote in favor because it is a good project for the City, more residential is needed but the project will bring traffic to downtown at needed times.
   
   Council Member Hartnett stated the DDA as presented did not adequately address a number of the public concerns with the project. Some of the amendments pertain to design, which gives the City more flexibility in terms of design review to make clear that the project guidelines submitted are "guidelines". The review of the actual architectural plans submitted will proceed in a way that provides flexibility for both the Architectural Review Committee and the Council to vary from the specifics of the project guidelines in order to obtain an appropriate quality. Concerns regarding the maintenance of the inside of the premises are also addressed in the amendments. The concerns of traffic and parking are addressed by clearly delineating management plans that are legally enforceable. The final subject of the amendments is regarding use permits where the City holds a fair amount of discretion with respect to the conditions the City requires for the applicant to obtain a use permit. There will be many issues addressed in this regard including security, public safety, and garbage disposal to provide better rights of enforcement.
   
   Council Member Hartnett continued with the merits of the project with appreciation of Mr. Bygdnes' and others' presentations and communications from concerned citizens in evaluating the concept and details of the project. Economically, the project involves transferring land in the approximately value of $4.4M in return for $20M. The $20M will provide a public parking structure and will allow a retail/cinema development to go forward downtown. The last public parking structure for the benefit of all of downtown is one that the City is paying for, not a developer, and is a public parking structure to serve anybody wanting to use it. This parking structure would also be a public parking structure to serve anybody wanting to use it and it is integral not just for the retail/cinema project, but to support the entirety of downtown. He stated, he thinks the City should move forward, not just for revitalizing downtown, but because it fits within a vision for the entire City - a place of opportunity and choices.
   
   Council Member Pierce stated that the DDA sets out the guidelines between the City and the developer and that this project involves one block in the downtown, not the entire downtown area. She further stated that there are still approval processes involving permits, the Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission still have purview over final plans. The traffic concerns can be dealt with now by exploring other routes and that because there are concerns does not mean it is not an appropriate project.
   
   Council Member Howard stated she supports the retail/cinema project and that it is the best available solution in the revitalization of the downtown. Concerns from the public have been heard regarding safety, esthetics, parking and best use of the property, and she promised the Council would be diligent in following up on the concerns. Monitoring and mitigation will continue throughout and beyond the planning and building process. She stated the vision is for this project to be the heart of downtown.
   
   Council Member Jordan clarified that her opposition to the interim urgency ordinance concerned private property owners. She further stated that she believes if the project goes through that there are enough people watching it to ensure that architecturally it will look good.
   
   Mayor Ruskin stated that after such an extraordinary economy the downtown is still sleepy. He further stated his conclusion that a project with enough impact must be brought in to fully revitalize the downtown. The cinema has the potential to bring thousands of people to the downtown resulting in the retail stores on the ground floor having foot traffic. Much has been said about the cinema industry and he is convinced that the Syufy cinema company is very strong. The second major reason for the project is that this will involve no public funds. The third key reason is traffic. The traffic coming to the attraction will be moving in the opposite direction of commute traffic. He stated he tested the traffic flow from Veterans Boulevard down every route possible toward the proposed site and discovered both plentiful routes and emptiness of roads. He also tested the proposed parking areas and found plentiful parking available not to mention public transportation. He stated there are concerns that downtown Redwood City may have a "cookie cutter" project. He stated that we must ensure that the project has exemplary architecture, design and signage; and the Architecture Review Committee is committed to this and Council has final approval. Although safety is a concern, he stated the critical issue to be the mix of retail. He stated his concern for seniors and transportation may be addressed by use of shuttles. The Police Department states there is not an issue ensuring safety in the area. He stated that for all the above reasons he would be supporting the resolution.
   
   M/S Hartnett/Claire to approve the following amendments to the DDA:
   
   
   1. In the first paragraph of Section 501, sixth line, the word "substantially" shall be inserted between the words "excellence" and "consistent".
      
      
   2. In the last line of the second paragraph of Section 501, the word "reasonable" shall be deleted.
      
      
   3. The following new paragraphs shall be added at the end of Section 501;
      
      The Developer agrees to participate in a traffic and parking management program which will be developed and agreed upon between the City and the Developer within ninety days after the Effective Date.
      
      The Developer agrees to furnish the Agency and/or the City with information concerning prospective tenants with which the Developer plans to enter into leases of space in the Project and, if requested by the Agency and/or City, developer shall meet and confer with the Agency and/or the City concerning the tenants proposed by Developer for the Project, provided, however, that Developer shall retain sole discretion to determine the tenants which shall be leased space within the Project (except with respect to the Cinema Lease, which is subject to the provisions herein above set forth in this Section 501).
      
      The leases of space within the Project shall contain provisions requiring the tenant:
      
      
      1. to maintain its premises in a neat, clean, orderly and good condition, consistent with other first class retail and restaurant operations in comparable downtown districts,
         
         
      2. to cooperate with the City in a reasonable manner to promote and publicize the City's parking and traffic management program for downtown Redwood City, and
         
         
      3. to comply with any use permit conditions to the extent applicable to any specific premises within the Project.
         
         
   4. In the first line of Section 502 B, the words "at least" shall be inserted between the words "to" and "the".
      
      
   5. The following new paragraph shall be added at the end of Section 503;
      
      

      In accordance with the schedule set forth in the Schedule of Performance, the Developer and City shall enter into a Development Agreement incorporating the conditions and approvals relating to the development, construction and occupancy of the Project and the entitlements obtained by the Developer for such development, construction and occupancy.

   AND ADOPT

   CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 14141 OF THE COUNCIL AND RD-01-61 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY CERTIFYING REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON, AND APPROVING EXECUTION OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR, THE DOWNTOWN RETAIL-CINEMA-OFFICE AND PARKING PROJECT, MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDENTIFIED MITIGATION MEASURES RELATING TO THE PROJECT;

   The motion passed by a majority roll call vote with Council Member Jordan voting no; Council Member Ira absent.

   MINUTE ORDER 01-16

9. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST - None

10. STAFF REPORTS - None

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None

12. BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES REPORTS - None

13. CLOSED SESSION - None

14. ADJOURNMENT - 10:23 p.m.

M/S Hartnett/Howard to adjourn until the meeting of February 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote by those present.





Respectfully submitted,

Patricia S. Howe, CMC

City Clerk

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