Update on Stanford Univ. General Use Permit application negotiations
At the October 16, 2018 (Item No. 9) Board meeting, the Board of Supervisors considered proceeding with a process to negotiate a possible development agreement with Stanford University relative to its General Use Permit (GUP) application. At the same October 16, 2018 (Item No. 9) Board meeting, the Board authorized County staff to enter into a negotiation process and appointed two members of the Board to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee providing guidance to County staff. One of the approved actions by the Board was direction for the Administration to report monthly to the Housing, Land Use, Environment, and Transportation Committee on the status of the negotiations with Stanford University.
This item provides the April report on these negotiations. County staff and Counsel are still finalizing the Stanford GUP Conditions of Approval that, along with the environmental mitigation measures, provide for the regulatory baseline by which community benefits may be determined. The process was structured with the hope of having a draft term sheet available for the Board to consider late in the first quarter or early in the second quarter of 2019. The possibility of presenting a draft term sheet to the Board in May or June of 2019 is dependent upon the outcome of the discussions at the second Ad Hoc Committee meeting on April 30, 2019. Meanwhile, Stanford University announced on March 11 that it was engaging the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) in direct talks to discuss community benefits that could be provided to PAUSD as part of a development agreement for the proposed GUP.
One of the shared goals between the County and the University was to complete a negotiation process (or have one or both parties abandon the negotiations) so that the 2018 GUP could be considered by the Board in the second quarter of 2019. This schedule is no longer feasible. At this time, the Administration is forecasting that the Board of Supervisors would consider the General Use Permit in the fall of 2019.
Where: Santa Clara County Housing, Land Use, Environment, and Transportation Committee
When: April 18, 2019, 10:00AM
Link to item: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=SplitView&MeetingID=11322&MediaPosition=&ID=95844&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=11322
This report provides an update to the Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation (HLUET) Committee regarding preparation of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance for the greater unincorporated areas of the County outside of the Stanford University Community Plan Area. On May 8, 2018, the Board of Supervisors received a report from the Administration regarding the Silicon Valley/Alameda County Affordable Housing Nexus Study (“Nexus Study”), which evaluated potential standards for inclusionary housing requirements and affordable housing impact fees addressing development within the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County within the Stanford University Community Plan Area and all other unincorporated areas (“greater unincorporated area”).
On September 25, 2018, the Board adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance affecting the Stanford Community Plan Area. In accordance with the Board’s direction, the Department has begun work on preparation of Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Affordable Housing Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance addressing the greater unincorporated area. Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) is the contractor who will prepare supplemental analysis and studies to support the ordinances. KMA estimates it will complete this analysis and provide a supplemental report to the County Administration in May 2019. Subsequently, the Administration will prepare a draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance with recommended standards and conduct public outreach to facilitate input from stakeholders affected by the Ordinance.
Where: Santa Clara County Housing, Land Use, Environment, and Transportation Committee
When: April 18, 2019, 10:00AM
Link to item: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=SplitView&MeetingID=11322&MediaPosition=&ID=96106&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=11322
Peralez, Jimenez, Carrasco, Esparza, Arenas propose creation of citywide “Equity Fund”
Council Members Peralez, Jimenez, Carrasco, Esparza, Arenas recommend that Council hold a Study Session on incorporating an Equity Fund into the 2019-2020 budget.
The Equity Fund would support the equitable distribution of City resources and services. It would allocate funds to address disparities in blight, vehicle abatement, education, community programs, parks maintenance, environmental mitigation, public safety, code enforcement, and economic development. The Equity Fund would also serve to address quality of life issues such as language access, service delivery, cultural competency and other factors that have left marginalized communities behind.
They suggest a number of possible funding sources, including the Marijuana Business Tax or the Construction Excise Tax. More generally, the CMs suggest exploring further opportunities to bring an equity lens into issues of access to neighborhood services in diverse communities throughout the city. One example of this: instead of allocating funds equally to all 10 council districts, allocating more funds to higher-needs districts.
Where: San Jose Rules & Open Government Committee
When: April 17, 2019, 2pm
Link to item: http://sanjose.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=5237
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=36262&GUID=C61F4090-B945-4162-94EC-A504FDB7035D
DIEP 4/12 MEMO – Diep argues against shifting mayoral elections to presidential years because, he claims, it does not actually help to promote an engaged and motivated electorate. “Rather than relying on the presidential race to turn out voters, we must do more to help voters understand the role local elections have on their day-to-day quality of life.”
LICCARDO & JONES 4/12 MEMO – Liccardo and Jones advise against shifting mayoral election years; instead they propose convening a community working group to investigate and implement ways to promote voter turnout and foster “a strong culture of voting,” and they also recommend endorsing Assemblymember Kalra’s bill to put voting centers on college campuses.
CARRASCO, JIMENEZ, ESPARZA 4/12 MEMO – The Councilmembers recommend supporting a ballot measure to shift mayoral elections to presidential years.
3 LETTERS FROM PUBLIC –
Original item: Staff and the Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices recommend that council approve a ballot measure that would allow the City’s voters to decide whether to shift the City’s mayoral election from the gubernatorial cycle to the presidential cycle.
The Board’s recommendation to shift to the presidential cycle is based on the observation that from 1980 through 2018, voter turnout in the City of San Jose was over 13 percent higher for presidential general elections compared to gubernatorial general elections, and over 8 percent higher for presidential primaries compared to gubernatorial primaries, indicating that voter turnout may increase for mayoral elections if shifted to a presidential election cycle.
However, if the mayoral election is shifted from the gubernatorial cycle to the presidential cycle, the City must decide whether to extend the Mayor’s term starting in 2019 from four years to six years, or hold a special election for a mayoral term that will last two years. Since the Board has no benchmark or legal criteria in which to evaluate this issue, and public comment on this matter was mixed, the Board makes no recommendation on this question.
If council decides to host a special election for a mayoral term from 2022 through 2024, the City will incur costs for administering a citywide election. In reviewing the City’s election data dating back to 1980, the City has not held a special election for this citywide office, so the Board does not have financial information to estimate the potential cost.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: Tuesday, April 16, 2019, 1:30pm
Link to item: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3894901&GUID=E49371BD-6A83-4C37-A519-FF3C3E8AB95C&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=669962&GUID=7460D3CE-C10C-4393-98E4-50521A4001B8&Options=&Search=
Changing DSAP and Downtown Area design guidelines
Council will consider making changes to design guidelines within the 2014 Diridon Station Area Plan, changes related to “site planning, access and circulation, building form, and open space.”
Council will also discuss approving a new “San José Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards” document to replace the existing “2004 Downtown Design Guidelines” for projects generally located in the Downtown area.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: April 23, 2019, 1:30pm
Link to item: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3918267&GUID=77D2AF70-273F-4E4E-9DD5-2EDC0D82DAA8
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=21676&GUID=ACCCCFF5-F14A-4E1A-8540-9065F45A8A90
DROPPED – N. San Pedro Housing Area developer defaults on contract, City to seek remedies
Item has been dropped from agenda.
Council will adopt a resolution finding Z & L Properties in default of its obligations under a Disposition and Development Agreement to develop Block H in the North San Pedro Housing Project Area.
As such, the City will pursue all available remedies, such as exercising the Successor Agency’s right to retake and offer the property for sale.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: April 16, 2019, 1:30PM
Link to item: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3908097&GUID=4E119ACF-9ED9-4398-A334-7030D8C47131
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=21676&GUID=ACCCCFF5-F14A-4E1A-8540-9065F45A8A90
Council Members Esparza, Davis, Peralez 4/12 MEMO – MOU with Sharks to expand arena; PLA included
ESPARZA, DAVIS, PERALEZ 4/12 MEMO – The Councilmembers recommends that Council approve the staff memo recommendations and add their own recommendation that the San Jose Arena Authority’s (SJAA) implement an Arena Ticket Distribution Program, like the program that has been so successful in the current arena, but for the new, expanded arena. This program has distributed over 100,000 tickets for a variety of community purposes and often allow individuals who wouldn’t normally get to attend events with the opportunity to go.
Original Item: To meet a huge increase in regional demand for ‘ice time’ and to provide an alternate home arena for the San Jose Barracuda, Sharks Ice is proposing a Fourth Expansion to the Solar4America Ice Facility, adding over 200 SF of space.
Sharks Ice, which operates the facility, has requested that the City issue taxable municipal debt to finance the construction of the new improvements. They estimate the total cost of the bond issuance to be $145-$150M including construction costs. City staff is currently in the process of its due diligence review and is facilitating the preparation of a feasibility study of the proposed project.
Staff recommends that the City Manager to negotiate and execute a MOU with
Sharks Ice, LLC outlining each party’s roles in the proposed expansion of
Solar4America Ice at San Jose, including the following:
(1) Completion of the feasibility study needed for bond financing;
(2) Development and review of possible parking solutions for the facility;
(3) City’s review and approval of Sharks Ice, LLC project delivery and contractor prequalification process; and
(4) Terms and conditions for reimbursing Sharks Ice for work performed by the design team it has assembled.
At the time of the drafting of the staff memorandum, the Project Labor Agreement (PLA) between the City and the Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building Trades Council (BTC) is not yet signed. On March 22, 2019, the City received a copy of the PLA signed by the Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and all affiliate Unions. Upon a fully executed PLA, Sharks Ice has agreed to utilize the PLA on this project with the exception of one portion of the work. The portion of work that would be excluded from the PLA is the installation of the ice skid.
Staff anticipates returning to Council in the fall of 2019 to provide an update on the proposed project.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: April 16, 2019, 1:30PM
Link to item: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3908094&GUID=E59B2D3A-A29F-4085-8446-19D258F0EABA Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=21676&GUID=ACCCCFF5-F14A-4E1A-8540-9065F45A8A90
Deferred from 3/26 –
The Ellis Act regulates how landlords of rent-controlled properties (San Jose properties built before 1979 with rent raises restricted to 5% a year) may take their properties off the market, effectively evicting all current tenants. They are required to give tenants 120 days’ notice and pay relocation costs.
Council will receive a staff report providing research on the Ellis Act Ordinance’s recontrol provisions. “Recontrol” refers to the full or partial reinstatement of rent control when a landlord places the property back on the market. The specifics of recontrol terms can have significant effects. In Santa Monica, for example, local government passed an ordinance stating that Ellis Act properties that were taken off the market, rebuilt, and back on the market within 5 years of an Ellis Act eviction were subject to full rent “recontrol.” This resulted in some landlords waiting for 5 years to lapse before putting their properties back on the market.
The staff report will include different options for meeting recontrol requirements. City Housing Director Jacky Morales-Ferrand argues that 100% recontrol provisions can lead to a net loss of rent controlled units.
The Housing and Community Development Commission on 3/28 released a letter urging the Council to vote against any changes to the Ellis Act Ordinance, arguing that the Ellis Act Ordinance has not impeded ongoing development projects and that tenants cannot afford to lose more protections.
SVO, the Building Industry Association, and the Santa Clara Association of Realtors have all submitted letters urging Council to reduce rent recontrol requirements to a 1-1 rent-controlled unit replacement ratio. All make the argument that a 50% re-control rule makes developing new projects financially infeasible.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: April 23, 2019, not to be heard before 3:30 p.m.
Link to item: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3915582&GUID=38A38777-E913-48F7-A8CE-F3DCC5E6AD51
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=21676&GUID=ACCCCFF5-F14A-4E1A-8540-9065F45A8A90
Consider appointments to 7 commissions, incl. Planning Commission
Planning Commissioners’ terms are for three years, are allowed to serve a maximum of three consecutive three-year terms. Commissioners Sandhu and Ciardella have both served more than three consecutive three-year terms and are not eligible for reappointment. From the list of 20 applicants, Mayor Tran and Councilmembers submitted the following recommendations to City Council for appointments to the Planning Commission:
- Evelyn Chua (recommended by Mayor Tran) to a term of service that will expire in December of 2021
- Steve Tao (recommended by councilmember Phan) to a term of service that will expire in December of 2021
Mayor Tran also recommends making appointments to the following six commissions, pending vote of approval:
- Arts Commission
- Newly appoint Robert Besler to a vacant seat as Commissioner to a term that expires in October 2021.
- Economic Development and Trade
Commission
- Newly appoint Victor San Vicente as voting Commissioner representing residents (into vacant seat) to a term that expires in April 2022.
- Newly appoint Juliette Gomez as voting Commissioner representing residents (in seat served by M. Nguyen) to a term that expires in April 2021.
- Re-appoint Chris Norwood as MUSD Board representative to a term that expires in April 2022.
- Confirm Michael Tsai as Alternate from the school board, per Board action
- Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Resources Commission
- Appoint current Alternate No. 1 Voltaire Montemayor as voting Commissioner to term to expire in June 2021.
- Newly appoint Ricky Davis as Alternate No. 1 to a term that expires in June of 2020.
- Newly appoint Molly Current as Alternate No. 2 to a term that expires in June of 2019.
- Public Safety & Emergency
Preparedness Commission
- Confirm the assignment of Milpitas Unified School District Board of Trustees member Hon Lien to newly serve as voting Commissioner to a currently vacant seat that expires in June of 2020.
- Confirm Boardmember Daniel Bobay as Alternate.
- Science, Technology and
Innovation Commission
- Appoint current Alternate No. 1 Jaime Hallera as voting Commissioner to a term that expires in January 2020.
- Appoint current Alternate No. 2 Ratan Choudhury as Alternate No. 1 to a term that expires January 2021.
- Newly appoint Guy Haas as Alternate No. 2 to a term that expires in January 2021.
- Veterans Commission
- Appoint current Alternate No. 2 Ricardo Martinez as Commissioner to a term that expires in February 2022.
- Newly appoint Bruce Choy as Alternate No. 1 to a term that expires in February 2022.
Where: Milpitas City Council
When: Tuesday, April 16, 2019, 7pm
Link to item: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2019/041619/attachment.pdf
Link to agenda: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2019/041619/Agenda.pdf
Propose 2-person subcommittee to set Council agendas, led by Mayor
On February 22, 2019, at the City Council retreat, Council directed staff to bring back recommendations for establishing a formal process for setting the Council agenda.
The current practice of setting the Council agenda is that the City Manager, in conjunction with the executive leadership team, develops a draft agenda based on the following guidelines:
1. Policies, programs, and ordinances per established Council priorities and follow up to prior Council direction
2. Capital projects that have been approved in the five year CIP
3. Any reports that require Council approval
4. Requests from the Mayor or individual Councilmembers
The City Manager discusses the agenda and the draft agenda for the subsequent meeting with the Mayor and individual Councilmembers during 1:1 meetings. Additionally the City Manager also shares a six-month look ahead of major items coming to Council. A tentative agenda for each subsequent meeting is included as an agenda item for discussion in the prior Council meeting.
Staff is proposing the following for Council consideration while discussing the establishment of a 2-person subcommittee for setting the Council agenda:
- That the Mayor lead the agenda subcommittee since he is the presiding officer of the City Council. The Mayor may choose to directly appoint the second subcommittee member on an annual basis or have this appointment be considered by Council. In order to avoid a Brown Act violation, the City Attorney’s office is recommending that no other Councilmember actively participate in any discussion at this proposed subcommittee.
- That the Council consider additional delegation of authority to the City Manager to include, for example: acceptance of grants, approval of staff travel, and add/delete actions for positions that do not require the establishment of new classifications or the need for an appropriation action.
- That the agenda subcommittee meet at least 10 days prior to a regular Council meeting.
- That at the first meeting, the agenda subcommittee may want to approve criteria for items to be placed on the consent calendar.
- That Staff shall strive to place no more than 4-6 discussion items on the agenda to the extent possible.
- That Staff provide a six-month look ahead on all major policy and program items to the Council Agenda subcommittee on a monthly basis.
Where: Milpitas City Council
When: Tuesday, April 16, 2019, 7pm
Link to item: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2019/041619/attachment.pdf
Link to agenda: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2019/041619/Agenda.pdf
City of Cupertino
Consider 18-month pilot partnership with Via for $2.1M to provide community ride-share shuttle services
In the summer of 2018, the Public Works Department conducted an online survey to determine preferences such as desired destinations, preferred hours of operation, etc. A total of 806 surveys were completed by residents, employees, and students in Cupertino. Survey findings showed strong overall support for a community-oriented shuttle, and highlighted preferences for the type of shuttle service in Cupertino.
In several of the surveys community members noted the City should pursue partnerships with private ride-sharing companies as a way to reduce cost and provide a high quality service. Upon receiving this recommendation, staff contacted Via – a rapidly growing ride-sharing firm and reached out to the City of West Sacramento to learn more about an ongoing pilot underway operated by Via.
Via is a ride-share company that provides corner-to-corner shuttle service. Unlike Lyft or Uber, with Via, riders walk a set distance to meet the shuttle. The shuttle uses an algorithm to pick up passengers travelling along similar routes and drops them off at or near their final destination, but following no fixed-route. Service would be branded as a City of Cupertino shuttle with Via’s logo also on the shuttle.
Via manages all aspects of the service including driver hiring and training, State permitting, marketing and overall program management. All details of a shuttle program, including insurance, maintenance, fuel costs, etc. are included. Via provides a turn-key shuttle service, providing 6-passenger Mercedes Metris vans with bike racks, advanced safety features, and are ADA compliant. As reservations are made for all trips, the City would be provided with anonymized trip data that would be used to assess the health of the shuttle program and provide insights into local travel patterns. The City would be asked to provide a safe parking area for the vans during the evening hours and when not in use. The City is able to set the fare, hours of operation, and determine the cost of weekly or monthly fare packages, and whether or not to offer reduced or free fares for students, seniors and low-income riders.
If an 18-month on-demand pilot with Via is selected the overall cost would be approximately $2,100,000.
If Via is determined be the sole qualified vendor of these services, a contract would be negotiated and staff will bring the contract to City Council for approval. Once the contract is executed, Via and Cupertino staff will begin work on system planning, which includes details such as fares, fare programs, system area, operations, etc. Staff anticipates that after an agreement is negotiated with Via that service would begin within a three-month period, with service as early as summer 2019.
Where: Cupertino City Council
When: Tuesday, April 16, 2019, 6:45pm
Link to item: http://cupertino.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=62028d50-cb56-4115-ba1a-5a1d154f78cd.doc
Link to agenda: https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=655516&GUID=7E592ECA-2116-464D-A40D-D79F1247BBBF
Appoint Deborah L. Feng as City Manager
With the announcement of former City Manager David Brandt’s retirement in May 2018, the City Council conducted a nationwide search to find an appropriate replacement of this key position. After an unsuccessful recruitment for City Manager in late 2018, the City Council paused the recruitment and began a second nationwide recruitment in January 2019. The successful candidate, Deborah L. Feng, has accepted the Council’s offer of employment as Cupertino’s next City Manager. The contract before Council tonight establishes the negotiated terms and conditions of the 3-year employment agreement. Ms. Feng will commence her duties on June 3, 2019.
Staff also proposes to amend the Appointed Employees’ Compensation Program to reflect the annual salary amounts contained in the Employment Agreement, with an effective date of June 3, 2019.
Where: Cupertino City Council
When: Tuesday, April 16, 2019, 6:45pm
Link to item: http://cupertino.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=24c38b10-efc4-4553-a50c-2c1d0f98878e.DOCX
Link to agenda: https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=655516&GUID=7E592ECA-2116-464D-A40D-D79F1247BBBF
City of Palo Alto
Ratifying tentative contract w SEIU 521
Staff recommends that council adopt a new Memorandum of Agreement and salary schedule between the City and the Service Employees International Union, Local 521 (SEIU) effective January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2021.
SEIU is the City’s largest bargaining unit, with approximately 580 budgeted full-time positions that support all major City services, including Utilities, Libraries, Public Works, Public Safety, and a wide range of administrative functions. The current 3-year contract expired on December 31, 2018. The parties reached a tentative agreement on March 20, 2019 and SEIU voted to ratify the tentative agreement on March 27, 2019.
The tentative agreement includes:
- A three-year term, designed to bring stability
- An immediate 3.5% across-the-board increase for all positions
- Additional market based, and recruitment/retention based incentives from 1%-20% for hard to fill, critical positions such as Utilities Lineperson Cable splicers and Engineers
- 1% additional contributions from employees towards the employer pension contributions (Classic employees will contribute 10%, PEPRA employees 8.25%)
- Establishment of a benefits committee to discuss long term delivery and funding of active and retiree health, in conjunction with other labor groups.
Factors that influenced the bargaining environment included the regional cost of living such as a rising CPI reaching 4.5% and home prises rising by by 4.6% from December 2017 to December 2018. In addition, geography plays a greater role in impacting Palo Alto than many of our comparator agencies because 60% of the City’s workforce lives more than 30 miles from Palo Alto. This key factor makes Palo Alto vulnerable to losing employees to other cities or employers who are closer to their residence.
This agreement is effective upon ratification and is anticipated to result in costs of up to $720,000 in FY 2019 across all funds, with the General Fund’s increase being $147,000. This is within budgetary estimates and it is not anticipated that a budgetary action will be necessary in FY 2019 to accommodate the two months of contract costs. This contract is anticipated to result in increased costs of $3.7 million in FY 2020, $4.4 million in FY 2021, and $4.8 million FY 2022 across all funds. In the General Fund, increased costs are anticipated to be $917,000 in FY 2020, $1.2 million in FY 2021, and $1.3 million in FY 2022.
Where: Palo Alto City Council
When: Monday, April 22, 2019, 5pm
Link to item: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70502
Link to agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=42204.01&BlobID=70487
Adopting nexus study and ordinance increasing Transportation Impact Fee
Staff recommends that council accept the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study and adopt an ordinance increasing the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee and suspending collection of two area-specific transportation impact fees.
The ordinance implements changes to the transportation impact fee program by 1) updating the fees based on reasonably anticipated capital projects, and 2) eliminates or phases out all but one of the geographically-based fees in favor of a single citywide fee. Implementation of this ordinance would more than slightly double the fee over what is currently collected, but accounts for reductions in the total amount collected for some projects located in certain parts of the City that include measures to reduce vehicular trips in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s policy on required trip reductions.
The City currently assesses a transportation impact fee on new development. Citywide fees, as well as geographically-specific fees, are collected to offset a project’s impact to traffic congestion and need for capital improvements.
The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan includes a program that requires the City to explore modifications to the transportation impact fee program and to prepare a new nexus study. This new study is now complete and reviews the City’s current traffic impact fees, projected development during the life of the Comp Plan (i.e. by 2030), and anticipated capital improvements that will be needed during the same timeframe.
The study recommends increasing the citywide transportation impact fee charged to new development based on the number of peak hour vehicle trips that are anticipated after implementation of enforceable transportation demand management (TDM) plans. The recommended fee is $7,886 per net new peak hour trip, which is more than double the current citywide fee, but the study endorses a reduction of the fee to be incurred by retail projects.
At the same time, the study also recommends elimination of two area-specific transportation impact fees that are charged in the San Antonio and Stanford Research Park areas. Operationally, adoption of the ordinance will mean that most new development will be subject to one transportation impact fee, rather than multiple fees, and that fee will be reduced to reflect direct investments in trip reduction via TDM plans. For example, the new requirement for TDM plans in the California Avenue Area in Comprehensive Plan Program T1.2.2 (and EIR mitigation measure Trans 1a) is to achieve a 35% reduction below motor-vehicle tripgeneration rates established by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Therefore, new development will have to provide an enforceable plan to meet this requirement and pay a fee of $7,886 for each remaining PM peak hour trip that is not reduced beyond the TDM plan reduction, which may be more than 35%.
The nexus study identifies a list of capital projects that would cost close to $1 billion in total ($935.1 million), with the City’s share estimated at approximately $391.6 million, assuming a City contribution to the county and regional projects on the list. Funding for the City’s share of these projects will be evaluated for inclusion in the five-year Capital Improvement Program which is reviewed as part of the annual budget cycle. If all development projected to occur by 2030 proceeds as predicted, the impact fee recommended would generate 4.4% of the City’s share of the cost, or $17.2 million. Finally, if public buildings are no longer exempt from the fee, the City would need to start a new practice of budgeting for additional costs to its capital projects in order to accommodate payment of the fee.
Where: Palo Alto City Council
When: Monday, April 22, 2019, 5pm
Link to item: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70517
Link to agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=42204.01&BlobID=70487
Approving workplan to analyze revenue generating options and develop business tax proposal
Staff recommends that council approve a draft workplan for staff to analyze revenue generating options and develop a plan for a business tax proposal, including reform of the business registry through implementation of a business license program.
Key milestones in the workplan timeline:
August
Finance Committee: accepts refined analysis of revenue generating proposals estimates; discuss and provide guidance on initial polling. With the assistance of consultant expertise, a more in-depth review of revenue generating proposals will be presented to the Finance Committee providing more accurate financial estimates to assist in financial planning.
September
City Council: confirmation on potential revenue generating proposals including revised revenue estimates. Work completed with the Finance Committee to be reviewed by the full Council in order to receive input and direction on more refined steps.
October
City Council decides on revenue generating proposal(s) to pursue, informed by the Finance Committee, financial analysis, polling, and a more refined understand of potential projects and associated costs.
November 2019-April 2020
Staff work – Continue stakeholder outreach, draft required legal documents, complete polling as appropriate. City Council and Finance Committee will be provided updates as necessary for status check-ins, feedback, and policy decisions.
June 2020
City Council approves November 2020 ballot measure and specific measure language. Should the City Council choose to pursue a ballot measure(s), final approval including the ballot measure language will need to be submitted to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters in early August 2020.
Where: Palo Alto City Council
When: Monday, April 22, 2019, 5pm
Link to item: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70507
Link to agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=42204.01&BlobID=70487
VTA
Approve pre-development Master Planning Agreement with Jay Paul Inc and Swenson for development on VTA Block
The committee will consider recommending the approval of a Master Planning Agreement with Jay Paul Inc and Swenson in relation to the development of the 3.66 acres VTA block in Downtown San Jose. The VTA Block represents VTA’s single biggest TOD opportunity. There is, however, a major impediment to the realization of the VTA Block’s potential: even though VTA owns most of the VTA Block, the location and size of the other ownership interests means that if each owner independently pursues development on its sites (including VTA), much less development – potentially up to one-half million square feet or less – would result.
After extensive discussion, staff and the other owners determined that the most practical approach that would work with VTA’s timetable for the EPD application to FTA, and gain the participation of the other property owners, is a collaborative effort to create a Master Plan that establishes an agreed upon framework for future development by all parties on the VTA Block and would ultimately culminate in the recordation of an agreed-upon map for the VTA Block and land transfers among the owners to create appropriately sized development parcels that would permit each individual owner to independently pursue development.
Where: VTA Administration and Finance Committee
When: Thursday, April 18, 2019 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_041819_packet.pdf
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Direction on proposing updates to Living Wage Policy
The Board will receive information on the District’s current Living Wage Policy
and may direct staff to return with proposed updates to the Living Wage Policy, for future
discussion and approval by the Board.
In 2003, the Board adopted a Living Wage Policy that provided: Persons doing work for or on behalf of the District, to not be paid less than a living wage, not able to afford health insurance, have reasonable time off, and not be subject to lay-off merely because the District changes contracts, and to work in an environment where there is labor peace. This policy was confirmed by the Board in 2008.
In 2011, the Board in reviewing the policy amended it to provide: Subject to the District’s Living Wage Policy, provide persons doing work for or on behalf of the District at least a living wage and reasonable time off. Eliminated from the policy was the language regarding affording health insurance, not being subject to lay-off merely because the District changes contracts, and working in an environment where there is labor peace.
The current policy applies to awarded contracts of $50,000 or more for specified services. The current policy requires that persons doing work for or on behalf of the District be paid at least a living wage and receive reasonable time off. Embedded in the policy is language on Employee Retention Requirements, but there is no specific language regarding being able to afford health insurance or defining the meaning of reasonable time off.
It is recommended that the Board consider updates to the policy that address health insurance and paid time off. Since District employees receive health insurance and paid time off, these changes to the policy would make it more comparable to what District employees receive. If the Board approves the recommendation, staff will report back at the Board’s May 14, 2019 meeting, the details of a possible revised policy, including any additional costs to implement.
Where: Santa Clara Valley Water District
When: Tuesday, April 23, 2019, 9:30am
Link to item: https://scvwd.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3919440&GUID=789A23CA-95C4-4C9E-A0C8-08D9F08A1E1D&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://scvwd.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=640503&GUID=BE72C973-C7B4-4748-8891-ADCFF76210FE&Options=info&Search=
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