Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2013-08-21MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM -100 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2013 6:30 P.M. Call to Order. Time: 6:32 p.m. 2. Roll Call. Present: Councilmembers Garbarino, Gupta, Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto and Mayor Gonzalez. Absent: None. * Councilmember Addiego arrived at 6:38 p.m. 3. Public Comments — comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. 4. Agenda Review. Following the recommendation of City Manager Nagel, the City Council decided to reverse the order of items S and 7 in order to hear item 7 first. STUDY SESSION 7. Supervisorial District Mapping. Simon Kwong, an intern for the City Manager's Office and IT department introduced the item. In November 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by Asian and Latino voters that challenged the system as discriminatory, San Mateo County residents voted for and approved Measure B which would require Supervisors to be elected by district rather than the current at-large system. As a result, the Board of Supervisors formed a nine- member District Lines Committee to take public comments on current and future boundaries. The committee is comprised of both public officials and private citizens. Public officials include Supervisors Tissier and Slocum, Daly City Councilmember Sal Torres and East Palo Alto Councilmember Martinez. According to the process followed, the final map selection would be made on October 8 and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in November. While developing the maps the following criteria were to be followed: communities of interest, following visible boundaries, compactness and contiguity, continuity in office, population growth and preserving the core of existing districts. The City of South San Francisco sits on both District 1 and District 5 with about 60% in District 1 and 40% in District 5. Politically speaking, South San Francisco's interests are split between 2 districts. The city would face significant challenges when seeking adequate and consistent representation at the county level. If lines were left unchanged, South San Francisco would be tasked with additional efforts to coordinate with 2 supervisors who would likely have conflicting interests. Economically, the supervisorial split impacts the city; the affluent communities of South San Francisco are in District 5 while the low to middle income earners are in District 1. Culturally as minority groups flourish along El Camino Real, the current supervisorial split dilutes their vote influence. Locally, County funds and grants to South San Francisco schools, churches, hospitals, clinics, transportation, and land use planning are also impacted by the district split. The Asian Law Caucus promoted the Community Unity Map at the East Palo Alto meeting on August 8, which Simon Kwong and Economic Development Coordinator Mike Lappen attended. This map would keep South San Francisco divided as well as splitting the cities of Millbrae, Burlingame and San Bruno. This map did not follow natural or man -made boundaries, District 2 was neither contiguous nor compact and it would not preserve the core of existing districts. At the same meeting, the Republican representative promoted the Republican B Map which would unite South San Francisco, incorporate Pacifica into District 5, add Hillsborough to District 3 and split Burlingame. This plan would somewhat follow city borders, was awkwardly contiguous but not compact and would not preserve the core of existing districts. Option 1 developed by South San Francisco would take Hillsborough, portions of San Bruno, Sunshine Gardens, Westborough and Winston Manor out of District 1. Option 2 included all of San Bruno but would require a bigger sacrifice from South San Francisco in order to meet the ideal population requirement as mandated by San Mateo County. Portions of Westborough and Winston Manor would have to be given up under this map. With the Preferred Plan, Burlingame and Millbrae would be kept whole while uniting most of South San Francisco. Ideally, all of South San Francisco would be kept together but due to population requirements for districts, a portion of Westborough would have to remain with District 5. By selecting to go with the Preferred Option, most of South San Francisco would be united to advocate more effectively on the county level. Politically, South San Francisco would have more clout in keeping the attention of a Supervisor. With the way the maps were currently drawn, South San Francisco was not competitive enough to produce a District Supervisor. Culturally, populations and businesses that reside around El Camino Real would be more accurately represented and would not be split by supervisorial lines. Economically, the natural economic spectrum of the city would return. Locally, hospitals, clinics, churches, schools and other services would get the County holding and attention that they deserve. Mayor Pro Tem. Matsumoto was looking for support from council to go ahead and submit a map, to present this in front of the Supervisors and the Committee and thus, allow the Council to lobby for their map. Along with City Manager Nagel, she met with Assemblyman Kevin Mullin who signed off on this plan. They also reached out to Supervisor Pine. She clarified that there was nothing to preclude them from submitting as many maps as they would wish. She had lined up 4 out of 9 votes SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 21, 2013 MINUTES PAGE 2 but needed Council's assistance in order to secure the 6 votes needed to ensure success. The City of South San Francisco is the 4th largest city in the county but has no political clout to match its size. In response to Mayor Gonzalez's query on their best option, Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto clarified that it was the Preferred Map. Mayor Gonzalez thanked Simon Kwong, Economic Development Coordinator Mike Lappen and especially Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto for working on this important issue while representing the city. In response to Councilmember Gupta's inquiry into the methods of evaluation, Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto clarified that the District Advisory Committee would look at all the maps submitted and would then make their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. This process was obviously political since there were vested interests. Councilmember Addiego was overjoyed that they found a way to keep most of the city intact. In response to his query on how District 5 was made whole, Simon Kwong stated that they mostly picked up population in Pacifica. Thus, District 5 would become most of Pacifica. Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto advised that they should anticipate push back from Pacifica. Councilmember Garbarino stated that this would finally and realistically give the city a real seat at the table. Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto added that this was a very convoluted process but that with this plan they had managed to keep most neighborhoods, businesses and hospitals intact. Councilmember Gupta noted that the city's size would finally be beneficial for political decisions. Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto concluded that this was South San Francisco's first opportunity to bid for a supervisorial seat. Councilmember Addiego interjected to add that this was with the exception of Jackie Speier. The City Council reached consensus to submit the Preferred Map. 6. Discussion related to PG &E Energy Savings Programs. Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer Brian McMinn wanted to introduce two specific programs that he would try to keep separate. He noted that this was a collaborative effort. These programs were being brought before Council due to the availability of rebates. Some funding had already been allocated under the CIP for the HVAC improvements. Additional funds would be required to implement these programs as proposed. Staff proposed using undesignated General Reserves as a form of investment which would be paid back in the form of energy savings, Consultant Susan McCue wished to acknowledge their partners in the Energy Watch program, which is a collaboration between the San Mateo County CCAG and PG &E. Susan Wright with County Energy Watch, Kathy Lavezzo with PG &E and Phil Vuttel with Ecology Action which is the energy consultant for Energy Watch, were all in attendance. One of the great aspects of the program is that SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 21, 2013 MINUTES PAGE 3 Energy Watch would conduct a comprehensive energy audit of city facilities at no cost to the city. Energy Watch worked collaboratively with the Public Works and Finance departments, as well as the rest of city staff. One of the barriers public agencies faced was the upfront cost for energy improvements and PG &E had stepped in to address that with on-bill financing. PG &E would loan the city the upfront cost of about $920,000 to install all the energy upgrades, apply a rebate and then the city would be paying back the cost of the energy upgrades over a 10 year payback period. There would be no increase in the PG &E bills but the city would benefit from energy efficiency in the city's facilities and would realize $134,000 per year in energy savings. In working on this, staff discovered that there was a great need to replace the HVAC units at MSB and since they would be replacing the roof, it would be a good time to replace those units. Since they would not be eligible for on -bill financing, the city could use General Fund reserves to cover their cost. In response to Mayor Gonzalez's query on the total amount being requested from the General Fund reserves, Assistant Public Works Director McMinn stated that $250,000 would be needed. In regards to Mayor Gonzalez's request for clarification on the use of LED street lights, PG &E representative Lavezzo stated that they would do an audit of all the street lights and that they could always adjust the wattage according to the city's guidance. In response to further inquiry by the Mayor on the exclusion of the Community Learning Center and Grand Avenue Library from the program, Consultant McCue noted that they did not meet the program's criteria. In regards to the Mayor's suggestion that the Grand Avenue Library be included in the program, Assistant Public Works Director McMinn clarified that they were capped at $1 billion under the program. He further advised that if this program proved to be successful then they could begin other energy efficiency improvements. Finance Director Steele added that nothing would preclude the Council from directing staff to bring back additional HVAC improvements at other facilities. Staff wanted to get these improvements packaged together and before the Council because of the rebate deadlines. Thus, their priority was to take advantage of the available savings. In response to Councilmember Addiego's questioning of the long payback for the Main Library improvements, Assistant Public Works Director McMinn explained that the equipment there, more specifically the boiler, is old with high maintenance costs. The energy savings would not be as high as some of the other facilities but by packaging them with more efficient units the improvements could get done under these programs. PG &E representative Lavezzo added that this resulted in blended payback. Phil Vuttel, of Ecology Action, stated that they were essentially agents of Energy Watch. He explained that many cities have tried to get the quick paybacks which may make sense on paper but after talking to Building Maintenance Supervisor Enrico Reyes and realizing that the city makes $40,000 per year in service calls for the MSB HVAC units, the payback would only be worthwhile if bundled together with other units to leverage the savings. Mayor Pro Tern. Matsumoto offered a word of caution due to her experience with this issue as a member of the Conference Center Authority which also considered this program. After some research done by the CFO, they found it was not economically feasible and would be an unwise SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 21, 2013 MINUTES PAGE 4 investment. She advised that the Council should talk to the Conference Center Facility Director and the CFO before making any decisions on this matter. Finance Director Steele assured Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto that staff would look into this. In response to Councilmember Addiego's query on any state mandates for this program, PG &E representative Lavezzo clarified that all PG &E customers are billed a public purpose fee which goes into a fund that allowed public agencies to take advantage of something that had already been paid for. PG &E's partnerships with CCAG and San Mateo County Energy Watch allowed them to provide more lucrative rebates to cities and encouraged cities to take steps to become more energy efficient, Councilmember Gupta stated that he was fully supportive of energy efficiency upgrades but considering that the savings estimates were based on engineering estimates and that including the cost of investment, these improvements would cost the city the same amount of money as if they had not made improvements; therefore, he was concerned that the city would be locked in a 10 year contract whether or not those savings were actually realized. PG &E representative Lavezzo agreed that they could not guarantee the savings if their usage were to go up. Phil Vuttel prepared the engineering estimates and PG &E would also do an estimate before and after the installation. The payments would be adjusted to reflect the calculations made in the post - installation estimate. Councilmember Garbarino supported Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto's suggestion to discuss this issue with the Conference Center Facility Director and CFO. PG &E representative Lavezzo stated that the City of Menlo Park considered this program at their meeting on the previous night. Assistant Public Works Director McMinn continued onto the next program, the replacement of older street lights with LED street lights in the city. He advised that the cost of fixtures had come down, the reliability had improved and there were rebates available to the city. PG &E could not guarantee that the rebates would be available beyond the end of 2014. The estimated cost would be about $1.8 million with an immediate rebate of $300,000 which would be received upon the conversion. The city would realize about $200,000 in annual savings and the payback would occur in about 7 years. Due to the questionable availability of rebates going forward, staff proposed that the Council should consider using General Fund reserves as an investment in energy savings. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto's concern that staff was now advising Council to use General Fund reserves for energy savings investments, Finance Director Steele explained that the city had $24 million in reserves earning 0.5% on investment. The first program would return 8.9% on their investment and the LED street light projects would return 13.4% on their investment. He advised that this was a good investment when looking at the energy savings, greenhouse gas reductions, savings in maintenance and cost savings which would more than make up for the loss of reserves. He further noted that if the city was concerned with the long payback, they could invest $1.5 million and realize the savings immediately. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 21, 2013 MINUTES PAGE 5 In an attempt to alleviate Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto's concerns relating to the use of General Fund reserves that they expected to use for the relocation of the Caltrain station, City Manager Nagel explained that the equipment was much needed and that any funds used would come back. Considering the amount of reserves, he did not believe that they had to choose one or the other and could still afford to complete the Caltrain station tunnel project. Councilmember Gupta addressed the fact that the city has a target for greenhouse gas reductions and that these programs would be instrumental in reaching that target. In response to Councilmember Gupta's inquiry in the credits, PG &E representative Lavezzo clarified that PMC, the consultant firm that was preparing PG &E's Climate Action Plan, were very comfortable with the assumptions made and taking the CO2 reductions and making them a part of the overall CO2 reductions would play a critical role in reaching the 15% reduction by 2020. These were all based on estimates made available by the best science at the time. As part of the discussion on whether or not to move forward with the LED street lights, Councilmember Addiego was not willing to walk away from that type of investment that offered the city payback within 7 years. He highlighted the fact that only 3 or 4 city vehicles were not running on gas and questioned where they were heading if they did not make some of these upgrades. In response to Councilmember Gupta's query on the need for training for the LED street lights, both City Manager Nagel and Assistant Public Works Director McMinn assured Council that since LED lights had already been adopted for traffic lights, city employees had already familiarized themselves with this technology. Assistant Public Works Director explained that the contracts and agreements to enter into the programs, as well as the information the Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto requested, would be brought before them in the near future. 5. Reorganization of the Economic and Community Development Department. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn explained that the way the department was currently organized there was an accumulation of divisions or functions. Under the Economic Development Director there are 3 primary divisions: Planning, Building, and the Housing and Economic Development Division. Some of the Building Division's core services include implementing the State's AB32 (Greenhouse Gases) and SB 375 (Regional Targets) objectives and the City's CAP/PMP policies and collaborating with the Planning Division, providing ADA oversight and the Airport Noise Insulation Program. In regards to one of the Planning Division's core services, Sustainable South San Francisco, Assistant City Manager Van Duyn was requesting funds from the Council to replace the RDA funding that had been ceased due to the dissolution of the RDA. City Manager Nagel and Finance Director Steele clarified that there would be pass through dollars from the dissolution of the RDA. Thus, this funding would be categorized as operating expenses and not General Fund dollars. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn explained that they were suggesting the replacement of consultant SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 21, 2013 MINUTES PAGE 6 RDA dollars used extensively during the operation of the RDA dollars. The department did not devote many full time employees since there were only 3 people devoted to the RDA in the ECD department. He then returned to the Planning Division's core services, more specifically the Parking District Administration, which he believed deserved funding since it is a core service. Staff was looking for the approval of 2 full -time positions to replace 2 consultants, since they believed that the work being done by the 2 consultants was valuable and deserved some assurance and permanence. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn continued with the core services of Housing and Economic Development which included: housing and loan programs, social services, Successor Agency administration and managing 17 residential and 32 commercial properties. All the inclusionary housing programs that were previously established were tracked by this division. When the RDA was dissolved, the division took on all the low- moderate income housing but without the tax increment funds that were being received under the RDA. Thus, the housing had to be managed to the point where it paid for itself. In response to a query by Councilmember Addiego he reiterated that they were managing 17 residential, 32 commercial and 66 below- market -rate units. Responding to Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto's inquiry into the ownership of the properties, Assistant City Manager Van Duyn clarified that the city owned and managed the residential properties. The dissolution of the RDA did not include funding for the 2 consultants previously mentioned. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn was requesting former redevelopment funds amounting to $230,000 that were not in the budget and included promotional and consultant costs. He also mentioned that the requested Associate Planner position in the Planning Division had been frozen for some time. For the past 7 -8 years most of the reductions in the budget of the Department of Economic and Community Development, related to consultant services. However, at the same time they became very aggressive in the pursuit of grants. The Sustainability Coordinator is the grants coordinator. Consultant McCue had collaborated with other departments and through the Sustainability Division initiated about $2.8 million in grant awards. In order to be eligible for these grants, the entire base supporting planning had to be done. Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto raised some concerns about the expansion of staff without a business development plan that Councilmember Gupta had requested a while back. She clarified that a marketing plan was not a business development plan. Consultant Sanchez opined that the marketing plan and business development plan were the same thing. His approach to a marketing plan was not simply advertising and brochures. To him the marketing plan was a much deeper analysis of the city which looked at the current situation, including the city's businesses and residents, opportunities, strengths, weaknesses and ways to address them. The next step would be the development of a strategy. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto disagreed and stated that it was not about weaknesses but rather a vision and way to get there. She referenced a questionnaire that was developed and fielded in the downtown area by some of the city's interns and Economic Development Coordinator Mike Lappen in order to pinpoint who the customers are of the downtown businesses and what would make them come downtown more often. She did not understand why something as simple as this could not have been done by the department. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn took the liberty of going back and looking at where the SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 21, 2013 MINUTES PAGE 7 department was with their activities. From 2012 to 2013 permit activity including building permits, sales taxes, TOT taxes, property taxes and parking taxes all increased. Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto, Councilmember Addiego and Councilmember Garbarino requested that staff update the Council more frequently with some of their business developments. Assistant City Manager Van Duyn's response was that many of the initial real estate conversations they have with businesses interested in coming to South San Francisco, are confidential in nature and that was why the Council was not updated until something materialized from those conversations. Mayor Pro Tern Matsumoto stated that they did not need the names of the businesses but rather more general updates on the interest shown for city owned properties. She had met with Assemblymember Kevin Mullin who replaced Assemblymember Jerry Hill on the Select Committee for Biotechnology, and indicated that there were funds available that could be taken advantage of Councilmember Gupta suggested that staff did not need to divulge information that could be harmful to their negotiations but could seek the expertise and assistance of the City Council who could use their industry ties to assist in finalizing potential agreements. Mayor Gonzalez had seen more business in the city and an increased flow of information from the department of Economic and Community Development and understood that other Councilmembers needed more specific information. He was satisfied with the city's direction and requested that more information be given to the City Council. The City Council supported this budget amendment as long as the information requested was submitted for their review. City Manager Nagel informed them that this item would be formally brought before them in the near future. 8. Peninsula Division Executive Committee 2013 -14 Officers Ballot. Councilmember Garbarino stated that he could confidently support all the individuals on the ballot even though they were running unopposed. He served with each of them in various committees and they were all active in the division. Motion- Councilmember Garbarino /Second- Councilmember Addiego: unanimously approved by voice vote. 9. Adjournment. Being no further business, Mayor Gonzalez adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Submitted: roved: Isl Krista J. Martinelli, City Clerk reuro Gonzalez, or City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 21, 2013 MINUTES PAGE 8