Policy Watch: Week of 2/12

City of San Jose

Memos from Liccardo / Carrasco / Arenas / Jimenez / Peralez & Rules Committee recommend an opposing City-sponsored ballot measure to the Evergreen Senior Homes Initiative


Liccardo, Carrasco, Arenas, Jimenez and Peralez recommend:

  1. Approve recommendation (a) and (c) as outlined in the staff report dated February 2, 2018 related to the petition initiative amending the San Jose 2040 General Plan; [thereby directing staff to return on Feb. 27 with a resolution to place the Evergreen Senior Homes Initiative on the June ballot]
  2. Pursuant to the memo co-authored by Mayor Liccardo, Vice Mayor Carrasco and Councilmember Arenas dated February 1, 2018, we invite our Council colleagues to engage in a discussion of the elements— regarding affordable housing, open space, traffic impacts, or any other relevant issues— that Council might consider as part of potential Council-sponsored ballot measure(s) that might also be submitted for voter consideration on the June ballot.
  3. Pursuant to Section 501 of the City Charter, the Mayor shall propose a measure or measures for Council consideration on or prior to March 6, 2018.

The Mayor’s memo follows a similar memo approved by Rules Committee last week to agendize for Council deliberation the following additional items, in relation to Item 3.7 – the Evergreen Senior Homes Initiative:

  1. Discussion of general principles and elements of potential City-sponsored ballot measure(s);
  2. Agendize for approval at a Council meeting on or before March 6, 2018, specific ballot measure(s) language – proposed by the Mayor pursuant to the San Jose City Charter Article V, Section 501 – for submittal to voters for the June 5, 2018 General Election; and
  3. Direction to the City Clerk to submit the Evergreen Senior Homes Initiative, without alteration, to the voters at the next General Election to be held on June 5, 2018.

Where: San Jose City Council

When: Tuesday 13 February 2018, 1.30pm

Link to Liccardo/CMs memo: http://sanjose.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=a55cb6a9-6f6d-4244-8f14-fbe67aa2b36a.pdf

Link to Rules memo: http://sanjose.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=9b09ff2f-50aa-499e-9b7d-c98529a42085.pdf

Link to item:  http://sanjose.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=2693

Link to agenda: http://legistar.granicus.com/sanjose/meetings/2018/2/1128_A_City_Council_18-02-13_Amended_Agenda.pdf



City of Santa Clara

Special Council meeting regarding vacant City Clerk position

On February 6, 2018, the City Council was informed by the elected City Clerk, Rod Diridon, Jr., that he was resigning effective immediately. Given that the resignation became effective that evening, the City Council had to make an immediate appointment to ensure that City Clerk functions and duties were continued until the Council had the opportunity to review options for how to fill the vacancy. As a result, the Council appointed Jennifer Yannaguma to perform the City Clerk duties pursuant to Charter Section 903 (City Clerk; Powers and Duties).

The Council did not make an appointment under the provisions of Charter Section 703 (Vacancies), and instead requested that information on the options for filling the City Clerk position be brought forward for consideration by the council.

The purpose of this report is to explain the consequences of possible actions under Charter Section 703 and to seek Council direction on how to proceed.

Charter Section 703 Vacancies states:

A vacancy in any elective office of the City, including Mayor, City Council, Chief of Police Department, and City Clerk, from whatever cause arising, shall be filled by appointment by the City Council by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the remaining members.

In the event the City Council shall fail to fill a vacancy by appointment within thirty (30) days after such office shall have been declared vacant, it shall forthwith cause an election to be held to fill such vacancy. A person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy holds office for the unexpired term of the former incumbent, provided that if the vacancy occurs in the first half of a term of office and at least 130 days prior to the next general municipal election, the person appointed to fill the vacancy shall hold office until the next general municipal election that is scheduled 130 or more days after the date the City Council is notified of the vacancy, and thereafter until the person who is elected at that election to fill the vacancy has been qualified. The person elected to fill the vacancy shall hold office for the unexpired balance of the term of office.

Under this section, if Council does not make an appointment by March 8, 2018, then the Charter requires an election to be held to fill the vacancy. The June election is too soon to qualify, so the Council would have to call the special election in November and the elective office would remain vacant until then.

If Council does make an appointment, the appointee must be a resident and a qualified registered elector of the City. Whether Council makes an appointment or not, under current City Charter provisions, an election for City Clerk must be held in November 2018 to fill the office for the remainder of Mr. Diridon’s term (until 2020), when another election must be held for the next four year term.

As Council considers its options, it is important to note that the functions of the City Clerk are technical in nature and a core service of the City. The Council has a few options to consider:

  1. Council may appoint a City Clerk before March 9, 2018 who will serve until the November 2018 election. Any such appointment must be by a 4/5ths vote of the Council, which in this case means 6 Council members. The last regular Council meeting scheduled before then is March 6. The appointed City Clerk must be a resident and a qualified registered elector.
  2. Council may choose not to appoint a Clerk. The Council would be required to call a special election in November 6, 2018 for purposes of filling the vacancy. The duties of the City Clerk would continue to be performed by the person appointed by Council (Jennifer Yannaguma) until the election occurs.
  3. Council may place a Charter Amendment eliminating the City Clerk as an elected position on the ballot. Under this option, Council would need to direct the development and placement of a ballot measure for the June 2018 Special Election. In order to place such a measure on the June ballot it would need to act at the March 6 Council meeting.
  4. Additionally, the Council could consider reducing the duties of the elected City Clerk to the ceremonial duties and appoint a person with the requisite skills and certification to perform the duties as appointed under Charter section 903.

City Auditor:  Rod Diridon was serving as both the City Clerk and the City Auditor. Under Charter sections 900 and 909 only the Council may appoint a City Auditor. Staff is working on a recommendation for the Council and will bring this forward at a later time.

Where: Santa Clara City Council

When: Feb. 13, 2018, 5 pm

Link to item: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=63911

Link to agenda:  http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2162&doctype=AGENDA


City of Mountain View

City’s BMR Housing Program to increase affordability requirement from 10% to 15% & allow alternative mitigations, and replacing Rental Housing Impact Fee with per-square-foot fee equivalent

Staff are recommending that Council take several actions related to the City’s Below-Market-Rate Housing Program, including:

  1. Introduce an Ordinance Amending the Below-Market-Rate Housing Program, and set a second reading for February 27, 2018;
  2. Adopt a Resolution Amending the Below-Market-Rate Housing Program Administrative Guidelines;
  3. Adopt a Resolution Amending the Master Fee Schedule to Rescind the Rental Housing Impact Fee,

The modifications to the BMR Program presented here is the first step of a two-step modification process. These modifications are a result of City Council and EPC input over the last several months to increase the City’s ability to facilitate more affordable housing, as well as the renewed ability of local jurisdictions to require affordable housing in market-rate developments.

The City Council has deliberated on affordable housing issues a number of times over the past year and a half. At a Study Session on September 12, 2017, the City Council provided input on a variety of wide-ranging issues, including potential modifications to existing rental and ownership housing policies and programs, how to achieve more development of affordable housing units instead of accepting payment of housing fees, and how to facilitate housing for the “missing middle.” The Council recommended several modifications to the City’s Below-Market-Rate (BMR) Affordable Housing Program and the Rental Housing Impact Fee Program, including:

  • Increase the current 10 percent affordable housing requirement in the BMR Program;
  • Increase the Rental Housing Impact Fee (in light of AB 1505, the BMR Rental In-Lieu Fee will be modified to reflect the City Council’s desire to increase housing fees);
  • Include the Moderate-Income category for rental housing, and achieve a range of incomes within the Low-Income and Moderate-Income categories;
  • Expand the Moderate-Income category for ownership housing;
  • Increase the amount and threshold for ownership in-lieu fees;
  • Explore changing the in-lieu fee methodology for ownership housing from 3 percent of closing price to a per-square-foot (psf) amount.

In a follow-up study session, Council supported a two-step, or phased, process to modify the BMR Program and directed the first step to be implemented immediately, which includes:

  • Increasing the overall BMR affordable housing requirement for both rental and ownership units from 10 percent to 15 percent;
  • Replacing the existing BMR Rental In-Lieu Fee with a per-square-foot (psf) fee equivalent to the increased percentage requirement as determined by the Council. The current BMR Rental In-Lieu Fee methodology is 3 percent of the appraised value of all the rental units;
  • Adding language to the BMR Program to allow developers to provide an alternative mitigation to the 15 percent on-site requirement, without specifying what the alternative mitigation should be. This would provide both the City and developers the flexibility to explore alternative mitigations during the first stage of the BMR modification process—and prior to the longer-term process that would include assessment of specific alternative mitigations—in a manner that meets the intent of the BMR Program. City Council approval is required for any alternative mitigation.

The second step involves an overall update of the BMR Program and Guidelines, including the various items identified by the City Council at the Study Session and other items such as alternative mitigations and in-lieu fees. Staff estimates that comprehensive modifications to the BMR Program could take approximately 9 to 12 months and include a public outreach process. The process could take longer if additional aspects of the BMR Program are identified as potential areas of modifications or inclusion.

Where: Mountain View City Council

When: Feb 13, 2018, 5:00pm

Link to item: https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3340777&GUID=EF179D8D-5EA8-431E-B0FA-576A0C66D4C5&Options=&Search=

Link to agenda: https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=584878&GUID=60085ECE-0E64-47A6-96BC-5502DDCF1654




Approve RFPs for joint public-private development of Blossom Hill, Ohlone/Chynoweth, and Curtner sites

The committee will consider approving the issuance of Joint Development RFPs for three currently under-utilized park-and-ride sites. The Blossom Hill, Ohlone/Chynoweth and Curtner JD sites are located in the City of San Jose, within General Plan-designated Urban Villages. The General Plan places them in Horizon 2, which has an undetermined timeframe for implementation. The City of San Jose allows for expedited development of sites within Urban Village Plans through its Signature Review process, and the City’s Planning Department has provided VTA with information on requirements for these sites to be eligible for Signature Review. Both Blossom Hill and Curtner Park and Ride lots are significantly underutilized, while the Ohlone/Chynoweth Park and Ride lot has a moderate level of transit rider usage.

The developer RFP’s will state that VTA seeks to enter into a long-term ground lease, with payments based on the fair market value of the site. Developers will design, finance, build and operate a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) consistent with the City of San Jose’s Envision 2040 General Plan and Signature Review/Urban Village Plan framework. The RFP’s will require that any residential use must provide that at least 20 percent of residential units be affordable units, pursuant to VTA’s Affordable Housing Policy set forth in the Joint Development Policy. The RFP’s would be issued through the spring and summer of 2018 to facilitate marketing the opportunities to the largest potential pool of market-rate and affordable housing developers. Staff will evaluate RFP submittals and submit a recommendation to the Board of Directors for an Exclusive Negotiations Agreement (ENA) for each site. Staff will then work with the selected developer for each site, the local community, and the City to refine the proposed project to maximize its benefits. This would include the final size of the JD project, its location and site.

Where:  VTA Administration and Finance Committee

When:  Thursday, February 15, 2018 12:00 PM, VTA Conference Room B-106 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA

Link to agenda: http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/af_021518_packet.pdf   


Presentation & direction on future of Joint Development parking replacement policy

The committee will receive a presentation on the future framework of the agency’s replacement parking policy. The VTA’s Joint Development (JD) Portfolio contains 25 properties that the VTA Board has designated as priority sites for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) projects with the goal of generating revenues, increasing ridership, and catalyzing transit-oriented communities. All of these sites, except for two, consist of Park and Ride lots, and it is envisioned that JD projects would be built on a portion of each of these lots, consistent with local plans and zoning. Parking is a significantly underutilized resource at VTA. Transit agency experience throughout the US has shown that the cost of 100% replacement of parking spaces used for JD projects is one of the largest impediments to the feasibility of JD projects, with the potential to prevent projects and eliminate revenue generation. Previous committee discussions have highlighted the need for further evaluation of how to create optimal JD projects that reduce the need for replacement parking, while at the same time ensuring that VTA maintains sufficient parking to accommodate current and future transit riders.

Staff, working with a multi-disciplinary development and transportation planning consultant team has conducted research to assess both opportunities and constraints to developing JD sites on a portfolio wide and individual site basis. This includes evaluation of current and future parking demand and supply. Parking demand is dynamic, and varies by station location, as well as transit service (e.g. stations where there is both VTA light rail and Caltrain service). Riders of commuter shuttles are increasingly utilizing VTA Park and Ride lots, which is a consideration pursuant to the Commuter Shuttle Policy recently adopted by the Board of Directors. Given these considerations, any replacement parking policy should provide flexibility to accommodate unique conditions on a site-by-site basis, while at the same time establishing a consistent process for evaluating parking demand and the parking supply that need to be provided for transit riders and residents and workers in JD projects.

Another consideration is a generational and cultural shift already underway in individual car usage, and the impact of Transportation Network Companies (Uber, Lyft, etc.); car sharing services; and increased uses of other modes of transportation. For example, garage operators in San Francisco report a decrease of 10% to 25% in parking demand over the past few years due to these factors.

Staff will provide a presentation at the meeting that provides additional examples and insight into considerations related to replacement parking, TDM, and provision of parking to meet future transit needs. Discussion with the Advisory Committees will be used to inform and shape staff’s preparation of a draft JD replacement parking policy to be added to VTA’s Joint Development Policy. Such a draft policy would be presented as an action item to the Advisory and Standing Committees prior to final consideration by the Board of Directors.

Where: VTA Congestion Management Program and Planning Committee

When:  Thursday, February 15, 2018 10:00 AM VTA Conference Room B-106 3331 North First Street, San Jose, CA

Link to agendahttp://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/cmpp_021518_packet.pdf  


Cupertino Union School District

Considering a “Lease-Leaseback” delivery method for construction projects

As a follow up to the Board of Education’s discussion at the January 9th meeting, Reid Shannon from Dannis Woliver Kelly will cover the legal and practical implications of using Lease-Leaseback as a project delivery method.  Staff will provide a sample resolution for review and discussion.  Staff will also seek possible suggestions for modifications, should the Board have interest in moving forward with a Lease-Leaseback project delivery method. School facilities construction projects can be contracted by using a variety of procurement methods. The District has historically used “Design-Bid-Build” (low bidder) as the method of hiring contractors.

The Lease-Leaseback allows the District to “lease” property to developers, the developer constructs tenant improvements to the property, and the developer “leases back” the completed improvements to the District.

Where:  Cupertino Union School District

When:  February 13, 2018/ 6:00p.m.  1309 S. Mary Avenue, Suite 150 Sunnyvale, CA 94087/ Board Room

Link to Item: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/cusdk8/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AVDQDP68BC05

Link to agendahttps://www.boarddocs.com/ca/cusdk8/Board.nsf/vpublic?open


Approving a revised organizational structure to address declining enrollment & budget deficit

The District’s mission is to provide a student-centered environment that cultivates character, fosters academic excellence, and embraces diversity.  In order to resolve the District’s operational spending deficit, address declining enrollment and the need to re-structure departments to be squarely focused on student learning, staff proposes a streamlined organizational structure which provides viable cost saving measures and squarely focuses on students’ academic, behavioral and social-emotional needs.  A copy of the current and new proposed reorganization will be provided during the Board meeting discussion.

Where:  Cupertino Union School District

When:  February 13, 2018/ 6:00p.m.  1309 S. Mary Avenue, Suite 150 Sunnyvale, CA 94087/ Board Room

Link to Item: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/cusdk8/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AVDTEL770785

Link to agendahttps://www.boarddocs.com/ca/cusdk8/Board.nsf/vpublic?open


Franklin-McKinley School District

Public hearing on Rocketship Spark Academy Charter petition renewal

A public hearing will be held regarding Rocketship Spark Academy Charter Petition Renewal.  Rocketship Spark Academy has operated as a charter school within the Franklin-McKinley School District since August of 2013. The Rocketship Spark Academy Charter Petition has been submitted and was reviewed by FMSD personnel.

The Franklin-McKinley Board of Education will be making their decision regarding the Rocketship Spark Academy Charter School Renewal on March 13, 2018.

Where:  Franklin-McKinley School District

When:  February 13, 2018/8:00p.m./District Service Center Board Room

Link to Item: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/fmsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AVJUXV748834

Link to agendahttps://www.boarddocs.com/ca/fmsd/Board.nsf/vpublic?open


East Side Union High School District

Putting a Parcel Tax measure on June 2018 ballot

The proposed Resolution calls a parcel tax election in the District, to be held at the general election on June 5, 2018. The purpose of the election will be to submit to the voters a ballot proposition which approves the levy of a special tax on all taxable properties in the District, in the amount of $49 for 7 years, commencing with fiscal year 2018-19.

The costs of conducting the election will be paid from general funds of the District.  No funds of the District will be applied to promote the passage of the parcel tax measure. T

The Measures will levy $49 per parcel for 7 years, raising $6 million annually, exempting senior citizens, requiring independent oversight, with all funds only for classroom instruction. The Board of Trustees authorizes and directs the Superintendent or his designee to make any changes to the text of the proposition as required, upon the advice of the District’s legal counsel, to conform to any requirements of the Law or the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

Where:  East Side Union High School District

When:  February 13, 2018/ 4:00p.m. District Board Room

Links to Items: 8.03: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/esuhsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AVJSVL6D6B9D

9.02: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/esuhsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AVG6NB15B88E

Link to agendahttps://www.boarddocs.com/ca/esuhsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AT8PC863EE67


Direction on District’s Budget and projected negative fund balance of approx. $27M; proposed staff reduction of 113.6 FTEs

The District remains fiscally solvent and able to maintain a minimum 3% reserve in FY 2018-19 and the two subsequent out-years. The Board of Trustees was advised at the June 22, 2017 Board Meeting that based on the District’s projections of revenue and expenditures, the District would not meet its required minimum reserves in the 2019-2020 fiscal year, and the District was projected to have a negative ending fund balance of approximately $27 million. The Board did not take any actions based on the improved budget and recommended that the District wait until the Governor’s 2018 budget release to revisit whether or not further reductions, actions, or changes should occur based on the original RIF resolution and improved budget at the First Interim. The presentation will present an update to the district’s budget based on the Governor’s 2018 proposed budget and resulting financial implications for ESUHSD.

The district recommended $27 million in savings through a reduction in force (RIF) Resolution totaling 106.65 FTEs in FY 2018-19, and 34.1 FTEs in FY 2019-20 representing a cumulative total of 140.75 FTEs. At the November 20, 2017 Special Board Meeting, the district presented an improved budget plan based on increased enrollment and the Governor’s allocation of one-time discretionary funds in the State’s 2017 Enacted Budget.

The total cumulative FTE reductions under this proposed resolution total 113.6 FTEs for at a total cumulative savings of $19.4 million ( 66 FTEs 2018-19 & 47.60 2019-20 ) The District further recommends that the Board Adopt planned RIF reductions as shown on List A with modifications, as needed. Furthermore, if the district is successful in passing a $49 parcel Tax, on an estimated total student population of 27,000, the per student allocation would be around $222. The district would begin receiving revenues in the 2018-19 Fiscal Year.

Where:  East Side Union High School District

When:  February 13, 2018/ 4:00p.m. District Board Room

Link to Item: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/esuhsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AVR4JK0BCCC8

Link to agendahttps://www.boarddocs.com/ca/esuhsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AT8PC863EE67

No Comments

Leave a Comment