RESPONSE TO COUNCIL QUESTIONS RE: 6/7/22 AGENDA
Agenda Item 2: Study Session: Review of the Proposed FY 2022/23 & FY 2023/24 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget and FY 2022/23 Operating Budget Changes and Review of Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule Changes to Library Community Room Rental Fees
Council Question:
1. It seems the costs for the Stadium Neighborhood committee are estimated to be $156K/year. Does that mean that all meetings like Governance and Ethics, for example, cost between $40K and $50K per meeting? Where does the $156K for the NURC come from? If specific to Stadium issues rather than Stadium and Great America, then due to Measure J, the money would come from the Stadium Authority.
Correct? BPAC has had only one Councilmember for years. Could the Stadium NSRC operate with fewer than 3 councilmembers and would that save money?
Staff Response:
The estimated cost of the Stadium Neighborhood committee is premised on the Measure J requirement that all costs associated with the Stadium not be borne by the General Fund. Therefore, the cost of this committee would be a Stadium Authority cost to the extent it works on stadium-related issues. The high- level cost estimate of $156k was solely based on the presumed key staff involved and an estimate of the hours required to support the committee (e.g., agenda preparation, reports, meeting time and follow up) with staff from the City Manager’s Office, Police Department, Fire Department and Public Works Department. The estimate for other committees would be different based upon staff involved in those committees. There is currently not a separate accounting of the costs associated with Council committees as these are budgeted in the various departments. The cost for these committees can also be looked at as an assignment of resources or staff capacity. If staff resources were not used for committees, they could be re-deployed to support other areas. The number of Councilmembers on a Council committee does not markedly impact the costs associated with the implementation of a Council committee but rather the scope and breadth of the committee agendas and the follow up required.
2. I would like to know if we know which systems at the current ISC are most unreliable or have the longest lead times to get parts. Once we identify those, how much money is needed to reduce downtime at the ISC to fewer than 3 weeks a year? This money is just to tide us over until we can pass a bond to either rebuild the ISC elsewhere at Central Park or in place.
Staff Response:
The Capital Improvement Program Budget includes an initial funding request to conduct a forensic study of the infrastructure of the existing ISC. In 2017, the City completed a visual Facility Condition Assessment (Kitchell Report) and it indicated the need for about $25M and it also indicated that further study was needed to investigate items not able to be seen. Given the current age and condition of the ISC, without a forensic study there is no “list” or estimate of the amount of funding needed to reduce closure to a less than 3 week time period. The results of the forensic study will provide a better understanding of the needs and condition of the facility and its component systems. The Parks and Recreation Department will continue to maintain the pool and its operating systems as long as possible.
If the ISC pools are rebuilt in place, that would be a solution that has not been supported in the past as indicated in the Central Park Master Plan primarily due to issues of traffic, parking, noise and closure of the pools for duration of the construction (potentially 24+ months) with no alternative for aquatic programs.
2 3. What is the cost to rebuild the Fire training tower?
Staff Response:
The City recently hired a consultant to evaluate the existing Fire Training Tower and perform a condition assessment along with recommendations. Based on those recommendations there is some repair work that is needed; however, the Fire Training Tower does not need to be rebuilt. An unfunded project is currently included in the proposed budget for $1,140,000 which is the current estimate to design, bid, and construct the repairs per the consultant’s report.
4. Didn’t the school district offer to pay for the DARE program or at least help with more of the costs?
Staff Response:
The City has an MOU with the Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD) for DARE to be taught at the 14 elementary schools and 2 middle schools within our jurisdiction. A copy of the MOU is attached for reference. The current MOU is a three-year agreement from 2019 to 2022 (set to expire on June 30, 2022). The agreement calls for the SCUSD to pay to the City $60,131 for first year (2019/2020 school year) (an increase of 3% based on the previous year), $61,935 for second year (2020/2021 school year) (an increase of 3% based on the previous year) and for third year $63,793 (2021/2022 school year) (an increase of 3% based on the previous year). The City has only billed the school district for the first year since we have not provided DARE instruction the past 2 school years. City staff has not initiated a renewal of the MOU since we are not in a position to provide DARE next school year. Please note that the City also has separate agreements with several private schools within our jurisdiction for DARE services.
The payment from SCUSD for DARE instruction covers a very small portion of the City’s costs. This was brought to SCUSD’s attention in March 2021 at a City-School Liaison Committee meeting. The Police Department made a formal request of SCUSD to increase the funding to at least $200,000 annually (see attached letter). The City has not received a response from SCUSD.
5. Can Parks and Rec track the total annual additional costs of subsidizing Parks and Rec rooms as well as library rooms under the new fee schedule? Or at least report on the how many times rooms were rented under the new subsidy schedule?
Staff Response:
Yes, the Departments can provide a year-over-year comparison report next year based on the amount of revenue received for room rentals versus the 100% cost recovery amount. The number (quantity) of room rentals will also be provided.
6. Would Councilmembers be able to rent subsidized rooms for their community meetings if the meetings were non-political/campaign related?
Staff Response:
Members of the public, including City Councilmembers, may rent rooms for meetings. The Department will follow the cost recovery policy which defines a fee category for residents and a category for non- profit organizations or groups that serve Santa Clara. Rental of City meeting rooms for a political or campaign purpose would be at full cost. There is no subsidy or use of public funds for political purposes.
3 7. What is the status of installing electronic locks at Parks and Rec buildings?
Staff Response:
The City is doing retrofit of room facilities as part of other renovation projects when they are scheduled.
The next two facilities to have electronic locks installed will be Lick Mill Park Building and the Montague Park Building. The next new facility to incorporate electronic locks with be the two community rooms at LSAP.
8. Can we get a report on the current WeHope mobile shower and mobile laundry program? How many times per month? Where are the stops? How many customers? Are there any social workers or counselors involved?
Staff Response:
WeHope began providing weekly shower and laundry services at a mobile trailer on Monday, May 9. The services are being provided from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m. at a location on Bassett Street, north of Highway 101 and just west of Lafayette Street, an area known to be in proximity to Santa Clara’s largest homeless community. Staffing from WeHope includes case management which can provide other forms of assistance or connect members of the homeless community to other available services. Based upon WeHope’s experience providing this service at other locations, the number of visitors is expected to grow over time as people become aware of its availability. An informational flyer for the service was developed by staff and is being distributed by the Police Department’s outreach team to promote awareness of the service’s availability. WeHope is collecting data on the number of users and we can provide that information at a future date.
9. The 5-year unfunded total for the Morse Mansion is $8.32M and yet we are budgeting only $100K over the next 5 years? Will the $100K be sufficient to prevent any major deterioration? What did the City pay for the Morse Mansion and what are the City’s long-term plans for the building given that it will cost $8.3M to repair and maintain?
Staff Response:
The $100,000 currently budgeted over the next two fiscal years is for ongoing day-to-day maintenance when items need to be repaired for the current tenants. These items include things such as roof leaks, plumbing leaks and fixture repairs, HVAC repair and maintenance, and any other issues that are raised to the property manager. Staff anticipates that this will be sufficient to prevent any major deterioration over the next two years based on what is currently visible and known about the structure. Similar budget requests for maintenance will be made in the upcoming fiscal years during future capital budget cycles.
The City purchased the Morse Mansion in 2016 for $3,875,070. The Morse Mansion lease expires in June 2024. A community outreach process will occur prior before a recommendation for the long term use is forwarded to the City Council. During this process, an assessment on the cost of conversion would also need to be undertaken. Over the years staff has heard community comments for potential uses such as private offices, a City community facility, city offices, bed & breakfast etc. It should be noted that if there is a change in use of the building there will be significant costs associated with the conversion of the occupancy type. The Morse Mansion is on the National Register of Historic Places. The current Building Code occupancy for the structure is residential. If the building was to be converted to a commercial use and/or a public use regardless if there was any assembly area, significant improvements to be the building would be required. The assessment conducted in 2017 did not contemplate a change in occupancy and therefore another report would need to be commissioned to determine the scope of improvements necessary to allow for a change of occupancy from residential to another use.
4 Agenda Item 4.D: Action on the FY 2021/22 Annual Report and Proposed Budget for FY 2022/23 for the Santa Clara Tourism Improvement District (SCTID) as Recommended by the SCTID Owner’s Association
Council Question:
1. What is the status of hiring a new ED?
Staff Response:
The recruitment process is ongoing. The executive recruiting firm, Searchwide, continues to work with the Discover Santa Clara Board of Directors and its Organizational Hiring Committee regarding the search and potential candidates.
2. Can I get a copy of the “recently completed FY 2022/23 Sales and Marketing Plan?”
Staff Response:
The final copy of the FY 2022/23 Sales and Marketing Plan will be provided to the Board of Directors at its June 16th meeting. A final copy can be provided to Council upon final Board approval.
3. It seems there was a surplus in the budget the last two years and money is being carried over so why the need to increase the SCTID rate?
Staff Response:
Over the past two years, Discover Santa Clara has working to establish and build its organization. There is has been limited expenditures because there have been minimal personnel and operational costs.
During this period, Discover Santa Clara has been using reserves to fund the operation (the TOT collected since March 2020 has been minimal due to COVID). To account for anticipated expenditures and the to build the fiscal health of the organization, the Board originally proposed to the City a rate of 2%. At the City’s request, the District Management Plan was amended to reduce the collection rate to 1.5% with the ability to move to 2% after the first year. Discover Santa Clara anticipates having 4 full time staff members this coming year and launch a sales/marketing effort. The additional 0.5% allows the organization to proceed with their strategy to continue efforts on the necessary building blocks to grow the organization (i.e., staffing and sales) while maintaining fiscal health.
4. We recently increased the TOT rate, now the recommendation is to increase the SCTID rate from 1.5 to 2%. What is the total TOT for the district and how does that now compare with TOT rates in neighboring cities?
Staff Response:
The base TOT rates for neighboring cities are as follows:
City TOT Rate
Gilroy 9.0%
Saratoga 10.0%
Fremont 10.0%
Mountain View 10.0%
San Jose 10.0%
Morgan Hill 11.0%
Santa Clara 11.5%
Cupertino 12.0%
Campbell 12.0%
Los Gatos 12.0%
5 Sunnyvale 12.5%
Milpitas 14.0%
Los Altos 14.0%
Palo Alto 15.5%
This list does not include other assessments levied on top of the base rate. The following chart was presented at the March meeting of the Santa Clara Tourism Improvement District. This chart shows the TOT rate and other costs on a $100 room rate for select cities. Staff does not currently have a chart available with all additional assessments for neighboring cities.
5. Can I get a report on the number of people attending and cost of attending, including registration fees, for two “Professional Convention Management Association (PCMA) and Meeting Professionals International (MPI)” events? Were the costs of alcohol covered?
Staff Response:
The costs for Discover Santa Clara staff was as follows:
MPI – Northern CA MPI Chapter Annual Conference and Expo (San Francisco) April 5, 2022 • 1 sales manager = $300 registration (current member pricing) • 1 sales manager = $545 registration (non-member pricing)
Northern CA PCMA Chapter Breakfast Mixer (San Francisco) April 6, 2022 • 2 sales manager x $45 registration = $90
There were no other expenses.
Agenda Item 4.E: Action on the Santa Clara Convention Center FY 2021/22 3rd Quarter Financial Status Report
Council Question:
1. On the income statement, I see a YTD actual loss of $405K and a forecasted loss of $285K. It seems this loss will be covered from a Convention Center Enterprise fund. Can we get a balance sheet for that Enterprise fund?
Staff Response:
The Budgetary Source & Use Statement for the Convention Center Enterprise Fund can be found on pg. 210 of the linked document:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/77216/637868407536970000 .
6 The balance sheet in the Annual Consolidated Financial Report showing the Convention Center Enterprise Fund can be found on pg. 209 of the linked document:
https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/76049/637769033936730000 .
2. I see the following CIP budget. Where does the $6.108M come from? Looks like Levy is putting in $1.998M. If some money is coming from City GF, then shouldn’t the “CITY/SPECTRA” column be split out?
Staff Response:
In FY 2019/20, a total of $4.15 million, $1.15 million capital investment from Spectra and $3 million capital investment from the City, was allocated to support CIP projects focused on the Convention Center building (maintenance, repair, renovation or replacement of existing systems and infrastructure including, but not limited to HVAC, façade and aesthetic improvements, and technological advancements). The funds in the CITY/SPECTRA column represents the total CIP amount with Spectra funds being expended first. At the September 28, 2021 City Council Meeting, Council approved an allocation of $40,000 from the Convention Center Capital Fund to the General Fund reducing the total CIP project budget to $4.11 million.
Levy, as part of its Food and Beverage Operations agreement with the City, has committed funds for CIP projects to specifically improve food service operational areas as well as public activation/community gathering spaces. Because the use of funds is specific to food service, the funds are tracked separately.
The $1.998 million represents Levy contributions to the Convention Center CIP Budget to date.
The $6.10 million represents the total of both budgets mentioned above.
7 Agenda Item 4.H: Action to Authorize the City Manager to Complete Negotiations and Execute a Renewable Energy Purchase and Sale Agreement with Energia Sierra Juarez U.S., LLC to Purchase Renewable Energy from the Cimarrón Wind Project (Cimarrón Wind Project)
Council Question:
1. I own Sempra Energy Stock but it is far less than 10% of the market cap and I’m not a director. I do have the attached recommendation from Su Reuter on recusal rules. I expect this decision will increase the annual gross revenues of Sempra by more than $1M so I probably have to recuse. This is my Form 700 disclosure:
Additionally, I have the following question: Can I get a report on the wind resources for La Rumorosa? What time of day and year does the wind blow?
Staff Response:
The Rumoroso wind project area is expected to have an annual average net capacity factor of 37.2% which is relatively consistent throughout the year – the highest monthly capacity factor is 49% and the lowest month has an approximately 28% capacity factor. The daily wind generation peaks in the late afternoon/early evening from 4pm to 7pm, while the low tends to occur around 10am. Thus, this wind profile makes it an excellent complement to the high levels of solar generation in California.
Agenda Item 5.A: Informational Report on Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager Meetings and Corresponding Minutes for the Period of January 1 to March 31, 2022
Council Question:
1. Who takes these meeting minutes?
Staff Response:
Meeting minutes are taken by Stadium Authority staff participating in the meeting.
2. I don’t recall seeing these before this council packet. Have they been previously released in 2021?
Staff Response:
The Harvey Rose Audit included a recommendation that “the Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to require that all meetings, including the date and purpose of the meetings, between Stadium Authority staff and ManCo be documented and reported quarterly or annually to the Stadium Authority Board.” Staff has implemented this audit recommendation on a quarterly report frequency since 2018. At the August 25, 2020 meeting, the Stadium Authority Board further directed staff to prepare minutes for all future Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff meetings, and as result, the quarterly reports also include corresponding meeting minutes.
The reports on 2021 meetings were transmitted to the Board on the following meeting dates: May 25, 2021 (report on meetings held from January 1 to March 31, 2021), August 24, 2021 (report on meetings held from April 1 and June 30, 2021), February 22, 2022 (report on meetings held from July 1 to September 30, 2021), and March 22, 2022 (report on meetings held from October 1 to December 31, 2021).
8 3. What is the Great Plains software and what does it do?
Staff Response:
Microsoft Dynamics Great Plains is a financial accounting system purchased under the FY20-21 Financial Management Information System CapEx Project. It is a new cloud-based financial management system for the Stadium Authority that would allow greater visibility into Non-NFL Events. It will be used by ManCo to record all transactions related to Non-NFL Events as well as store supporting documentation for the transactions.
4. What is the status of digitizing the SBL contracts? What is the Artic System?
Staff Response:
The hard copy SBLs were digitized and successfully integrated into the City’s Laserfiche system in May 2021. The SBLs are stored in a Stadium Authority folder in Laserfiche that is separated from other City folders/records.
Separately, the Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager uses Docusign to execute SBLs. The Stadium Authority has a purchase order with ECS Imaging to process and integrate the SBLs that are executed in Docusign into the Laserfiche repository on an ongoing basis so that the files can be archived and searched for pertinent SBL data (e.g., SBL account number, SBL seat, etc.).
The Stadium Manager uses Artic System to manage SBLs. The Stadium Authority does not have access to that system.
5. Can I get the following 2 documents mentioned in the minutes: FY 2020-21 Non-NFL Events – Overhead Rate Sheet an SCSA Review of FY2020-21 Shared Expense?
Staff Response:
FY 2020-21 Non-NFL Events – Overhead Rate Sheet: The Overhead Rate Sheet is confidential document from ManCo, and it was not share with SCSA. SCSA was only able to view this document via share screen during January 6, 2022 meeting.
SCSA Review of FY2020-21 Shared Expense: This is not a document but a topic discussed during January 6, 2022 meeting. The teams agreed to meet on January 13, 2022 and review support for FY20-21 Shared Expenses. SCSA is currently waiting for additional backup from ManCo to complete this review.
Agenda Item 5.B & 5.C: Action on Stadium Authority Bills and Claims for the Month of February 2022 – March 2022
Council Question:
1. I see that we paid Wilson Ihrig $3700 for Dec 2021 noise monitoring and $3700 for January 2022 noise monitoring but why did we pay $11,860 for February 2022 noise monitoring?
2/15/2022 Wilson Ihrig 16125N41 December 2021 Noise Monitoring Services Operating 3 ,700.00 Payment totaling $15,560.00 to Wilson Ihrig for the following:
• $3,700.00 for January 2022 Noise Monitoring Services
• $11,860.00 for February 2022 Noise Monitoring Services
9 Staff Response:
In response to a request from the City Council, Wilson, Ihrig, & Associates prepared a noise analysis of data collected in 2021 that was transmitted to the City Council at the March 8, 2022 City Council meeting. The analysis compared noise levels adjacent to the Stadium during all Sundays without NFL games to Sundays with 49er games at the Stadium. The additional payment in February reflects the cost of preparing this analysis. The prior month’s billing reflects the standard monthly costs for equipment rental and website maintenance.
Agenda Item 6: Action on the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area Plan Including: Adoption and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Prepared to Analyze the Potential Environmental Impacts for the Project and an Associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Adoption of a General Plan Text Amendment to Add Language Regarding the Creation of Additional Future Focus Areas, the Re-designation of Land Outside of Focus Areas, Creation of the New Very High-Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) Designation, and Adoption of a General Plan Amendment to Create the Freedom Circle Future Focus Area, Bounded by Great America Parkway to the West, Mission College Boulevard to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East, and Highway 101 to the South; Adoption of the Greystar General Plan Amendment to Change the Designation of the Greystar Site from High Intensity Office/Research & Development (R&D) (Maximum Floor Area Ratio of 2.0) to Very High Density Residential (51-100 Dwelling Units/Acre); and Adoption of the Planned Development Rezoning for the Greystar Site, Which Would Allow up to 1,100 Units on a 13.3 Gross Acre Site Bounded by Freedom Circle to the West, Mission College Boulevard to the North, San Tomas Aquino Creek to the East and Highway 101 to the South (Continued from May 24, 2022)
Council Question:
1. Doesn’t the above resolution substantially weaken the GP since this allows council to easily create new Focus areas and to easily re-designate land outside of focus areas? That allows for a mish-mash of designations that the GP is intended to prevent. I thought the GP was supposed to be updated every 10 years. It has now been 12 years. What are the plans for creating a new GP?
Staff Response:
This text change to the General Plan is necessary in order to clarify the City’s ability to create a new Focus Area that was not created when the General Plan was adopted in 2010. Generally, under State Law, the City Council has the ability to amend the General Plan multiple times per year through a public hearing process including environmental (CEQA) review. There are not limitations on the number of designations that could be utilized in a General Plan. It is up to the City Council to maintain a General Plan that provides a clear vision for future land use and delivery of services in the City. There is not a specified timeframe for comprehensive General Plan updates. The update process typically requires approximately four years and considerable staffing and consultant resources. The current General Plan has a horizon year of 2035 and did not include analysis of potential environmental impacts beyond that date.
2. This project should comply with the new City of Santa Clara Climate Action Plan of 2022 if the CAP is adopted by July 1, 2022. (Does it make a difference that this is item #6 which comes before Item #10 (CAP) on the agenda?)
Staff Response:
Comment noted. Future development within the Focus Area will be subject to the new CAP once it has been adopted. Per CEQA, the project EIR address regulations in place at the time of the project’s Notice of Preparation (NOP), which is the formal beginning of the EIR process. The NOP for this project was prepared in June 2020 and the Greystar project was developed in conformance with those regulations.
10 3. Given that there are no occupied residential units within 500 feet of this project, there should be no restrictions on work hours. Correct? Xander helped me put this language into the Gateway Crossings project when I was on the planning commission:
C15. During the initial phase of construction, construction may take place at any time on any day, until the first residential unit is occupied. Upon occupancy of residential units on the project site, construction activity not confined within a building within 500 feet of an occupied residential unit shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and not permitted on Saturdays, Sundays and State and federal holidays for projects within 500 feet of a residential use. Construction activity confined within a building within 500 feet of an occupied residential unit shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays for projects within 500 feet of a residential use, and prohibited on Sundays and State and federal holidays.
Staff Response:
Comment noted. Condition 15 is a standard permit condition that reflects current City practice to regulate the potential impacts of construction activity upon residents of a new development in addition to what is otherwise generally required in the Municipal Code. Section 9.10.230 of the Municipal Code restricts construction within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property and since there are no residential zones currently in place would not apply to the initial phase of development (Greystar project) but could apply to portions of future development phases if a residential zoning is applied at some point in the future. As future development phases would require preparation of a Specific Plan and rezoning of the Focus Area, and the future phase is generally not well defined at this time, it would be better to address that development in the future when the Specific Plan is prepared. However, for the Greystar project, the proposed edits can be added to Condition C15 or the Condition could be deleted altogether as this is addressed separately in the Municipal Code and an impact is unlikely.
Council Comments:
1. I am disappointed that the rooftops are not being used for maximum benefit of residents. I would like to see either community gardens or private open space on the rooftops rather than solar panels. The developers should then buy into community solar or purchase RECs to meet California solar requirements. That seems to be a much better use of the space and will reduce VMT. Also it seems that the project is already committed to GHG-Free Electricity so solar panels don’t help: Mitigation Measure 9-1B: Utilize GHG-Free Electricity
Staff Response:
Comment noted. This was a design decision made by the applicant. The City does not have a requirement for common open space on roof tops. The project will provide private recreational amenities (25 square feet per unit), as well as public parkland dedication (2.0 acres) as required by the City’s current ordinances and policies. As depicted on the project site plans (Attachment #3 to the Report to Council), the project would utilize the rooftop of the podium level as private recreational space. The podium level makes up a significant portion of the available roof top space and is constructed in a manner that can support these types of amenities, while the upper floors are wood-frame construction. The podium roof top amenities include three swimming pool courtyard and five garden courtyard areas.
2. I believe the City should work with the Water District and the Open Space Authority to widen the creek trail – at the very least adjacent to this project – because as the document says: “The Freedom Circle Future Focus Area will be in close proximity to the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail, which is the north- south spine of the City’s active transportation network, and will have proximity to employment and other commercial uses that support the continued development and prosperity of North Santa Clara as a more urban regional job center.”
11 Staff Response:
Comment noted. As discussed in prior communications to the City Council, this would need to be undertaken as a separate project as it would require extensive cooperation with the Water District and additional environmental review outside of the scope of the current project.
3. Being that this project is adjacent to the Creek trail, I recommend that there be the same bicycle parking requirements as cars: 1 secure bike parking space for studios and one BR apartments and 2 secure bike parking spaces for units with 2 or more bedrooms. There should be at least one quad 110v electrical outlet per 10 bicycle parking spots. There should be a provision for larger Cargo bikes in the bike rooms.
Staff Response:
Comment noted. The project is proposing to provide 1 secure bike parking space per unit for a total of 1,075 secure bicycle parking spaces. The project would meet or exceed City standards for bicycle parking.
4. The VMT reduction target for residential should be 10% for active measures (without credit for being near transit) and should be at least 25% for office buildings with greater than 200 employees. I do see the following language in the document: Mitigation Measure 5-3D: Implement TDM Program. Proposed residential and office land uses within the Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan shall prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that achieve a minimum reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of 20 percent compared to baseline conditions (i.e., without internal or external reductions accounted for, such as geographic location, land use interconnectivity, etc.), with at least 10 percent of the reduction coming through project-specific TDM measures (e.g., transit subsidies, telecommuting options, etc.). Even with implementation of these measures, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Staff Response:
Comment noted. VMT reduction targets are also regulated through the City’s Climate Action Plan. While the Greystar project is regulated by the current CAP, future development would be subject to the City’s CAP or VMT/TDM regulations in place at the time of entitlement.
5. I see the following: “Freedom Circle Focus Area Plan will require 15 percent of the proposed new residential dwelling units be affordable to those earning less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). Therefore, the project would add new affordable dwelling units and not result in a loss of affordable units.”. I would prefer to say 5% below 60%, 5% below 80% and 5% below 100% of AMI which would probably result in the same cost to the developer but would guarantee space for ELI residents.
Staff Response:
Comment noted. This is a policy decision for the City Council.
12 6. Once again I am concerned that notices for this project were sent to only addresses within a 1000-foot radius and notices were posted only within a 300-foot radius.
Staff Response:
Comment noted. The mailed notices to 1,000 feet follows the City’s outreach policy for projects of significant interest. The posting of notices in three conspicuous places within 300 feet follows the City’s Code 18.112.60
7. The design should actively try to minimize light pollution to maintain dark sky conditions.
Staff Response:
Comment noted. A mitigation measure included in the project requires that the project conform to the requirements of Title 24. The intent of these standards is to improve the quality of outdoor lighting and help reduce the impacts of light pollution, light trespass, and glare. The standards regulate lighting characteristics, such as maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off. The City will receive a lighting plan for the Greystar project and will review so that lighting is not projected upward and shielded whenever feasible.
8. Landscaping should follow recommendations to avoid invasive species as outlined in the Plant Right guide: https://plantright.org/about-invasive-plants/plant-list/
Staff Response:
Comment noted. The size and location of all plant species shall be reviewed as part of architectural review of the project for both the private property and adjacent public right-of-way. Review and approval of the complete landscape plan, including water conservation calculations and irrigation plan shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. It is not typical practice to look at the guide listed. Council may provide direction as to specific plant species that are considered non-desirable for this project site.
9. The planning commission’s recommendation for Class IV bike routes should be followed.
Staff Response:
Comment noted. The proposed project (per Planning Commission recommendation; recommendation #2) includes modifications of the plan area diagram to change all Class II bike lanes to Class IV separated bikeways.
Agenda Item 10: Action on Climate Action Plan, General Plan Amendment to Adopt the Updated Climate Action Plan 2022 and an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report
Council Comment:
1. A B-1-4 Municipal Electrification Action Planction B-1-4: Municipal Electrification Action Plan Work with regional energy partnerships to develop and implement a Municipal Electrification Action Plan for City facilities. This will include fuel switching in new and existing buildings, incorporating strategies to address energy storage, focusing on highlighting any hurdles or solutions that would be applicable to the broader community, and leveraging existing rebates.
There is no commitment to action by the City here. I would like to see stronger commitments by the City for actions to replace HVAC on burnout.
13 Staff Response:
B-1-4 is the overarching statement for developing a Municipal Electrification Action Plan for City facilities and committing us to implementing the detailed components established in the plan. The development of this action plan would include various specific actions, one of which would be fuel switching, including HVAC and more. This B-1-4 item is meant to cover a wide variety of actions that would be determined based on best practices, latest technologies and which the city would commit to through the Plan developed.
2. Additionally, the CAP does include a burnout citywide ordinance for gas furnaces/HVAC and water heaters that would also apply to City facilities.
It seems like our adopted reach code for Action B-1-5 is already stronger than what is stated in the CAP.
Staff Response:
The B-1-5 implementation matrix captured the newly adopted reach codes as being all-electric. While it was reflected in the Appendix A implementation matrix and did not get transferred to the corresponding action. With council adoption we would like to include updating the CAP reach codes section B-1-5 to accurately reflect the newly adopted reach codes and the language in B-1-4 implementation matrix Attachment A. The Reach Code is an adopted ordinance and supersedes policy established elsewhere, but we will clarify in our verbal presentation that B-1-5 should be updated to align with the new Reach Code.
3. Action B-1-7 should be strengthened to require Tier-4 diesel backup generators using renewable diesel OR natural gas backup generators OR batteries.
Staff Response:
Item B-1-7 was kept with the language it has in order to avoid policies that choose specific technologies or energy procurement mandates that can lead to increased customer costs while discouraging innovation and advocate for goals and policies that remain technology agnostic and commercially available and accommodate emerging technologies and innovation.
4. The City should actively pursue Community Solar with virtual net metering for residents and developers who cannot put solar on their own roofs.
Staff Response:
SVP intends to complete a scientific Customer Survey in the next year which will include a deep dive in to customers’ interest in Solar and other carbon-neutral power generation, what criteria is most important to them, and potential program structures.
5. For Action T-2-3, the secure bike parking should be expanded to 1 spot for studios and 1BR apartments and 2 spots for 2 or more bedrooms. Bike storage should consider options for Cargo Bikes.4
Staff Response:
This level of detail should be captured in an ordinance or policy requirement process as it pertains to the development process. This could be something to include in the development of a TDM study as a VMT active TDM measure. Or it could be added as a modification to a reach code ordinance. This has not yet been discussed or analyzed with the development community.
14 6. For Action T-3-1, this wording is out of date: Adopt a 20% reduction of VMT for multifamily residential through active TDM requirements, which may require parking maximums, in new developments.
Staff Response:
The staff recommendation of including the 20% VMT requirement for multifamily with only half of this VMT (10%) required from active TDM requirements has been included in the resolution and the staff report. A council approval of the staff recommendation would then allow us to update the language in the CAP to reflect the total 20% VMT requirement with 10% coming from active TDM.