From: Marjorie Stein
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Parking Structure
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 7:50:08 AM
Dear Santa Rosa City Council Members,
I’m writing to you today regarding Parking Garage #5, located at 625 3rd Street. I urge you to support the staff recommendation to move forward towards developing this site into badly-needed housing.
Downtown needs homes, workers, and customers, not a $3 million taxpayer funded boondoggle to repair a barely-used parking garage. Santa Rosa already has a very large surplus of parking; 74% of parking spaces downtown go unused on a typical busy day, and Garage #5 represents less than 2% of all spaces. The city wisely designated Garage #5 surplus land last year. I respectfully urge the Council to move forward towards developing this site into housing.
Respectfully,
Marjorie Stein
, Santa Rosa
From: Dan Woloz
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 9/12 council meeting comment re: Garage #5 development Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:33:49 AM
I am voicing my support for replacing public garage #5 with a housing development.
Downtown needs people walking around and putting homes there is the best way to do it. I hope the council moves forward with developing the site. Thank you -
- - -
Dan Woloz
fouroakfarm.com
From: Rachel Moore
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Parking Garage #5
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:45:19 AM
Hello,
Downtown needs homes, workers, and customers, not a $3 million taxpayer funded boondoggle to repair a barely-used parking garage in a city with an enormous parking surplus. 74% of parking spaces downtown go unused on a typical busy day, and Garage #5 represents less than 2% of all spaces. The city wisely designated Garage #5 surplus land last year. I respectfully urge the Council to support the staff recommendation to move forward towards developing this site.
Respectfully,
Rachel Moore
--
Rachel Moore
Direct
From: KATHY DOIG
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 3rd Street Parking lot conversion to housing Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:13:43 PM
Dear Santa Rosa City Council,
As a 24-year resident of Santa Rosa and living in close proximity to our downtown, I am writing to express my support of the conversion of the parking garage at 625 3rd Street into housing.
How exciting it would be to continue to bring vitality to our downtown with homes and built in customers for our downtown businesses!
I grew up in Healdsburg and know first hand how important a town square is for bringing the community together. What a boon to Santa Rosa to have housing in the city center close to our Courthouse Square.
Add to that, trying to relocate some of the banks that flank almost 3 sides of our square - there are too many! Additionally, they are a barrier to making the downtown square the true heart of our city since
they are not retail businesses that bring people downtown to gather and shop.
Another great addition would be a grocery store.
I respectfully urge the Council to support the staff recommendation to move forward towards developing this excess parking structure into housing.
I believe it would be a solid anchor for our downtown.
Thank you,
Kathy Doig
From: Aaron Figueroa
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City council item 12.10
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 1:45:30 PM
9/12/23 City Council Meeting
Item 12.10
Dear Mayor Rogers and Council Members,
I strongly support the development of the 3rd Street garage into affordable housing. Our city needs more housing, specially away from fire prone areas and to decrease city sprawl that forces people to drive more. This type of development helps to make Santa Rosa more livable and walkable
and to have a more vibrant downtown.
Kindly,
Aarón Figueroa
Santa Rosa resident
From: Christine franaszek-gann
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Parking Garage #5
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 2:47:54 PM
As someone who pays more for rent than they can afford, I know first hand how hard the housing shortage can be on a retired couple trying to get by. That is why I would like the city of Santa Rosa to use every opportunity to increase the housing supply, especially dense infill development that produces far less greenhouse gasses and traffic than suburban sprawl.
I want a people oriented downtown that is rich with housing and human activity – and fewer dead spaces for car storage. End the Garage #5 boondoggle today, and replace it with tax revenue producing mixed use residential housing.
Housing now!
Sincerely,
Christine Gann
ABCR-58933\2831016.1
1331 N. California Blvd.
Fifth Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
T 925 935 9400
F 925 933 4126
www.msrlegal.com
Matthew C. Henderson
Direct Dial: 925 941 3271
[email protected]
Offices: Walnut Creek / San Francisco / Newport Beach
September 11, 2023
VIA EMAIL
City Council
City of Santa Rosa
City Hall
100 Santa Rosa Ave.
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: September 12, 2023 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 12.10
Dear Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor MacDonald, and Honorable Members of the City Council:
This firm represents Airport Business Center, owner of 50 Old Courthouse Square, located in Downtown Santa Rosa. This letter is sent with respect to the above- referenced agenda item concerning the City’s decision to continue proceeding with the illegal designation of Garage 5 (aka the 3rd Street Garage, or “Garage,” located at 625 and 637 Third Street) as “surplus” property to be conveyed for private development.
As the Council should know, the improper designation of the Garage as surplus property is the subject of ongoing litigation in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma, case no. SCV-272714. A copy of this petition is attached. Yet this fact is not reflected in the agenda or staff report for Item 12.10. For the record, any contract, sale, or transaction with respect to the Garage that postdates the filing of this litigation will be subject to the outcome of this lawsuit. Thus, both the City and Rogal Projects are on notice of the existence of the litigation and the claims made therein. The fact that the staff report omits this information, however, deprives both the Council and the public essential information in assessing the proposed action.
Indeed, the City has shrouded the process to date in secrecy, with no public discussion as to its continuing efforts to dispose of the Garage until this agendized item.
I also note for the record an additional point. The City appears not to be complying with its own stated intent to proceed with disposition of the Garage via a request for proposal process as set forth in the attached staff reports from City Council City Council
City of Santa Rosa
September 11, 2023
ABCR-58933\2831016.1
meetings of October 11 and December 6, 2022. While the staff reports refer to the possibility of entering into an exclusive right to negotiate (ENA), they do so in the context of an “affordable housing sponsor,” which Rogal Projects does not appear to be.
Accordingly, any attempt by the City to dispose of the Garage via a negotiated disposition and development agreement or otherwise is in contravention of the Surplus Land Act and will be met with further legal action as necessary and appropriate.
Nothing in this correspondence is intended to waive or limit my client’s rights, all of which are expressly reserved.
Very truly yours,
MILLER STARR REGALIA
Matthew C. Henderson
Matthew C. Henderson
MCH:klw
encls.
cc: Samantha W. Zutler, City Attorney ([email protected]; w/encls.) Ashle T. Crocker, Assistant City Attorney ([email protected], w/encls.) Gregg W. Kettles, Best Best & Krieger ([email protected], w/encls.) Rogal Projects ([email protected]; w/encls.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -1-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
MATTHEW C. HENDERSON (Bar No. 229259)
MILLER STARR REGALIA
A Professional Law Corporation
1331 N. California Blvd., Suite 600
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: 925 935 9400
Facsimile: 925 933 4126
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SONOMA
AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, a California
limited partnership,
Petitioner and Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SANTA ROSA; CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ROSA; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Respondents and Defendants.
Case No.
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF
[CCP §§ 1060, 1085, 1094.5]
Petitioner and Plaintiff AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, a California limited partnership, (“Petitioner”), alleges as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Petitioner is a California limited partnership, which has its principal place of business in unincorporated Sonoma County and which regularly conducts business in the City of Santa Rosa.
2. Respondent and Defendant City of Santa Rosa (“City”) is and at all relevant times was a political and legal subdivision of the State of California, duly organized and existing under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
3. Respondent and Defendant City Council of the City of Santa Rosa (“Council”) is, and at a
ll relevant times was, inter alia, the duly organized legislative body of the City existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California. The Council is, and at relevant times
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Sonoma
2/28/2023 8:35 AM
By: Jennifer Ellis, Deputy Clerk
SCV-272714
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -2-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
was, the local body charged with proposing, drafting, amending and passing legislation governing land use and the City’s municipal affairs, subject to, and in a manner complying with, all applicable federal, state, and local law.
4. Petitioner is unaware of the true names or capacities of the parties fictitiously sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and will amend this complaint to set forth their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that some fictitiously named Respondents were the agents and employees of the other fictitiously named, or actually named, Respondents and, acting within the course of scope of such employment or agency, took some part in the acts or omissions hereinafter set forth, are the principals and took some part in such acts or omissions, and/or such fictitiously named Respondents are real parties in interest hereto, by reason of which said fictitiously-named Respondents are liable to Petitioner for the relief prayed for herein.
5. Respondents and Defendants identified in paragraphs 2 through 4 above, inclusive, are
sometimes referred to collectively herein as “Respondents.”
6. This action challenges Respondents’ designation of a parking garage in downtown Santa Rosa as purportedly surplus property under the Surplus Land Act, Government Code sections 54220 through 54234 (“Act”). The garage, known as Garage 5 (aka the 3rd Street Garage), is located at 625 and 637 Third Street (“Garage”) and is the most utilized public parking garage in downtown Santa Rosa. According to the City’s web site, the Garage is “convenient to” bookstores, boutiques, Courthouse Square, gourmet coffee, night life, and restaurants, and provides bike lids and racks, 5 disabled parking spaces, and free motorcycle and scooter parking.1 Workers and visitors to an office building owned by Petitioner also use the Garage.
7. The garage has approximately 199 parking spaces, divided between those allocated for da
ily use via monthly permit and those open to the public but subject to a $1.00/hour fee after the first hour from 6 a.m. to 1 a.m., with a maximum daily rate of $10.00. Monthly permits are $120 for non-designated and $160 for designated parking. The City strictly limits the number of
1 https://www.srcity.org/Facilities/Facility/Details/Garage-5-3 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -3-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
permits it will issue for the Garage and there is currently a waiting list for such permits. Unlike the other downtown garages, the City does not offer discounted low wage employee or commuter permits for the Garage.
8. According to the City’s Annual Parking Report for the fiscal year 2018-2019 (the last such report for the pre-COVID era), the Garage generates $2,299 in annual revenue per parking space. (2018-19 Report, p. 15.) The Garage parks 155,636 cars per year. (Id. at pp. 14-
15.) This means that each space in the Garage is used over 802 times per year, more than twice a day on average, including those spaces with permits rather than being open to the general public.
The total usage is an average of 426 cars per day. (Id . at p. 15.)
9. The only other City-owned garage that comes close to this level of use is the D Str
eet Garage, which receives barely more than half the revenue per space that the Garage does, a mere $1,199. (2018-19 Report, p. 16.) It has 457 cars per day on average, and 166,880 cars parked per year, barely more than the Garage, in spite of having more than double the spaces the Garage does, 448 versus 194. (Id. at pp. 14, 16.) Thus, each space in the D Street Garage is used only 372.5 times per year, less than half the 802 times per year each space is used in the Garage.
10. The City also prepared a “Downtown Santa Rosa Current Parking Conditions” memo dated December 10, 2019. This memo states the Garage is surrounded by the higher- demand “premium” metered parking spaces that charge 50% more than “value” spaces in outlying areas. (Dec. 10, 2019 Memo, p. 3.) Indeed, the surrounding blocks on 3rd and 4th Streets have 92% and 95% use rate, respectively, of the premium metered spaces. (Id. at p. 6.) All four surrounding blocks have 85%+ parking space use rates. (Id. at p. 9.) The closest private parking faci
lity at 200 D Street has a 92% occupancy rate. (Id. at pp. 10-11.) Moreover, with a 77% occupancy rate, the Garage has the highest usage rate of any of the City’s Downtown parking garages (compared to an average occupancy rate of 56%). (Id. at p. 7.)
11. The Garage has consistently had a waiting list for monthly parking permits for over 20 years. Petitioner is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that the City has limited the monthly permits for the Garage because of the overall strong public demand for parking in the Garage. Were the City to issue additional monthly passes, the Garage would be utilized to an even 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -4-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
greater extent. Thus, the level of public usage as set forth herein is actually understated compared to what level would exist if the City were to issue parking permits for the Garage to all who sought them.
12. Respondents previously considered designating the Garage as surplus in April of 2022. At that time Petitioner and others opposed the designation, and Respondents withdrew the proposed designation without acting upon it.
13. The City revisited the surplus designation for the Garage in December 2022. On December 6, 2022 the City Council approved a resolution declaring the Garage to be surplus, purportedly under the auspices of the Act, conditioned on any future development on the Garage to include 75 public parking spaces. The City purported to base this action on parking studies undertaken in the aftermath of the COVID 19 pandemic, which would have the natural consequence of depressing parking demand in downtown Santa Rosa. Thus, the City relied on short-term data in purporting to reach its decision rather than the longstanding historical data demonstrating the strong demand for parking in the Garage.
14. Petitioner objected to the City’s action in declaring the Garage to be surplus.
Pet
itioner provided both written and verbal comments to the City prior to its final action in declaring the Garage to be surplus, including arguing that the City could not lawfully declare the Garage to be surplus as it was, and remains, needed for ongoing public use. Moreover, contrary to the terms of the Surplus Land Act, the Garage is not vacant or undeveloped land, and under the legislative history of the Surplus Land Act, does not qualify as surplus. Petitioner exhausted its administrative remedies to the extent required by law by objecting to the designation of the Garage as surplus in writing and presenting all alleged grounds for non-compliance with the Surplus Land Act to the City prior to the close of the public hearing at which the City considered designating the Garage as surplus. (Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281.)
15. Petitioner is beneficially interested in the City’s full compliance with the law rega
rding the City’s designation of the Garage as surplus. Petitioner has direct interests which will be severely injured by Respondents’ failure to comply with the Surplus Land Act. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -5-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
16. Petitioner is within the class of persons beneficially interested in and aggrieved by the City’s failure to comply with the Surplus Land Act. Petitioner has expressed its concerns and objections to the designation of the Garage as surplus in multiple communications with the City.
Before designating the Garage as surplus, the City owed a mandatory duty to comply with the legal duties which Petitioner alleges were violated. Petitioner has the right to enforce the mandatory duties which the Surplus Land Act imposes on the City.
17. Petitioner brings this action as a private attorney general to vindicate its own legal and constitutional rights and those of residents of the City and all others who may be impacted by the designation of the Garage as surplus. Petitioner seeks, on his own behalf and the behalf of said others, that Respondents obey the clear law, and not act in unlawful, bad faith, arbitrary, capricious, and confiscatory fashion in noticing, analyzing, enacting, and enforcing regulations and legislation relating to public property.
18. For these reasons, and others set forth in this Petition and Complaint, the City’s act
ions described herein and the designation of the Garage as surplus are unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable. Petitioner therefore requests this Court issue a writ of mandate invalidating the designation and declaring it, and any actions undertaken thereunder or pursuant thereto, unlawful, null, and void. Petitioner also seeks declaratory relief regarding the parties’ respective legal rights and obligations and temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting implementation of the surplus designation in any manner.
19. An actual and substantial controversy exists between Petitioner, on the one hand, and Resp
ondents, on the other hand, relating to the legal rights of the respective parties. The controversy is well-defined and imminent in nature, such that the need for, and appropriateness of, judicial determinations at this time is warranted.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Writ of Mandamus – Violations of Surplus Land Act
Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085, 1094.5
Against All Respondents)
20. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 19, above, are hereby incorporated by ref
erence as though set forth in full.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -6-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
21. The predicate of the City’s proposed action with respect to the Garage is that it is “surplus land” under the auspices of the Act. But the definition of “surplus land” in the Act demonstrates that it cannot apply to the Garage. “As used in this article, the term ‘surplus land’ means land owned by any local agency, that is determined to be no longer necessary for the agency’s use, except property being held by the agency for the purpose of exchange.” (Gov. Code, § 54221, subd. (b), emphasis added.)
22. The Garage is the most utilized public parking facility in downtown Santa Rosa. It sees the greatest volume of use, as well as income from that use, and as such cannot “be no longer necessary for the [City’s] use.” While the City has cited a purported parking surplus in the Downtown area, such does not, and cannot, establish that the Garage is no longer necessary for the City’s use for which the Garage was originally proposed and developed. Moreover, by refusing to issue monthly parking permits to all those who would apply for them, the City has artificially depressed usage of the Garage.
23. The City has imposed a condition on transfer of the Garage so that any development on the si
te will provide 75 public parking spaces. The City cannot simultaneously say that “it does not have a public use for the [Garage]” and require that any development on the site maintain 75 public parking stalls that the Garage already provides. Those two propositions are irreconcilable.
24. The City’s proposal to retain parking spaces changed from approximately all of the existing spaces in the April 2022 proposal to 75 in the December 2022 proposal, without any rationale, explanation, or public discussion of the reduction. The City offered no information as to what changed from April 2022 to December 2022 with respect to parking demand in the Downtown area.
25. The resolutions that the City used to create the Parking District that built the Garage stat
e that it was done in furtherance of “the public interest, convenience and necessity.” The City Council also stated, “Said contemplated [garage] improvements, in the opinion of the City Council of said City, are of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and said Council does hereby make the costs and expenses thereof chargeable upon an assessment district, which district said Council declares to be the district benefited by said improvements and to be assessed to pay the costs and 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -7-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
expenses thereof….” In other words, the City established a Parking District and levied assessments on property owners in the vicinity to acquire the necessary properties and fund construction, operation, and maintenance of parking facilities, including the Garage. But the City has not addressed the fact that the creation of the Parking District and the Garage itself were the result of the City Council’s resolutions to the public necessity and use of the parking facilities, nor the fact that those were only acquired and developed via assessments paid by landowners in the district, including Petitioner and its predecessors-in-interest. The City has not explained how the Garage can be used and relied upon by the employees, customers, tenants, guests, and invitees of Petitioner and other landowners in the vicinity of the Garage, who paid for its construction and maintenance, and yet no longer be necessary for public use.
26. City’s April 2022 staff report and proposed resolution further demonstrate that the Gar
age does not meet the definition of “surplus” property, as they state: “The Public Parking [Garage] continues to serve the public by providing public parking within the boundaries of the Parking District, which includes much of the area in downtown Santa Rosa.” The Garage cannot both be “no longer necessary for the agency’s use,” and “continue[] to serve the public.”
27. In short, the City did not, and could not, make the requisite findings under the Act to declare the Garage surplus.
28. Because the Garage is improved and not vacant land, the Act does not apply to it.
The legislative history of the Act, including staff reports and analyses, indicate that it was only intended to apply to unimproved land. (Legislative Analysis, April 13, 1982, Housing and Community Development Department, p. 38; 32306; Legislative Analysis AB 2582, April 13, 1982, Business and Transportation Agency; Legislative Analyst, May 22, 1982, Analysis of Assembly Bill No. 2582; Letter to Hon. Willie L. Brown, Jr., from George H. Murphy, Legislative Counsel, March 10, 1968; Letter to Hon. Willie L. Brown, Jr. from Andrew R. Lolli, Department of General Services, Director, March 19, 1968.) Accordingly, the Garage is not subject to the Act, and could not properly be declared to be surplus thereunder.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -8-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Against All Respondents)
29. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28, above, are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full.
30. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Petitioner, on the one hand, and Respondents, on the other hand, in that Petitioner contends, and is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that Respondents believe it was appropriate and legal to declare the Garage to be surplus property, all as set forth in more detail above.
31. It is necessary and appropriate at this time that the Court issue a declaratory judgment so that all parties hereto and the public as a whole may know the illegality or the legality of the actions of Respondents, as set forth in more detail above.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for judgment as follows:
A. On the First Cause of Action
1. For a writ of mandate directing, ordering and compelling Respondents to revoke and set aside the designation of the Garage as surplus property, and to desist from any efforts to dispose of it as such; and
2. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, Government Code section 800, and all applicable law.
B. On the Second Cause of Action
3. For a declaratory judgment that Respondents’ designation of the Garage as surplus is contrary to the law and of no force or effect; and
4. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, Government Code section 800, and all applicable law.
C. On All Causes of Action
5. For costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as provided by law, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -9-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: February 28, 2023 MILLER STARR REGALIA
By:
MATTHEW C. HENDERSON
Attorneys for Petitioner and Plaintiff
AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ABCR-57059\2718944.4 -1-
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
VERIFICATION
I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and know its contents.
I am one of the attorneys for Airport Business Center, a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on February 28, 2023, at Walnut Creek, California.
Matthew C. Henderson
Print Name of Signatory Signature
Agenda Item #3.1
For Council Meeting of: October 11, 2022
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CITY COUNCIL
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLARE HARTMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
ALAN ALTON, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, FINANCE
DEPARTMENT
RAISSA DE LA ROSA, DIVISION DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JILL SCOTT, REAL ESTATE MANAGER
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN CITY ASSET SURPLUS STRATEGY – STUDY
SESSION THREE OF A THREE PART SERIES
AGENDA ACTION: STUDY SESSION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Department of Planning and Economic Development, Transportation and Public Works and Finance, that Council hold a Study Session to receive information, ask questions, discuss, provide feedback and give direction to staff regarding the downtown City asset surplus strategy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the third and final study session in the Downtown City Asset Series.
Staff is seeking direction on the surplus of underutilized downtown City Assets (Property), making these Properties available for affordable housing/housing focused development through the Surplus Lands Act notice of availability.
Staff has reviewed and considered all downtown City owned assets, assessing the facility maintenance needs and costs alongside the site’s potential to be market tested for housing development. Staff is seeking feedback and direction from Council on which lots to bring back for a surplus designation.
BACKGROUND
Over the last several years the City has contemplated alternatives to invest and promote investment in the downtown area, specifically identifying downtown infill development under a “housing for all” model within the 2016 Housing Action Plan. Concurrently , the DOWNTOWN CITY ASSET SURPLUS STRATEGY – STUDY SESSION THREE OF
THE THREE PART SERIES
PAGE 2 OF 5
City continues to contemplate options to manage the organization’s significant infrastructure deficit associated with ageing and deferred facilities maintenance. With these goals in mind, Staff has prepared a three-part study session series related t o the Downtown Asset Surplus Strategy to follow the original January 25, 2022, study session.
To date, Staff has presented two of the three study sessions to Council.
The first study session of the series was presented on August 23, 2022, was the Parking District Update that informed Council on the current parking surplus in the downtown, the financial state of the parking fund, and the need for deck reconstruction at Garage 5 ($6M) and Garage 9 ($6M).
The second study session of the series was presented on September 13, 2022, reviewed the 2016 Housing Action Plan (HAP) which promotes investment in the downtown area, looks to activate City owned property , and specifically identifies downtown infill development under a “housing for all ” model. Additionally, it presented the 2019 Santa Rosa Civic Center Feasibility Analysis, reviewed the deferred maintenance on the current City Hall complex, laid out 3 options for rebuilding/redevelopment and informed on 2019 estimates for the cost to b uild and availability payment model. At this study session, Council gave Staff direction to release the White House Site (Parking Lot 7) for potential redevelopment.
Prior to the current series, a study session was help on January 25, 2022, where staff presented their review of downtown parking assets and three were identified as having the most interest and potential for redevelopment :1) 625 and 637 3 rd Street (Parking Garage 5); 2) 700 5th Street (Parking Lot 10); and 3) 500 5th Street (Parking Lot 11). Due to market conditions, lot size, and specific needs of the surrounding businesses, Staff and Council agreed to remove Lot 10 from consideration at this time and proceed with the reconstruction of the surface lot, which is now underway. Council also gave Staff direction to bring a surplus action forward on Garage 5 and then Lot 11 and prepare a notice of availability to add them to the Surplus Lands list for affordable housing sponsors.
Prior to the presentation of the surplus item, it was identified that Council and Staff would need additional information on the current parking surplus, the state of the parking fund and the full presentation of the 2019 Santa Rosa Civic Center Feasibility Analysis in order to make the most informed decision on which assets to surplus.
ANALYSIS
Surplus Land Act (SLA)
The SLA, Government Code Section 54222, requires that all government owned property be declared surplus by its governing Council or Board (even with the replacement of public parking) and be made available to housing sponsors for affordable housing through a notice of availability to the State Department of Housing and Community Services (HCD) prior to being offered to private developers through a request for DOWNTOWN CITY ASSET SURPLUS STRATEGY – STUDY SESSION THREE OF
THE THREE PART SERIES
PAGE 3 OF 5
qualifications/proposals (RFQP) process. Additionally, City Council Policy 000-10 for sale or long-term lease of surplus land requires that City owned land capable of independent development, be referred to the Housing Authority pursuant to Government Code 54222.
The Parcels will also be referred to the Planning Commission for a similar recommended action, prior to City Council declaring the parcel(s) Surplus.
Following Housing Authority and Planning Commission recommendations, the City Council will be asked to declare the Parcels surplus, as required by the SLA.
If the City Council elect s to declare the parcels as surplus, Staff will submit a notice of availability to HCD as required by Government Code Section 54222 and offer the Parcel(s) for development. HCD will add the Parcels, with their above outlined development requirements, to their inventory of publicly owned surplus land and make available to affordable housing sponsors.
The City will negotiate with any respondents to the notice of availability, in good faith, with the intent of entering into an exclusive negotiation a greement (ENA) for development of the Parcels. If the City is successful, staff will bring the ENA to City Council for comment, review, approval, and adoption.
If the City is not successful in negotiations with affordable housing sponsors, the parcels may be made available for development by a n RFQ/P for qualified developers. In this case, the development would be required to build a minimum of 15% affordable housing units.
If Council directs Staff to move forward with surplus action of a Parcel, they may elect to have Staff follow Council Surplus Policy 000 -10 and direct staff to bring the action to Housing Authority for reconsideration , then Planning Commission for recommendation, or they may bypass the Council Policy and direct Staff to bring the item directly to Council for surplus action.
After conversation and consideration of each asset’s location, unique feature s, opportunities and challenges (which will be shown on an inclusive map provided in the presentation) Staff will be looking for direction from Council on the following items:
1) Should staff bring a surplus action to Council for the Whitehouse site, Garage 5 and Lot 11, as previously directed, and make them available to affordable housing sponsors through HCD’s notice of availability?
2) Are there other assets that Council is interested in surplusing in the downtown at this time, which would move them through the SLA process, prioritize affordable housing, and prepare for potential future development?
DOWNTOWN CITY ASSET SURPLUS STRATEGY – STUDY SESSION THREE OF
THE THREE PART SERIES
PAGE 4 OF 5
3) Regarding the surplus action itself, should Staff bypass the portion of Council’s Policy 000 -10, which requires Housing Authority and Planning Commission consideration prior to Council, or bring any selected assets directly back to Council?
If Council choses to consider surplusing any Property, Staff will bring a future action to Council to delegate each Property as surplus, as well as schedule a future closed session to discuss price and terms to be offered on each property.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
January 25, 2022, Council conducted a study session on creating a Downtown Asset Surplus Strategy.
August 23, 2022, Council conducted a study session on the Parking Enterprise Fund which was item one in the three-part Downtown Asset Development Series.
September 13, 2022, Council conducted a study session on the 2016 Housing Action Plan and the 2019 Santa Rosa Civic Center Feasibility Analysis which was part two of the three-part Downtown Asset Development Series.
FISCAL IMPACT
This is a study session and no action will be taken.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the en vironment, pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378.
The proposed action is also statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Government Code section 65457 and CEQA Guidelines section 15182 (c) as a potential residential project implementing the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, and pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21155.4 and CEQA Guidelines section 15182 (b) as a mixed use project that is consistent with the local Sustainable Communities Strategy, located within a transit priority area and consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan was certified by the City Council in October 2020, and no events described in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have occurred to require additional environmental analysis.
DOWNTOWN CITY ASSET SURPLUS STRATEGY – STUDY SESSION THREE OF
THE THREE PART SERIES
PAGE 5 OF 5
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On September 27, 2021, The Housing Authority reviewed three Parcels for potential recommendation to Council for Surplus status.
NOTIFICATION
None
ATTACHMENTS
None
CONTACT
Jill Scott, Real Estate Manager
[email protected], 707-543-4246
Agenda Item #14.2
For Council Meeting of: December 6, 2022
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
CITY COUNCIL
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN ALTON, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
JILL SCOTT, REAL ESTATE MANAGER
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
SUBJECT: DECLARATION OF CITY OWNED PARCELS IN THE
DOWNTOWN AS NON-EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND
AGENDA ACTION: RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Finance, Planning and Economic Development and Transportation and Public Works Departments that the Council, by three separate resolutions, pursuant to Government Code Section 54221: 1) declare that each of the following City owned properties located at (a) 625 and 637 3rd Street, APNs 009-013- 011 and 009-013-012 (“Garage 5”), (b) 500 5th Street, APN 010-053-028 (“Lot 11”), and (c) 730 3rd Street, APN 009-072-044 (“Lot 7”, aka “Whitehouse Site”, together with Garage 5 and Lot 11, collectively “Surplus Lands”) are “non-exempt surplus land”; 2) direct Staff to prepare and submit Notices of Availability for the Surplus Lands; and 3) authorize the City Manager to take all necessary actions to comply with the Surplus Lands Act and carry out Council’s direction in the disposition of the Surplus Lands.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recently completed a three-part Council study session series and received feedback and direction from Council on a surplus strategy for its Downtown City assets.
As a result of Council direction to Staff, following City owned parcels: (a) the two parcels comprising Garage 5; (b) Lot 11; and (c) the Whitehouse Site are being brought forward for Council to declare “non-exempt surplus land”. Additionally, Staff is requesting Council approval to prepare and submit a Notice of Availability for each parcel and to authorize the City Manager to take all necessary actions to comply with the Surplus Lands Act (SLA) and carry out Council’s direction in the disposition of the Surplus Lands.
BACKGROUND
DECLARATION OF CITY OWNED PARCELS IN THE DOWNTOWN AS NON-
EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND
PAGE 2 OF 6
Over the last several years, the City has considered avenues for investing and promoting investment in the Downtown area. This led to a 3-part Council Study Session series. The first session , on August 23, 2022, focused on a Parking District update that informed Council of the current parking surplus in the downtown , through an updated study conducted by Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker Study”) , the financial state of the parking fund, and the need for deck reconstruction at both Garage 5 and Garage 9, with an estimated cost of approximately $6 million for each garage . The second session , on September 13, 2022, reviewed the 2016 Housing Action P lan (HAP) , that supported downtown infill development through a “housing for all” model. The HAP also represented a commitment by the City to activate its underutilized parcels, as supported in the current Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. As a component of activating City property, Staff also provided an update on the 2019 Santa Rosa Civic Center Feasibility Analysis, which addressed deferred maintenance on the current City Hall complex, laid out three options for rebuilding/redevelopment and informed on 2019 estimates for the cost to build and availability payment model s. At the third and final session , on October 11, 2022, Staff reviewed the SLA and all downtown assets with Council.
Feedback from Council during this last study session gave Staff direction to declare several of the parking assets “non-exempt surplus land ” to make way for affordable housing/mixed use and housing amenities in the Downtown , with the goal of bringing more activity to the area. This was supported by the Walker Study, which was reviewed in the first study session and showed an overabundance of parking available on a “Design Day” in the downtown , with design day conditions reflecting the recommended capacity for the parking system to accommodate typical busy parking conditions, outside of major holidays or events.
Additionally, Council requested that Staff bring forward actions to surplus , in addition to several of the parking assets , City Hall, City Hall Annex and adjacent structures on the City Hall Campus , as well as the Public Safety Building (PSB), and Municipal Services Center South (MSCS), with the condition to replace City Hall as well as Police and Fire facilities in the surplus action.
Lastly, Council directed Staff to bypass the City Council Surplus Policy and follow the Surplus Lands Act for disposition of its surplus properties.
Following that direction, if Council elects to declare Garage 5, Lot 11 and/or the Whitehouse Site parcels as surp lus, Staff will submit a Notice of Availability for each parcel to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and offer the Surplus Land(s) for development. HCD will add the Surplus Lands, with any of the City’s outlined developme nt requirements, to HCD’s inventory of publicly owned surplus land and make this information available to affordable housing sponsors.
The City will negotiate with any respondents to the Notice(s) of Availability in good faith, with the intent of entering into an exclusive negotiation agreement (ENA) for development of the Surplus Lands. Under the SLA, any respondents will be required to include a
DECLARATION OF CITY OWNED PARCELS IN THE DOWNTOWN AS NON-
EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND
PAGE 3 OF 6
minimum of 25% affordable housing and if stipulated in the resolut ion and applicable Notice of Availability , replacement of public parking. If an agreement is successfully negotiated with a respondent, Staff will bring the ENA to City Council for review, comment, approval, and adoption.
If the City is not successful in negotiations with affordable housing sponsor respondents for any of the Surplus Land(s), the applicable Surplus Land(s) may be made available for development by an RFQ/P to qualified developers. In this case, the development would still be required to provide a minimum of 15% affordable housing units, and Council could increase this baseline if it so chooses.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
January 25, 2022, Council conducted a study session on creating a Downtown City Asset Surplus Strategy.
August 23, 2022, Council conducted a study session on the Parking Enterprise Fund which was item one in the three-part Downtown Asset Development Series.
September 13, 2022, Council conducted a study session on the 2016 Housing Action Plan and the 2019 Santa Rosa Civic Center Feasibility Analysis which was part two of the three-part Downtown Asset Development Series.
October 11, 2022, Council conducted the third and final study session in the three-part Downtown Asset Development Series which reviewed the Surplus Lands Ac t and the City’s downtown assets.
ANALYSIS
Following the study session on October 11, 2022, with Council direction to Staff to surplus multiple City owned parcels that are currently used for public parking, Staff requested that Walker Consultants further analyze downtown parking, with the assumption that , if disposed of, some or all of the public parking at these locations w ould not be replaced.
The following criteria informed the analysis:
Determine future parking demand given new and denser development, as part of the update to the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan for near term opportunity parcels, including Lot 7/Whitehouse Site (3rd and E Streets), Lot 11 (5th and B Streets), and all or a portion of Garage 5 (3rd and D Streets). Determine the extent to which the current downtown parking surplus can accommodate a decrease in parking supply to accommodate current and future demand as development occurs.
Determine the extent to which the future downtown parking surplus, given the removal of public parking on Lot 7 /Whitehouse Site, Lot 11, and Garage 5, could accommodate future demand as development occurs.
DECLARATION OF CITY OWNED PARCELS IN THE DOWNTOWN AS NON-
EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND
PAGE 4 OF 6
Determine whether the existing parking surplus is sufficient to accommodate future parking demand and how this would change with the removal of the parking supply given potential development.
Determine whether there are specific locations that may have a parking deficit, and whether or not there is an overall surplus of downtown parking. For example, in the future, as parking lots and garages are developed, would surplus parking only be available on the periphery of downtown?
The “Walker Memo” concluded that the Downtown parking system is adequate to sustain the future demand of proposed developments if no public parking were provided at Lot 11, Whitehouse Site and Garage 5.
Staff has chosen Lot 11, the Whitehouse Site and Garage 5 to surplus, as Lot 11 and the Whitehouse Site are underutilized surface lots that, with the activation of the airspace above, could allow for larger developments and Garage 5 is the City’s oldest and smallest garage, with significant deferred maintenance and capital investment needs.
With the proposed declaration of the Surplus Lands as “non-exempt surplus lands”, the Walker Memo findings would allow Council the flexibility to negotiate the replacement or non-replacement of parking at these sites.
Considering that the construction of any housing development is more financially feasible without the need to provide for replacement of public parking, and that the Walker Memo informs that the downtown has sufficient parking availability, Staff is recommending that Council not replace public parking at Lot 11 and the Whitehouse Site and replace only a portion of public parking at Garage 5. The number of spaces to be replaced and potential City investment thereto, would be negotiated as part of any agreement for the disposition of the property. Staff is, however, recommending that the City retain a minimum of 75 Stalls of public parking in connection with any future development of the Garage 5 site.
This would provide some direction to interested parties to help understand the minimum amount of public parking they would have to retain in order for the City to consider initiating negotiations with them.
In the prior Study Sessions, Council also directed Staff to surplus the City Hall, City Hall Annex and adjacent buildings on the City Hall Campus, PSB, and MSCS sites, with the condition of a replacement Civic Center complex , PSB and Fire Station No. 1 . During current due diligence, Staff discovered that as part of the 2007 building acquisition of 655 1st street and then later refinancing into the Courthouse Square reconstruction debt, City Hall Annex and associated buildings were added and are being held as collateral for this debt. MSCS and PSB are collateral against 1996 Redevelopment financing refunded in 2016. Although Staff is in the process of having MSCS and PSB released as collateral, due to the timetable, and in the absence of a fully vetted financial plan to cover the debt service of a new Civic Center, Staff is recommending that these sites not be declared surplus until a fully formed financial plan can be brought forward.
DECLARATION OF CITY OWNED PARCELS IN THE DOWNTOWN AS NON-
EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND
PAGE 5 OF 6
With the Council declaration of Garage 5 , Lot 11, and Whitehouse Site as “non-exempt surplus land” , Staff also requests authorization to prepare and submit Notices of Availability for each, and authorization for the City Manager to take all necessary actions to comply with the Surplus Lands Act and carry out Council’s direction in the disposition of these parcels.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of this action does not currently have a fiscal impact on the General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378.
The proposed action is also statutorily exempt from the CEQA pursuant to California Government Code section 65457 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (c) as a potential residential project implementing the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan, and pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (b) as a mixed use project that is consistent with the local Sustainable Communities Strategy, located within a transit priority area and consistent with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. The Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan was certified by the City Council in October 2020, and no events described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred to require additional environmental analysis.
BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Not Applicable
NOTIFICATION
Not Applicable
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Downtown Map
Attachment 2 – Walker Memo
Resolution 1 – Garage 5
Resolution 2 – Lot 7 / White House Site
Resolution 3 – Lot 11
DECLARATION OF CITY OWNED PARCELS IN THE DOWNTOWN AS NON-
EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND
PAGE 6 OF 6
CONTACT
Jill Scott, Real Estate Manager
[email protected], (707) 543-4246
From: Adrian Covert
To: City Council Public Comments
Cc: Chris Guenther; Alexa Forrester; Lauren Fuhry
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on Agenda Item 12.10
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:04:41 PM
Attachments: 2023.09.11 Garage5.pdf
Petition RedevelopGarage5.xlsx
Greetings,
Please see the attached letter and petition signatories in support of staff recommendation on agenda item 12.10 regarding the resolution to move forward with potentially developing the site of Garage 5.
Best,
Adrian Covert
Co-Lead
Santa Rosa YIMBY
From: Carla Grady
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Downtown parking structure
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:42:05 PM
Dear City Council members,
Downtown needs homes, workers, and customers, not a $3 million taxpayer- funded boondoggle to repair a barely-used parking garage in a city with an enormous parking surplus. 74% of parking spaces downtown go unused on a typical busy day, and Garage #5 represents less than 2% of all spaces. The City wisely designated Garage #5 surplus land last year. I respectfully urge the Council to support the staff recommendation to move forward towards developing this site.
Thank you for making a wise decision about this and not funding a wasteful parking structure!
Sincerely,
Dr. Carla Grady
--
Become an anti-racist.
Until justice is real,
Carla
From: Jen Klose
To: CityCouncilListPublic; Smith, Maraskeshia; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter Re Agenda Items 12.10 and 12.11 - Downtown Santa Rosa Surplus Site Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:51:30 PM
Attachments: 2023 0911 Downtown Site Negotiation Agreement Letter of Support.pdf Good afternoon Ms. Mayor, Mr. Vice Mayor, Councilmembers and City Manager, Please find attached a letter in regards to agenda items 12.10 and 12.11 for tomorrow's City Council meeting.
In partnership,
Jen Klose, J.D. [she/her] | Executive Director
Schedule a meeting with me
Click here to join Generation Housing as a member or renew your membership.
GenerationHousing.org
427 Mendocino Ave, Suite 100 | Santa Rosa, CA 95404
707-900-GENH [4364] v | 310-663-6037 m | 707-570-8768 f Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube
From: mark
To: City Council Public Comments
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Parking Garage #5
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 4:41:30 PM
My name is Mark Franaszek, I live about a 20 minute walk from downtown.
Downtown Santa Rosa has an obscene amount of parking spaces, there is no way you will run out. There’s a mostly empty surface lot not even a block away from Garage 5, and if for some reason that was not enough there is another surface lot AND a five level garage two blocks away. Parking is not a problem.
State law requires that California greenhouse emissions be reduced by 40% by 2030 and at least 85% by 2045.
About half the greenhouse emissions for a suburban California city come from transportation, so reducing VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) needs to be top priority for Santa Rosa. That is why the onus is on cities to create walkable neighborhoods where car ownership is not a de facto requirement.
This housing project meets that very need. Unlike most everywhere else in Santa Rosa, living car free or car lite is a realistic option on 3rd & D. There is a transit mall a block away, and a Smart Rail station within a 15 minute walk.
There is also a big grocery store a short walk away and a shopping & dining district around the corner. If you are at all serious about cutting greenhouse emissions, this is where you should allow building.
Finally, I like this proposal because we badly need housing. To satisfy pent-up demand, California needs to build 3.5 million homes by 2025. Needless to say we are far behind on meeting this goal. It's time we stopped bowing to the NIMBY’s, and dealt with our housing crisis.
Respectfully,
Mark Franaszek,
Santa Rosa CA.