Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2019-10-22 @6:00MINUTES sANSPECIAL MEETING ti CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO c411FOR �P Meeting held at: CITY HALL CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM 400 GRAND AVENUE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2019 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Addiego, Nagales, and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Garbarino and Mayor Matsumoto. AGENDA REVIEW None. PUBLIC COMMENTS — comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. None. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 1. Study session regarding update on new, conceptual Downtown Parking Garage. (Heather Ruiz, Management Analyst I) Management Analyst Ruiz presented the study session to City Council. She stated that in December 2014, the City received a grant through the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) to study current and future parking needs within the downtown Priority Development Area (PDA), as well as potential impacts of new development spurred by the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The consultants conducting the study, CDM Smith (Consultant), reviewed existing parking conditions, and forecasted parking demand in the short- term (three-year period) and long-term (ten-year period). The parking study found that by 2026, an additional 228 parking spaces in the downtown would be needed during the lunch hour (12:00 to 1:00 p.m.) and dinner rush (6:00 to 8:00 p.m.). She advised the study determined that additional parking would still be needed to accommodate future demand in the downtown, particularly between Maple and Linden Avenues. Management Analyst Ruiz introduced Matt Davis from Watry Design, Inc. Mr. Davis advised staff narrowed down the garage design options to the following. • Option A, the base design, which included a partially below -grade parking structure under what is now the City Hall parking lot. The estimated construction cost is $31 million. 378 stalls. • Option B, the base design plus park, which includes the partially below -grade structure described above, with the addition of a rooftop park. The estimated construction cost is $33 million. 334 stalls. • Option C, the base design plus parking and office building, which improves upon Options A and B above by spanning the City Hall superblock from Maple to Walnut Avenues along Miller Avenue and including the below grade parking, a rooftop park, and a new, larger office building to replace the existing Annex Office Building. The estimated construction cost is $58 million. 370 stalls. • Option D, an alternative design that would align the new garage along Maple Avenue, from Grand Avenue to Miller Avenue. The new garage would encompass a lobby or office at the corner of Grand Avenue and Maple Avenue, which would allow active uses on Grand Avenue to continue. The estimated construction cost is $47 million. 326 stalls. Councilmember Addiego inquired whether the offices referenced on option C were private use or city use. Economic and Community Development Deputy Director Selander compared the project with the City of Napa's recent Civic Campus lease where they get a ground lease and lease back the office space. Councilmember Addiego stated that before council voted on a path, he was concerned on the iconic impact of City Hall from some of the scenarios. He recommended the parking project to blend with the historic architecture from City Hall. Mayor Matsumoto and Vice Mayor Garbarino agreed with Councilmember Addiego's recommendation. Management Analyst Ruiz explained where the parking rates needed to be in order to reach the $30 Million bond or in order to partner with a private partner to do a public private partnership. She would also ask for Council's direction on the options presented. Council recommended that staff not pursue a public private partnership. Councilmember Addiego stated he envisioned a Union Square style setup where the low side was where you enter and exit which would be Grand Avenue. He believed it would balance the Civic Center if done correctly. City Council directed staff to begin the process of gradually increasing the Downtown parking rates in order to issue the $30 Million bond. 2. Study session regarding a potential measure to be approved by voters to levy a parcel tax on vacant properties. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) City Attorney Woodruff stated the City Council expressed interest in placing a vacant property parcel tax measure on the March 2020 ballot. The report was intended to provide more detailed information about how a tax of this kind would work. In addition, the report outlined important discussion topics for the City Council so that they could provide further direction to staff. He SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 2 defined a vacant parcel tax was a tax which would discourage property owners from keeping properties vacant. The City of Oakland recently enacted a vacant property tax. In Oakland, city officials cited significant vacancy of property, including residential and commercial land and buildings left unused for long periods of time, as a basis for proposing the tax. The City of Oakland noted that properties were kept vacant, undeveloped, and unoccupied by any legal use and therefore depriving the community of the economic opportunity and housing that could be provided if those properties were put into use. In addition, the City of Oakland rationalized that when properties were kept in a vacant state they have negative impacts on the community, including encouraging blight, crime, and illegal dumping. City Attorney Woodruff added that the City of Vancouver, Canada, also adopted a similar tax. In both cases, the intent of the tax was to discourage behavior that had negative consequences on the public by increasing the economic cost of engaging in the harmful behavior. That use of the taxing power had a long tradition. He advised that the tax could apply to single-family residential property, but it was not required to be. Since the tax was intended, in part, to address property types that the City Council thinks had a disproportionately high rate of vacancy with negative effects on the community, single-family residential or any other property type would not have to be potentially subject to the tax if the City Council felt that vacancy rates were normal or not problematic. City Attorney Woodruff advised that the tax applied to all vacant property throughout the City of Oakland, including undeveloped property and individual residential units -in other words, both undeveloped property and developed property that were not in active use. It also included multi- family residential properties. The City of Oakland was concerned with property being left undeveloped, existing residential units not being occupied, and property owners not actively seeking to tenant commercial spaces. The City of Vancouver was primarily concerned with existing residential units not being occupied. Under Oakland's Measure W, a parcel was classified as "vacant" if it was in use less than fifty (50) days during a calendar year. The City of Oakland tax rate was established as $6,000 per parcel for residential, non-residential, and undeveloped land, and $3,000 per parcel for condominiums, duplexes or townhouses, as well as for parcels with ground floor commercial vacancies. Staff made recommendations on essential items, as well as requesting input from the Council on other pertinent topics. Note that the staff recommendations below do not constitute an exhaustive list, and additional topics are likely germane to those listed. Staff was seeking direction on the following questions: 1. Does City Council want to place a vacant parcel tax on the March, 2020, ballot? 2. The proceeds of a special tax must be placed in a special fund and may be used only for the purposes specified in the measure. Staff suggested that the tax proceeds be used to fund loans to property owners for (a) improvements to structures, or (b) to address property conditions that would assist in making properties marketable and/or developable, both areas having a nexus to the blighted condition being addressed. 3. What is the applicable tax rate? Staff suggests a rate of $10/square foot of vacant built space and $0.10/square foot for undeveloped land. The City Council could include a cap on the total amount of tax. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 3 4. The tax could apply to all types of property that meet the definition of "vacant," as established in the ordinance. Single-family residential, multifamily residential, ground -floor retail, developed commercial property, and undeveloped land could all be subject to the tax, depending upon which types of vacant properties the City Council considered to be problematic for the community. Staff suggested that the tax apply to (a) developed but vacant commercial property and (b) properties with vacant ground floor commercial space. City and Successor Agency property would be exempt. To what property should the tax apply? 5. How long does a property need to be unused to classify it as "vacant"? Staff suggested that a property be classified as "vacant" if it was unoccupied for eight (8) or more months during a calendar year. 6. Should the new parcel tax include penalties? Staff suggests a five thousand dollars ($5,000) fine for knowingly submitting a false certification form. Note that such penalty was tied to a self - certification method for vacancies. 7. There may be circumstances in which there are reasons outside of the property owner's control for the vacancy of property. Should the ordinance recognize some of those conditions as the basis for exceptions? Staff suggested exceptions for (a) significant financial hardship of the owner, (b) non-financial hardship of the owner (e.g. family medical situation that prevents active property management), or (c) exceptional circumstances that limit the development or marketing of property (e.g. environmental contamination). Property owners would have to apply for an exception at the time of submitting their self -certification form. Decisions on exception applications would be subject to appeal. City Attorney Woodruff advised that the deadline to get the measure placed on ballot for the March 2020 Election would be December 6, 2019, meaning staff would have to take the measure to Council for approval on the second meeting of November 2019. PUBLIC COMMENT Mina Richardson, resident of South San Francisco spoke against the measure stating it was unfair to compare the City of Oakland to South San Francisco. Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood recommended that Council target just ground floor retail that had been persistently vacant and blight for a long time. Councilmember Nagales requested clarification why staff chose eight (8) months to classify a vacant property. City Attorney Woodruff stated it was the recommendation of Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood. He thought eight (8) months was a reasonable time. Mario Caimotto, Golden Gate Produce Market stated that he's been at Golden Gate Produce Market since 1974 and the City Council in the last 20 years had done their best to help businesses thrive. He believed the City of Oakland's way of thinking, implementing a similar measure, cost them two professional sports team with a possible third. City Council directed staff to go slow, outreach to businesses, target the November 2020 Election, follow staff's recommendation and target only to ground floor retail. Council also directed staff to further explore and define the concept and seek input from the business community. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 4 ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Matsumoto adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Respectfull 7mitted by: Gabri Ro riguez Deputy City Clerk Approved Approved by the City Council: 12— / 11 / 2, 01 17 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2019 MINUTES PAGE 5