BUILDING
BETTER TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
|
|
Meeting Report |
|
August 4, 2003 |
PRESENT: Chair
David Cortese, Vice Chair Linda LeZotte, Councilmember Cindy Chavez,
Councilmember Forrest Williams
ABSENT: Vice
Mayor Pat Dando
STAFF: Ed
Shikada, Glenn Schwarzback, Vera Todorov, Sharon Landers, Betsy Shotwell, Jim
Helmer, Hans Larsen, Laurel Prevetti, Dave Clarke
a) Expansion and Improvement of Transit and
Transportation Systems
1. No items
b) Traffic Relief/Safe Streets
1. Report on the Construction Impact Mitigation Plan Outreach
Ed Shikada, Deputy City Manager, stated that the packet today contained the incorrect version of the proposed ordinance and passed out the correct version here today and extras are available for any interested parties. The outreach was conducted on the correct version. He then introduced Dave Clarke, Deputy Director, Public Works, and Sharon Landers, Assistant Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency, who reported on the Construction Impact Mitigation Plan (CIMP) outreach. There were five different outreach groups from the end of June through the end of July. The groups included: Developer Industry Representatives, VTA, San José Business Association, Downtown Association, and the major utilities companies serving San José. The meeting minutes were transcribed into the summaries brought before you as attachments to the CIMP report.
The CIMP has been requested to be presented to the Driving Strong Economy (DSE) committee, and should be on the agenda for August, because it is affecting development projects.
Chair Cortese expressed his original thinking on the need for this ordinance, that this should be a policy / ordinance that is directed at applications towards public entities as opposed to private developers. Not that we don’t want private developers being exempt from having to do the CIMP, but the City already has a 3- plan process, PD permit process, and the CEQA process, which are under our jurisdiction. When you combine those layers of processes that we currently have relative to the private development community we currently have opportunities to assert what it is that the City wants done before a project gets underway, as opposed to what our present ability is in terms of asserting ourselves with regards to the private utilities and outside agencies. He stated that it is clear when looking at the ordinance, it does say that it is applicable to any person who comes in for an encroachment permit, not just public sector entities. This is a basic policy question that we have gravitated to a more comprehensive ordinance that captures everybody who applies for an encroachment permit, is this really the intent on where we want to go and maybe it would be appropriate to ask staff to what extent the PD side and the 3 – processes what kind of leverage that does give the City. Are the processes leading us back in some ways in terms of applying some of these principals to the private developers.
Dave Clarke stated that he thought that was a point that we can definitely improve. Within the confines of the existing structures that we have within the existing ordinances and authorities, we can improve the impact mitigation from construction. With regards to the outreach that we heard, there was an emphasis on how extensive the impacts were of the VTA projects, the very big projects, and did not hear that much other than people wanting to be knowledgeable about what’s happening on the smaller, private projects. To keep people informed as to what is going on is a key and do a better job of coordination. This is possible within the current ordinance and under privately developed projects.
Councilmember Williams shared his concern regarding the private versus public and the ability to mitigate effectively. How frequently would a private developer have that extensive an impact to the city?
Dave Clarke stated that staff estimated half a dozen cases a year, but developers were concerned that the definition is subject to a lot of interpretation. While our intent was to interpret it narrowly enough that there wouldn’t be major impacts, the concerns were that you could interpret it in a way that would limit some development projects. We can try and tighten up the language or go back the focus on public projects.
Councilmember Williams stated that his leaning as a starting point is to stay limited and if there is a need later to expand on the existing policy. Since issues are all across the board and the probability a major project would create a significant impact is remote, why would we put a stringent policy out? We should identify where the problems are and have the policy ordinance and evolve from that if in fact they occur.
Councilmember Chavez noted the issue of what to do when you have a public sector entity that is not the City, coupled with another public sector and private development. Do we have a consistent menu of options to have the private/public involvement be able to respond to the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods? We need to have a consistent list of remedies and even work on our communication strategies. Do not want to sweep the private sector in here unnecessarily, we are really talking about when a project hits a threshold or happens to end up in a construction zone that we then have multiple blocks being built up, how do we protect what is already there.
Sharon Landers stated her understanding of Councilmember Chavez’s statement sounded like more of a construction coordination issue, and maybe what we need to do is beef up the way we currently coordinate. We do have a construction coordination committee that involves most of the city departments and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and maybe it would be worth taking a look at that and see if there is additional authority needs or things that could be added to the process to make sure the communication outreach from there is improved. From transportation make sure that street closings are coordinated and everyone is on the same page. There are probably things that we could do to make the processes better.
Councilmember Chavez stated that she thought it wasn’t clear to people who were doing this type of development what the expectation is going to be operating under those conditions. She again expressed her concern about the private sector. She thinks it may need to be a more dramatic solution than what Sharon has articulated, not sure how to help people see what their appropriate role is, 90% of our challenges is communication. Sharon stated that we would take a closer look.
Dave Clarke mentioned that the downtown association complaints were that not only big projects in their area, but even the smaller projects can have an impact on their community, and the communication lines need to be open more.
He shared that in Public Works, they have an email subscription set up on the website for individuals who sign up to see what projects are happening in their area (or the criteria they set up). They will be walking through the members of the downtown association in their next meeting how to utilize the website for such useful information.
Councilmember Chavez asked if we do that email system now for street closures? Dave Clarke answered no, not at this time.
Vice Chair LeZotte asked what is already in place? What good parts of the ordinance can we beef up for the communication? We should regroup and distinguish what we already have in place, the coordinated effort between DOT and PW and define what already is in a CEQA process that may pick up some of the issues addressed in the policy/ordinance.
Chair Cortese asked that the Committee members concerns and items be taken into consideration and have staff bring forth a report at the September meeting. Bring back a comparative analysis (possibly spreadsheet) of private / public with the ordinances, how public would be dealt with, assuming adoption of this ordinance, how private would be dealt with if it weren’t under the jurisdiction of this ordinance but under all other existing ordinances. How coordination issues might typically be handled under the current scheme of things. We also need to see a legal analysis that goes beyond anything that we are involved in and does not get us involved in issues like inverse condemnation. We are trying to avoid being presented public claims against us. We need not only a PW comparative analysis, but the legal analysis as well. The City Attorney’s Office would like some time to look at how we would structure an ordinance that only applies to public sector. Can we legally exempt private projects from an encroachment permit ordinance that focuses on the public sector?
Glenn Schwarzback stated that we are just looking at impact and exempting projects that don’t, whether public or private. When you get into the possibility of just exempting based on whether it is private versus public that there are some legal issues that need to be looked at.
Chair Cortese’s asked that staff bring back as much as possible of the comparative analysis and the legal questions to the September meeting.
It was noted that this item will also be submitted concurrently to the Driving a Strong Economy Committee.
Upon motion of Vice Chair LeZotte, seconded by Councilmember Chavez the Committee accepted the report with direction to staff to bring the comparative analysis back to the Committee in September.
c) Supporting Smart Growth
1. Presentation and Recommendation of Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Policy
Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, introduced Hans Larsen, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation, and Laurel Prevetti, Deputy Director, Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement to discuss the Level of Service (LOS) policy recommendations.
Hans Larsen presented a PowerPoint presentation that covered the LOS policy update desired outcomes, outline for new transportation impact policy background, traffic level of service policy, exceptions to the policy, old and new, measures to streamline private development process, and the community outreach efforts for the LOS.
Vice Chair LeZotte asked if items 1 & 2 under the measures to streamline private development process was an “and/or”. Hans stated that they can be done independently and there is merit in doing both, they are not “or’s”. Vice Chair LeZotte then inquired about the definition of “build” as referred to in 8b of the presentation, “require new development to build offsetting improvements”…her concern is because of a project where the builder only had to pay for what could be done a project where she thought they should have paid for what was on the plan, even though it was not an option to build, then we could have used the money to do something different on the project. Hans stated that yes, they would build what they could get approval for. Hans also discussed the value of investment that if an element of the mitigation plan or offset plan cost less then there should be a way to ensure that a certain value of improvement gets maintained.
Jim Helmer stated that the goal of this proposed policy would be looking to build offsetting improvements that might positively benefit other modes of travel, particularly in the areas of community livability and walk-ability, improving the pedestrian connection system, and promoting other forms of travel.
Laurel Prevetti responded to Councilmember Williams comments by stating that we are struggling with our parking requirements and the sizes of our vehicles getting larger and the nature of cars in our daily life. As we gain experience reviewing private development and how we accommodate the cars in terms of parking and garages versus surface parking and individual home level, this is one of the biggest issues we grapple with and our design guidelines provide some guidance. We are constantly learning from other cities in terms of how we can do a better job. While we have a certain number of regulations in place today, Council will be asked to modify those over time as we learn more.
Councilmember Chavez commented on the outreach; she thinks this is a really good group of people and would like to make two more recommendations 1) manufacturing group, because they have been focused on transit development and 2) more than one developer roundtables.
Vice Chair LeZotte asked if the general community meetings would involve N, E, S, & W of San José? And requests at least one meeting be W. of Highway 17. Staff affirmed.
Chair Cortese expressed that consideration should be given to limited exemptions for types of development, not just by geographic area but by type. Senior affordable housing has been around since the mid 1980’s but the need for that is increasing exponentially now and the traffic impact of those projects is far less than other types of development, even if it is built outside of transportation corridors. He asked that whether or not we are going to do exemptions based on types of developments, why we should consider it?
Councilmember Chavez noted in regards to the size of development, she would like input on what are the appropriate sizes. The size and impact may not coincide, based on the Senior housing and having a different impact than a rental family project. This may be an issue that each plan may have a different marker based on what the overall development would look like, and how much you would have to spread around the responsibility to actually have the outcome of the quality of life indicators in the neighborhood you want. How would we divide that pie properly?
Chair Cortese emphasized that item D due to development related traffic calming policy, needs to be done in a way that is visible to the Council, Councilmembers, and the community. Jim Helmer stated that we need to continue cross training among every plan reviewer, engineer, and planner to ensure that we are maximizing the opportunities for that traffic management or traffic calming reviews to take effect at that time.
Chair Cortese had one specific question relating to the Evergreen area, why on the livability improvement zones, are these examples or what we intend to adopt as of now? Evergreen currently is a special LOS area yet the maps don’t acknowledge the fact that there is a separate LOS area for District 8? Hans answered by stating that the boundaries on the maps are preliminary and illustrate a concept of where the number and general location of where it would be. Intended it to surround one of the corridors or special planning areas where the change of the LOS policy would be in place. The intent of the livability improvement zones are to focus the offsetting improvements around the corridor of the area where the level of service impacts incur. Chair Cortese said that if we were to adopt a map like this where would these people fall? Hans said that they way this is structured now is that an area development policy at a higher level than this, which implies citywide. What we are trying to illustrate, as a concept for the Evergreen area is to apply this is generally as how it would look.
Upon motion of Vice Chair LeZotte, seconded
by Councilmember Chavez the Committee accepted the report.
d)
Regional
Relationships/Funding/Policy
1. State, Federal, and Local Legislative Update
Betsy Shotwell, Assistant to the City Manager, gave a report on the legislative update memo. She stated that since the memo was written the state budget was signed on Saturday. Staff is in the process of analyzing the State budget impact and will be providing an information memo for Council within the next few days. The transportation budget suspends Proposition 42 funds for one year. Legislative authority was not able to do so for more than one year, but there is the possibility of this issue being revisited somewhere down the line. We are waiting on the VTA analysis of what specific projects will be impacted by the passage of the state budget.
Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, stated that regionally every effort is being made to try look for alternative funding sources to back fill the loss of the TCRP funds, that would otherwise being going towards street maintenance. There is active committees bay area wide looking for ways to fill the loss of funds.
Betsy Shotwell stated that the staff analysis has to do with the state budget that the Governor signed. The legislature is in recess until August 18 and the report before you does not include any of the new budgetary updates that will be reported out to Council via information memo shortly.
Vice Chair LeZotte inquired about Senator Perata’s bill, SB 916, which the memo submitted indicates the city opposes unless amended. What are we opposing and what do we agree on for this to change in order for us to support it? Betsy Shotwell stated it is the inclusion of revisiting the Altamont alternative rate for high-speed rail that the City is opposed to in SB 916 which would delay the high-speed rail project and add additional costs, when the Pacheco Pass alignment is the High Speed Rail Authority’s recommended alternative.
The Committee received the
written status report.
e) Oral petitions
Michael Talia, Manager for the San Francisco and Santa Clara Districts of the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of California spoke on item b1, CIMP. He stated that there are a couple of things that the Committee should take a look at private versus public. Much like the late ordinance that was passed a couple of years ago it has a direct impact on the cost of your construction when you are dividing the pubic project, one of the things that he sees in the potential mitigation measure to elevate such impacts on businesses 1) limited hours of construction (when you tell a contractor that they only have a limited number of hours to work, the bargaining units are told they have to pay the men an 8 hour day, if the city defines that you can only work a 6 hours they still pay an 8 hour day therefore escalating the costs) 2) Marketing assistance and technical business support (item 5), on the private side the private developer and contractor can work these things together and negotiate a price to mitigate these types of situations, on the public side you are looking at change orders that they are going to have to start to marketing local businesses and how they are going to promote their business during construction. If you are asking contractors to do that, it is a little vague and troubling. 3) Direct or indirect financial assistance. Are you asking contractors when they are building a project within a specific area to directly help finance these local businesses? Under a Public Works project again you are looking at change orders and all kinds of potential problems. This is poorly defined, we need to know what you are talking about on this item. I implore this committee to really look at these issues because from the contracting standpoint there are unfinished questions.
f) Adjournment
The Committee was adjourned at 3:10 pm
Councilmember
Dave Cortese, Chair,
Building
Better Transportation Committee