Approving Museum Place Development Agreement; MEMO from Liccardo/Carrasco/Peralez/Khamis recommends approval with additional direction
UPDATE: Aug. 25 memo from Mayor Liccardo and CMs Carrasco, Peralez and Khamis recommends approving the staff rec with additional direction on conditions, and requests a progress report in March 2018 on a number of items including potential for a Community Facilities District. Memo also states, “Based on the updates that we have received from staff, the developer and local labor organizations, we are confident that the developer has fulfilled the labor negotiation requirements of the ENA in good faith. We are pleased that the developer and the trades have not only engaged in good faith conversations, but come to Project Labor Agreements with UNITE HERE and the Building and Construction Trades Council. This process is a good example for other projects that involve public lands on how to interact and work with our local labor organizations. Thanks to the willingness of both sides to engage, this iconic high rise will contribute not only to our Downtown skyline but to the welfare of our community.”
Original item: Staff memo recommends approval. The memo also states that “The developer worked collaboratively with representatives of both labor groups and succeeded in obtaining written agreements outlining the commitments to the unions.”
Council will consider approving the transfer of city property as part of a development agreement, lease amendments and other necessary permits related to the Museum Place development. The development by Insight Realty will consist of a mixed-use tower (24 stories) with up to 306 dwelling units, 184 hotel rooms, approximately 214,000 square feet of office space, approximately 19,000 square feet of ground floor retail (which includes approximately 5,598 square feet of retail within the museum space), an approximately 60,000 square foot expansion to the adjacent Tech Museum of Innovation, consolidated 25 parcels into three legal parcels, and to re-subdivide one parcel (Parcel 1) into a maximum of up to 550 units consisting of approximately 306 residential condominium units and 244 commercial condominium units on a 2.47 gross acre site.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: August 29, 2017 1:30PM
Link to item:
Liccardo/Carrasco/Peralez/Khamis Memo: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=651881
Staff Memo: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=650902
Planning Commission Memos: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=650746
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=650748
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=650750
Resolution: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=650752
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=650754
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=650756
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=650758
Letters from Public: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2699&meta_id=651383
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=3313016a-67f5-4d12-9bc7-cec3c53b5135
Findings & next steps on Residential High-Rise Development Audit
Council will accept the findings of the office of the City Auditor’s audit of the development of high-rise residential buildings in San Jose. The audit made the following findings:
Finding 1: San José currently has few residential high-rises but more are expected in coming years. San Jose has 16 existing residential high-rises and over a dozen new residential high-rises have been proposed.
Finding 2: Like Other Cities, San José Adopts and Supplements State Building Codes. The State mandates that local governments enforce State health and safety requirements for buildings. These requirements are outlined in the California Building Standards Code, which is updated and published every three years. In addition, cities can adopt stricter provisions—local amendments—to address local conditions. For the 2016 cycle, San José adopted local amendments to building, plumbing, and fire standards, but they were not initially submitted to the State as required. We recommend the City establish procedures for filing future amendments. Furthermore, the City should evaluate the need to require additional protections adopted by other cities, including reviews of sites where groundwater is removed, as well as peer reviews for geotechnical reports and designs of buildings with higher safety risks.
Finding 3: Residential High-Rise Projects Involve Multiple Levels of Review. High-rise projects in San José involve multiple development services partners and stakeholders, and multiple levels of review during the development process. Based on information contained in files and interviews of City staff involved, the development review process for two recent high-rise residential projects— One South Market and Centerra—appeared to be appropriately documented. Experienced, well qualified staff were involved in these projects, but even so, complications arose, as they are inherent in building residential high-rises. Some of these are identified and addressed during the inspection phase. While developers are responsible for construction quality, and property owners are responsible for ongoing maintenance, the City monitors health and safety standards and responds to complaints of potential violations of the Municipal Code.
Finding 4: Some Services and Associated Fees Should Be Better Documented and Tracked. To ensure consistency and transparency, the City should outline the many services it offers, and should provide guidelines for assessing, collecting, waiving, deferring, and tracking fees. For example, a preliminary review is a voluntary, fee-based service offered to developers that allows them to meet with City staff to discuss project concepts. Other pre-application meetings are sometimes provided for free. For at least one of the major projects we reviewed, there was no documentation of any pre-application meeting, even though staff reported that such a meeting occurred and is always expected for this type of project. Also, there were no records of any fees assessed, paid, or waived for pre-application meetings for the projects we reviewed. In addition, parkland fees are assessed on residential developments to fund parklands for residents. As part of the City’s high-rise development incentives, these fees are reduced for qualifying high-rises, and their payments can be deferred until 80 percent of final inspections have been scheduled. However, there is no consistent way for staff to know when projects meet that threshold, increasing the risk that deferred parkland fees are not assessed and collected timely.
Where: San Jose City Council Community and Development Committee
When: August 28,2017 1:30PM City Hall Wing 118-120
Link to item: Development Audit http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=650953
Link to agenda: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/71169
Discussing audit & recs on progress toward Sunshine Reform Task Force goals; incl. recs on City subsidies, cost-benefit analysis, & revolving door as applied to non-profits
Committee to accept City Auditor’s finding that the city has made progress in meeting the goals of the Sunshine Reform Task Force. The audit made the following findings and made the following recommendations:
- Finding 1: The City Has Made Progress in Many Areas of Open Government.
- Finding 2: Open Government Efforts Can Be More Consistent in Some Areas.
- Finding 3: The City Can Respond to Public Records Requests More Efficiently with Better Records Management.
- Finding 4: Periodic Reporting and Training Can Help Further Integrate Open Government into the City’s Business.
- Recommendation #1: The Administration should create an Open Government policy to be included in the City’s Administrative Policy Manual.
- Recommendation #2: The Office of Economic Development, in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office, should develop a policy and procedures to clarify whether and how to disclose cost-benefit information for provisions of economic benefit to private entities when: a) The provision is a part of a larger incentive program, to be issued to entities that meet specified criteria, b) Multiple provisions may benefit a single entity within a short timeframe, c) The City provides services on behalf of/for a private entity, and d) The entity receiving the benefit is a non-profit or public agency.
- Recommendation #3: The City Manager’s Office should update the Council memo template to include direction for required disclosures for proposed subsidies of more than $100,000 and more than $1 million, in accordance with the state law and Open Government Resolution, respectively.
- Recommendation #4: The Administration should implement procedures to track public subsidy and tax abatement agreements to ensure compliance with state and Open Government after-action reporting requirements, and financial statement disclosures.
- Recommendation #5: The City Clerk’s Office should: a) Include Open Government calendaring requirements (e.g., name, title, organization, and purpose, as outlined in §1.3.3 of the Open Government Resolution) in trainings for new Council staff, and b) Include calendar set up as a part of the onboarding process for Council staff (such as referral to appropriate Information Technology Department and City Manager’s Office staff).
- Recommendation #6: The City Clerk’s Office should: a) Update the lobbyist reporting form to include a reference to Section 7 of the Open Government Resolution, restricting lobbying during the solicitation process, b) Update the lobbyist registration form to include a check box that indicates whether a lobbyist is a former employee of the City, potentially subject to the Revolving Door Ordinance, and c) Implement a process to refer such former City staff to the City Attorney’s Office for follow up.
- Recommendation #7: The City Clerk’s Office, in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office, should provide Open Government training for Mayor and Council office staff on: a) The definition of a lobbyist, b) Resources on lobbyist disclosure to identify potential unregistered lobbyists (such as the City Clerk’s Registered Lobbyist List), and c) Restrictions on lobbying during the solicitation process.
- Recommendation #8: The City Council should consider a change to the Revolving Door Ordinance that mitigates potential conflicts of interest and simplifies the rules surrounding former designated employees who work for non-profit organizations as lobbyists or on legislative or administrative matters which they worked on as part of their City employment. Potential policy directions include: a) Narrowing the non-profit exemption to 501(c)(3) organizations, regardless of whether the organization had received support from the City; or b) Striking the non-profit exemption, such that the same rules apply whether former designated employees go to work for non-profit or for-profit organizations.
- Recommendation #9: The Administration should update City policies and guidance on the retention and disposition of electronic records and City email to reflect the current technological environment and allow for more effective management of public records. This includes the storage of records to efficiently respond to public records requests and the disposition of records per approved retention schedules.
- Recommendation #10: To better manage electronic records on the City’s enterprise fileshare and email systems, the Administration should consider a combination of strategies, including but not limited to: a) Developing procedures for department records administrators to conduct electronic file clean outs to dispose of unnecessary electronic files as well as those saved past the City’s approved retention schedules. b) Periodic reminders to City staff to clean out their email folders, along with guidance on what is a public record that should be saved, and what is not.
- Recommendation #11: In accordance with the Municipal Code, the City Manager’s Office, in coordination with the City Clerk’s Office, should issue regular reports on the scope of open government activities, including: a) Open meeting provisions such as posting of agendas and minutes of the City Council and decision-making bodies, b) Responding to public records requests, c) Posting of City officials’ public calendars, d) Other public disclosure and information activities, such as notices of public subsidies, community engagement or outreach efforts, and required disclosures of City-funded nongovernmental organizations, and e) Recommendations to update open government or related City policies to remain current and effective, as necessary.
- Recommendation #12: To ensure that open government becomes an integrated part of the City’s business, the Administration should: a) Reference the Consolidated Open Government and Ethics Resolution in the City’s Code of Ethics, and b) In accordance with the Municipal Code, provide training on the Open Government Ordinance and Consolidated Open Government and Ethics Resolution for (i) new employees as part of the onboarding process and (ii) for managers and supervisors on a regular basis.
Where: San Jose City Council Rules and Open Government Committee
When: August 30, 2017 2:00 PM City Hall Wing 118-120
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=651852
Link to agenda: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/71281
City of Santa Clara
Stadium Authority receiving Harvey Rose’s audit for Levi’s Stadium
Receive the final audit report titled “Comprehensive Audit of Stadium Authority Finances” dated August 2017 prepared by Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC. The final audit report has findings, conclusions and recommendations to improve billing, invoicing, and other such processes so that no city funds remain unreimbursed for both NFL and Non-NFL events at the Stadium. A summary of the audit indicates that numerous aspects of the agreements between the Stadium Authority and the 49ers were not complied during FY 2014-15 and 2015-16, primarily in the areas of the 49ers entities’ production and delivery of plan and budget documents pertaining to the operations and costs of the Stadium. There are also a number of documents that were not or have not been provided to the Authority during the audit review period. The Stadium did not establish effective contract administration procedures during the audit period to ensure and report contract compliance to the Board and public in a number of key areas, and certain provisions of in the agreements, detailed in the report, do not appear to be in the best interest of the Stadium Authority. There are also various examples of costs, expenses, and City staff time that was spent on Stadium activities but not reimbursed by Stadium sources or were not properly recorded.
Where: Santa Clara Stadium Authority – Study Session
When: Thur. Aug 24, 2017, 5:00pm, Council Chambers
Link to item: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=60826
Link to agenda: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2074&doctype=AGENDA
Stadium Authority accepting Harvey Rose’s audit for Levi’s Stadium
It is recommended that the Authority accept the final report titled, “Comprehensive Audit of Stadium Authority Finances” dated August, 2017 prepared by Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC. The Board received a presentation from the Auditor at the study session earlier in the day. The final audit report has findings, conclusions and recommendations to improve billing, invoicing, and other such processes so that no city funds remain unreimbursed for both NFL and Non-NFL events at the Stadium.
Where: Santa Clara Stadium Authority
When: Thur. Aug 24, 2017, 7:00pm, Council Chambers
Link to item: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=60899
Link to agenda: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2074&doctype=AGENDA
Update & direction on Non-NFL events and stadium curfew
A presentation by the Stadium Manager on Non-NFL events will be made on August 24, 2017 and is anticipated to cover the following topic areas:
- Net profit and events held to date
- Media impressions resulting from weeknight events
- Economic impact of events
- Competitor California venue information
Staff and Stadium Manager are seeking Board direction on the future of Non-NFL events. Event
promotors have contacted Levi’s Stadium about venue availability for concerts in Summer 2018. Stadium Manager has not responded to these requests pending feedback from the Stadium Authority Board.
Where: Santa Clara Stadium Authority
When: Thur. Aug 24, 2017, 7:00pm, Council Chambers
Link to item: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=60896
Link to agenda: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2074&doctype=AGENDA
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments