RESPONSE TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS RE: 4/19/22 AGENDA
Agenda Item 3: Proclamation of Earth Day/Arbor Day
Council Question:
It’s nice to raise awareness of Arbor Day and Earth Day but it seems to me that the City is falling short of actually committing to increasing its tree canopy to reduce heat island effects. San Jose requires street trees and requires residents to maintain and prune at their own expense. Santa Clara takes care of all that.
I see the following in the draft CAP document but it seems that the City is not willing to commit to adding 1600 trees in ROW in the CAP.
What is the cost of adding root barriers when trees are installed in front of residential homes so as to minimize City expenses for repairing sidewalks?
Staff Response:
The 1,600 trees mentioned in the draft Climate Action Plan is presented as an “example opportunity” to provide carbon benefits by increasing the City’s tree stock by 15% (currently 10,500 city street trees). The 1,600 tree number did not get placed in the Strategy portion of the draft CAP due to General Fund budgetary limitations.
However, we are currently and will continue to seek a variety of funding opportunities to plant trees in public spaces, such as parks. Currently, the City’s Operating budget includes $108,000 for street tree planting which funds approximately 160 new trees per year.
Regarding root barriers costs, there is an additional cost at approximately $200 per tree. To install 1,600 trees with root barriers is approximately $1.5 million. Note: This does not include funding for pruning of the 1,600 trees.”
2 Agenda Item 4I: Adoption of a Resolution of Intention for Santa Clara Convention Center Complex - Maintenance District No. 183
Council Question:
I may pull this item.
Why is the City’s portion 39.64% for sidewalks but 78.72% for parking controls? The parking structure is pretty old. What is the reserve for repairing/replacing the parking structure? Can we start charging for parking to recover a portion of the $842K that the City spends and to put aside money for the reserve?
After all, Valley Fair Shopping Center has now started to charge for parking. It will help with our climate goals.
I’m a huge fan of Donald Shoup.
Staff Response:
• As noted in the staff report, the percentage allocations for the City were in established in proportion to the benefits received in the original lease agreements between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clara and the other entities within Maintenance District 183 and during the original formation of MD 183 in 1986. Any proposed changes would require extensive research and coordination with the convention center operators and those affected by MD 183.
• For the parking structure, MD 183’s FY 2022/23 budget does not include any capital improvements, such as those associated with the garage or surface parking lot. Staff will need to work with the other parties to identify capital funding needs and develop a plan to address any of those projects in the future.
• Regarding charging for parking, the scope of the Maintenance District does not include provisions for charging for parking. Any proposals related to charging for parking would need extensive coordination with the City Manager’s office, convention center operator, and tenants. It is also a Council Policy decision whether to charge for parking in Santa Clara.
Agenda Item 4.H 22-442 Action on Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Gates and Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. (Gates) for Design Professional Services for the Westwood Oaks Playground Rehabilitation Project
Council Question:
Was phase II of the project ever went under RFP process or it was included in the original Phase I RFP ?
Staff Response:
The City went through an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) process in 2020 to create a list of 10 qualified consultants for Parks and Recreation projects. This is a common practice in other Departments and other cities.
In February 2021, using the RFQ list, the City created a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the 10 qualified consultants to submit proposals for the Westwood Oaks Playground Rehabilitation Project. The RFP included the scopes for Phase 1 (concept plans, masterplan) and Phase 2 (design/bid/award/construction support).
Council Question:
4H seems to be for money for Gates and Associates to develop a Master Plan and do community outreach BUT 4P seems to be to approve the Master Plan that Gates is proposing to do in 4H. I’m confused.
Staff Response:
The design of Westwood Oaks Rehabilitation Project (Project) is being delivered in two phases as highlighted below.
3 • Phase 1 is for the preparation of concepts for the park, schematic design, community outreach, and presentation to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Phase 1 was supported by a design professional services agreement with Gates and Associates and is being presented to Council on April 19th for final approval as item 4P. The original agreement was for $92,817 which is within the delegated authorization level for City Manager approval. The project itself is listed in the Capital Improvement Program budget.
• Phase 2 is for the design and future construction support for the Project and assumes Phase 1 (item 4P) is approved by the Council. Gates and Associates contract for Phase 1 is being amended with item 4H to include their work necessary for Phase 2.
• Regarding how “poor” of a condition the restroom and recreation building are, the age of the facilities date from 1961 are still functional and in usable condition rated at 22/100 in 2017.
Agenda Item 4J: Adoption of a Resolution of Intention for Parking Maintenance District No. 122 - Franklin Square
Council Question/Comment:
Please note that I will be pulling item 4J from the council agenda on Tuesday.
I would like to consider the option of dissolving the PMD.
Staff Response:
Report 22-1672 that went to council on 1/25/2022 provides a summary of the work recently completed by staff per Council direction and describes the process Council can follow if they want to dissolve the district (language included below). Staff notes that as a practical matter, dissolution would merely eliminate the property owners’ assessments as a funding source for capital improvement costs to repair the two parking lots. Dissolution would not relieve the City’s responsibility for upkeep and maintenance of the City-owned improvements at the Franklin Square Mall.
Process for Dissolving PMD 122
Proposition 218 does not govern the dissolution of PMD 122 because dissolution has the effect of eliminating, rather than increasing, the assessment. Therefore, only the City Code and Streets and Highways Code would apply. Under those laws, dissolution is not subject to the approval of property owners within the district. The Council can dissolve the maintenance district by: (1) adopting a resolution of intention to dissolve the district; (2) between 10 and 30 days later, conducting a public hearing on the dissolution; and, (3) adopting a resolution dissolving the district. A resolution dissolving the district would only need a simple Council majority to pass. If Council votes to dissolve PMD 122, extraordinary maintenance activities can continue to utilize PMD 122 assessment funds until the balance is exhausted. After the funds are exhausted the City would be required to fund the extraordinary maintenance in its entirety.
Item 4Q: Action on 2022 Legislative Advocacy Positions
Council Comments:
I plan to pull item 4Q to suggest the following amendments:
Under “Transportation Issues (previously titled Regional Transportation Issues)” Support the principles advocated by Seamless Bay Area to integrate/coordinate multiple transit agency schedules, fare payment, transfers, etc.
Under SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
4 CHANGE:
Support opportunities to further reform the California Environmental Quality Act process to achieve greater efficiency, transparency, and alignment with objective environmental goals, while protecting local land use authority.
TO:
Support opportunities to further reform the California Environmental Quality Act process to match California’s very ambitious and accelerated goals for Greenhouse Gas emissions reductions while protecting local land use authority.
ALSO CHANGE:
Monitor energy related legislation including but not limited to that which impacts renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation, resiliency, smart grid solutions, energy storage, distributed energy and building and transportation electrification.
TO add “demand response”
Monitor energy related legislation including but not limited to that which impacts renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation, resiliency, smart grid solutions, energy storage, demand response, distributed energy and building and transportation electrification.
Staff Response:
Staff reviewed the proposed changes to the Transportation Issues LAP and Sustainability and Environmental Protection LAP and will recommend adopting the following:
• Transportation Issues LAP
– Add “Support efforts to integrate fare payments, schedules, transfers, and technology across multiple transit agencies to enhance regional transit service connectively.” (Note this language has been slightly edited from the proposed new language to accommodate any name changes to the Seamless Bay Area effort)
• Sustainability and Environmental Protection LAP
– Update “Monitor energy related legislation including but not limited to that which impacts renewable energy, energy efficiency and conservation, resiliency, smart grid solutions, energy storage, distributed energy and building and transportation electrification.” to include demand response.
Staff reviewed the proposed update to the CEQA position and believes that it would be a significant change to the City’s existing position on CEQA. The current approach is very broad and covers all aspects of CEQA, including its overall effectiveness at achieving multiple environmental goals, while not committing to a specific type of advocacy around those goals. The proposed change would narrowly focus our advocacy around CEQA reform to focus specifically on ambitious and accelerated goals for Greenhouse Gas emissions, while not addressing other concerns. For this change to be effective, it would also be helpful to clarify the intent of “ambitious and accelerated goals for Greenhouse Gas emissions”. The Sustainability and Environmental Protection LAP does already contain multiple positions that advocate for greenhouse gas reductions.
It would be helpful to have further clarification on the proposed position and staff will bring it back during the next legislative quarterly update, similar to what we did last year for pending positions that we were unable to vet immediately.