Questions
& Answers
Alphabetically by Topic
(Date Asked)
Questions
and Answers Document (through 6/6/06)
Jump to
a Specific Topic Area
Extend
EEHVS Task Force process to August or September 2006? (12/14)
The
EEHVS Work Plan will be discussed at an upcoming Task Force meeting
(April 19th). Extending the process will need to be discussed
with the City Council.
Concerned
about the complexity of the issues and that Task Force must reach
a consensus before making recommendation to Council. (12/14)
Consensus
may not be achievable and the Task Force may have multiple recommendations.
Could
or will there be a conclusion meeting to wrap-up Task Force discussions?
(1/18)
Possible
changes to the Work Plan, including addition of a final ‘wrap-up'
meeting, will be discussed at a future Task Force meeting (April
19th).
Does
the public have a say in putting the breaks on development? (2/25)
The
public can interact with the Task Force and the Task Force can
use those interactions to help with developing their recommendation(s)
on the project. The public is also welcome to attend and speak
at any of the upcoming meetings and public hearings.
Why
is there secrecy about how much money each developer is putting
into the project? How much will be spent at each site? (3/15)
The
developers have said that their private business decisions are
not open for public discussion.
What
is the definition of “affordable housing”? (8/17 and 8/31)
The definition
will be the Federal definition of what qualifies as affordable
housing. See Housing Department website for income categories:
www.sjhousing.org/data/eligible.html
Is
the affordable housing to be maintained only in reference to the
Evergreen*East Hills study area or to balance needs Citywide?
(8/17)
The affordable requirement is to apply to new units approved
through this process.
Why
isn't affordable housing being shown on the Arcadia plan? (8/31)
The developers are aware that they are required to provide
affordable housing on this site because it is in a Redevelopment
Project Area.
Can
the Task Force be provided with an “Affordable Housing 101” summary
document? (8/31)
Yes. Staff from the City's Housing Department provided a presentation
on Affordable Housing to the Task Force at the February 25, 2006
workshop. The presentation is available on the EEHVS website at:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/evergreen/presentation.asp
What
are the tools for affordable housing? (8/31)
The Affordable Housing 101 will identify typical affordable
housing tools.
What
is the percentage of teacher housing being provided? (11/16)
No specific percentages have been identified. The Evergreen
Valley College site may accommodate housing for teachers. It is
possible that the developers of the other sites might participate.
Guiding
Principle 2 regarding compatibility and size of lots limits the
ability to put affordable housing on the Industrial and Pleasant
Hills sites. (1/18)
The Guiding Principles also identify a need for providing access
to affordable housing and incorporation of a variety of housing
types.
Is
40% affordable required for the Evergreen College site? (1/18)
The Evergreen College site does not have a City requirement
for affordable units. The 40% affordable is being proposed by
the college consistent with their own principles.
Can
there be 40 to 60% affordable housing on all sites? (1/18)
This requirement was not considered in the Trade-Off Analysis,
but could be the recommendation of the Task Force or a requirement
established by the City Council. The City has not previously adopted
such a high requirement, preferring to disperse affordable housing
units throughout the City.
What
are the challenges to building affordable housing? (2/25)
The
need to consider the population being served, income targets and
would the units be rental or for-sale.
Is
for-sale affordable housing more costly? (2/25)
Affordable
for-sale is less expensive to subsidize than affordable rental.
How
do you keep for-sale housing affordable? (2/25)
Long-term
deed restrictions; sell units at restricted price. With a buy-out
there would be equity sharing with the City to allow for funds
to be "recycled" to future low and moderate-income homebuyers.
How
is the 20% affordable requirement determined? (2/25)
State
law requires affordable housing for redevelopment project areas.
Arcadia is the only site that is within a redevelopment area.
The Council may elect to extend the 20% requirement to other areas
in Evergreen.
What
funding would be available for affordable housing? (2/25)
The
City generally does not provide subsidy for affordable housing
units that are built in order to comply with the State law covering
redevelopment project areas, which applies only to Arcadia. City
redevelopment funds available for other affordable projects have
diminished substantially since the economic downturn and funds
may not be available for future projects. The City could elect
to redirect redevelopment tax increment generated in the Arcadia
project area as a source of funding.
| Amenities
& Transportation Investments |
How
are the amenities getting picked and funded? (8/31)
The former Task Force identified an initial list of amenities.
The current Task Force is scheduled to prioritize the amenity
list at the proposed March 15 th Task Force meeting.
Is the money that is saved on one amenity going to an amenity
on a different site? (8/31)
Yes. The goal is to deliver as many amenities as possible.
Why
is a new high school not shown on the amenities list? (8/31)
Schools are considered a “need” not an amenity. Future lists
will have a footnote to that effect.
How
much will developers pay for amenities and transportation improvements?
Has the developer's contribution been scaled back? (10/19)
The total amount discussed to date is $235 million. Early in the
old EVP process, the developers offered $250 million.
How
will development and construction of improvements and amenities
be phased? (10/19)
Proposed phasing options are contained in the Draft Evergreen
Development Policy, discussed at the 10/19 Task Force meeting.
How
do cost estimates deal with cost increases? (10/19)
The estimates are in 2005 dollars. The Task Force will discuss
this issue as it considers the draft update of the Evergreen Development
Policy.
Will
there be adequate safeguards to ensure operation and maintenance
funding will be available for amenities? (10/19)
Operations and maintenance are currently not part of the proposed
Evergreen Development Policy. This issue could be part of the
Evergreen Development Policy.
What
are the specific amenities being proposed and how much will they
cost? (10/19)
The amenities and estimated costs are included in the Task
Force binder (see 6-3-05 memo, Attachment 5).
What
does, “grants to schools or renovate neighborhood parks” mean?
(10/19)
The City partners with schools to provide community recreation
needs. Grants could provide funding necessary to improve recreation
facilities at schools. EEHVS could be a funding source for renovation
of neighborhood parks.
If
the amenities list changes, would the proposed development change?
(11/16)
The developers have proposed projects that would deliver the amenities
defined to date. The developers have not indicated how their proposals
might change in light of amenities.
What
amenities would there be with lower density development?
(11/16)
The Trade-Off analysis results would help answer this question
in January 2006.
How
will the SNI planning process affect the EEHVS? (11/16)
The SNI plans are an input to the EEHVS. Some SNI improvements
are not funded and EEHVS is a potential funding source.
Does
the amenities list move the City closer or further away from the
goal of having 3.5 acres of parks per 1,000 population? (12/14)
Overall, the amenities list moves the City closer to its goal.
District 8 has already met this goal.
How
can a library cost $4 million when the Thompson Creek costs $16.9
million? (12/14)
The $4 million for the Southeast Branch Library would go towards
funding a portion of the costs of a proposed expansion.
Why
has Fowler Creek Park not been built-out yet? Why is EEHVS funding
Fowler Creek Park when it should have been funded through ESP?
(12/14)
Phase I improvements at Fowler Creek Park may be fully funded
by funds from ESP.
What
improvements have happened since 1991? (1/18)
The
following infrastructure improvements have been completed or are
under construction through implementation of the Evergreen Specific
Plan: Northbound lane on US-101, Widening of Capitol Ex. from
US-101 and I-680, Capitol Ex/Capitol Ave improvements, Aborn Rd
improvements, Quimby Rd improvements, Yerba Buena/Murillo improvements,
Ruby Av. improvements, Numerous other street intersection, Fire
Station, Storm, sanitary and water system improvements, Funding
for Fowler Creek Park.
Does
the Governor's proposal to increase funding for regional transportation
projects change the need to include EEHVS funding for US101? What
happens if some of the items on the transportation investments/amenities
lists are funded through alternative sources? (2/25)
US101
is not on the list of projects currently proposed by the Governor.
The structure of the draft EDP allows the Policy to include additional
amenities should outside funding or cost reductions reduce the
total cost of delivering the listed amenities.
When
will the amenities identified at the Pleasant Hills workshop be
added to the list for consideration (e.g., multi-use center, etc.)?
(2/25)
Additional
amenities will be added prior to the Task Force amenity prioritization
exercise.
Is
it the will of the community to have fewer units even if that
impacts the amenities? (2/25)
How
can the two task forces interact (the original EVP and the EEHVS
Task Force)? (8/17)
Such interaction, other than in a public session, would be in
conflict witht he Brown Act since a lot of members overlap between
the two bodies..
How
can members of the EEHVS Task Force interact with the District
8 Roundtable and the old EVP Task Force? (8/17)
At publicly noticed meetings in conformance with the Brown
Act.
Would
web-based discussions amont Task Force members be "public"
for purposes of the Brown Act? (8/17)
No.
Can
a developer interested in Evergreen*East Hills development and
a member of the EEHVS Task Force be involved with presentations
to another board in the area? (8/17)
Yes,
at duly noticed public meetings of neighborhood associations "boards"
and in compliance with the Brown Act.
When
would the zonings be voted on? (8/17)
The earliest the City Council would consider the zonings would
be June 2006.
What
is the difference between private versus public open space? (8/31)
The difference is in the responsibility fo rmaintenance.
What
is the parkland requirement if we didn't have this process?
(8/31)
96 units would require 1 acre of raw parkland.
Why
was Pleasant Hills retail dropped? (8/31 and 11/16)
The
developers dropped it because there was not a strong market for
retail.
What
is the square footage of the proposed units? (8/31)
As this information becomes available from the developers, staff
will add it to the website as part of the descriptions of the
development applications.
If
the City decides on a fire station at the Pleasant Hills location,
would that come out of the open space allotment? (8/31)
No.
Are
there other applications currently under review?
(8/31)
No.
If
an application was to be filed with respect to Evergreen*East
Hills, would it be held-up? (1/18)
Yes,
for residential projecs that do not currently have traffic allocation
or that are requesting to exceed their current allocation. The
City Council reaffirmed this with Council
Resolution No. 71939 on January 27, 2004.
Why
are there no specifications with respect to the Legacy property?
(8/31)
As staff receives more details on the Legacy proposal and other
sites, those details will be shared with the Task Force and public.
What
is the Evergreen College site's east boundary? (8/31)
Close to the existing athletic fields..
How
can some campus industrial be preserved and Hitachi protected?
(8/31)
A developer's representative answered that right now the
three properties are together and that carving out some industrial
may lead to a "squabble" over how the remaining properties
get developed..
What
about the Salvation Army proposal? (8/31)
That
proposal is dead.
What
happens to the existing 217 allocations on Arcadia? (8/31)
The property owners will be required to pay off the current
assessments on those 217 units of traffic allocation. The 217
units do not get added to the number of units that may be approved
for Arcadia through EEHVS.
How
will Evergreen College be able to address its future educational
needs by developing its site? (11/16)
The
College's Master Plan provides for the ability to serve 20,000
students (currently serve 11,000). Additionally there is a lot
of surface parking that could be converted to structured parking
and additional school buildings if needed.
Is
it appropriate to use Measure G money to build parking structures
on Evergreen Collge? (11/16)
Measure G money would be used to build classrooms, not parking
structures.
Does
the proposed public library at the Collge take into account the
New Tully Library?? (11/16)
Yes. Both facilities are in the Branch Library Master Plan.
What
constitues a "large residential lot"? (12/14)
There is no definition of "large residential lot".
In relative terms, based on the developer submitted plans, they
are defninig large lots as beween 4,000 and 8,000 square foot
lots for single-family detached units.
What
would the standard Parkland Dedication Ordinance (PDO) requirement
be for the Pleasant Hills Golf Course site? (2/25)
The
standard PDO requirement would be 3 to 4 acres.
Are
there any environmental advocates on the panel, i.e., people with
a focus on open space? (8/17)
Two or three of the seats on the Task Force were identified as
members of the environemental community, including Planning Commissioner
Bob Levy.
When
will the EIR be done? (8/31)
The Draft EIR was made available on February 3, 2006.
How
can the Task Force get an issue analyzed in the EIR? (10/19)
Two
public EIR scoping meetings were available on October 26 and 27,
2006 for Task Force members and the public to attend and submit
comments. Staff examined each proposed issue or comment to determine
whether it should be analyzed in the EIR.
What is the
EIR timeline? (1/18)
The
Draft EIR began circulating on February 3, 2006 and ended on March
20, 2006. The EIR is tentatively scheduled for hearing before
the Planning Commission on May 31, 2006.
What is a significant
unavoidable impact? Can the City approve a project when the EIR
identifies significant unavoidable impacts? (2/25)
A
significant impact is one that exceeds the relevant thresholds
of significance City is applying for a given issue, for which
there is no feasible mitigation or alternative to the project
which avoids or reduces the impact to less-than-significant. Per
CEQA Guidelines, the decision maker for a given project, whether
Council, Planning Commission, Planning Director, Public Works
Director, etc., must make specific findings, based on substantial
evidence, in approving a project with one or more significant
unavoidable impacts that 1) mitigation measures and/or alternatives
that would reduce impacts to less-than-significant are infeasible,
and 2) articulate in the statement of overriding considerations
the specific reasons that the project's benefits outweigh the
identified significant impacts.
| Evergreen
Development Policy (EDP) |
On
page 11 of the 1 st Draft Development Policy, it states that the
additional analysis of traffic impacts is not anticipated to be
necessary; does that really mean no more analysis? (9/21)
Yes,
if future development is consistent with the final Development
Policy. However, site-specific operational traffic studies may
still be required.
Is
the Capitol corridor eligible for “protected intersection” status
under the new Policy? (9/21)
Protection
of intersections is a City Council decision, and depending on
the timing of light rail, some intersections may be eligible.
Where
is the traffic study? (9/21)
The
traffic study is part of the Environmental Impact Report, which
was made available on February 3, 2006.
Are
the community amenities in the development policy set in stone?
(9/21)
No.
The City Council will be the ultimate decision makers based on
staff and task force input. This proposed Evergreen Development
Policy is a first draft for discussion purposes.
Is
staff available for “off-line” discussions? (9/21)
Andrew
Crabtree is the contact person and is available for discussions
concerning the draft development policy. Comments can be sent
via e-mail to: Andrew.Crabtree@sanjoseca.gov
Any input will be shared with the Task Force and public.
Why
are traffic impact fees only imposed on residential uses? (10/19)
Residential
uses have greater traffic impacts, particularly during peak hours.
Which
properties will develop first? What amenities are proposed on
those properties? (10/19)
The
developers will decide which properties develop first. At the
November Task Force meeting, some amenities were proposed for
the four opportunity sites.
In
addition to developer funding are there other sources of funding
for transportation improvements and amenities? (10/19)
Some
amenities have partial funding from other sources (e.g., capital
bond program, taxes, etc.).
How
is the updated EDP designed to respond to changes? (10/19)
The
Policy proposes an “Implementation” approach. The Task Force has
an opportunity to provide specific guidance on how to respond
to “changes” when it considers revised drafts in 2006.
How
will the EDP address inflation? (2/25)
The
draft EDP states prior to issuance of building permits for each
phase, funding amounts will need to be updated to include the
latest estimates and inflation.
How
will residential pool units affect the southern Evergreen area?
(3/15)
The
residential pool units were considered in the Transportation Impact
Analysis for the EEHVS EIR as part of the scenarios that included
development of the opportunity sites.
What
are the benefits of industrial retention? Is it a good decision
to put industrial in Evergreen? (1/18, 2/25)
The benefits include allowing jobs growth close to residential
areas, internalization of trips, and providing more opportunities
and variety for economic development.
What
are the traffic benefits of industrial retention? (1/18)
Generally industrial retention would reduce the amount of
traffic at gateways into and out of the Evergreen East Hills area.
Does
the Task Force have the ability to recommend industrial development
on any of the 4 sites? (1/18)
Yes,
but such recommendations may require additional environmental
review beyond the scenarios included with the EIR.
What
other policies affect industrial conversion? (1/18)
The
City has an adopted Framework to analyze potential conversions
of industrial lands and other General Plan policies that address
this issue.
What
is the history of industrial land conversions by type (Heavy Industrial,
Light Industrial, etc.)? (6/19/06) - NEW
Summary
of Changes to the City of San Jose Industrial Land Supply
(chart
and graph)
note:
does not include changes adding or removing the Mixed-Industrial
Overaly designation.
What is the
status of industrial lands? (6/19/06) -
NEW
Memo
to Driving a Strong Economy Committee on Status of Industrial
Lands 10/24/05
Economic
Development Strategy (executive report) 11/03
Other
Office of Economic Development Publications
What
is the study area for the retail analysis? (8/31)
The retail study area encompassed and extended beyond the
area east of Highway 101 and south of Story Road.
Why
the 6% increase? (8/31)
Question unclear.
Are
medical offices included? (8/31)
Yes, in the “small office” category.
Does
the study give recommendations regarding specific areas? (8/31)
Yes, see pages xii through xiv of the executive
summary.
Are
the specific areas more than the four “opportunity sites”? Is
the Mirassou site considered? (8/31)
Yes, the study considered an area larger than the four sites,
but did not specifically analyze Mirassou (although Mirassou could
be considered as absorbing the potential retail/commercial demand).
Is
the study looking at attracting diverse services? (8/31)
Yes, the study documents the demand for diverse services.
Are
homes owner occupied or rented? (8/31)
Predominantly
owner occupied in the retail study area.
Is
there commercially zoned property in the area that is not currently
developed? (8/31)
Staff
is not aware of any commercially zoned sites that are not currently
developed, other than a portion of Arcadia.
Provide
more information on the cost of services for residential development
in relation to the revenues needed from commercial development.
(10/19)
General
information can be found in fiscal analysis completed in early
2004. See Planning Division website: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning
under the heading, “Employment Lands Conversion Framework”.
How
does Eastridge mall and its new tenants fit in with the retail
study? (10/19)
General Growth Properties began announcing some of the potential
tenants at Eastridge Mall after the preparation of the Retail
Study.
Why
would the City want more retail than the amount being proposed
by the developers? (10/19)
The area is currently underserved by retail. There are few,
well located sites that can accommodate significant/appropriate
retail.
Why
300,000 square feet of retail on Arcadia? (2/25)
The
market analysis showed a potential for up to 300,000 square feet
of retail. The EIR considers the worse-case scenario.
Why
is there no schools designation with respect to the Arcadia Property?
The Berg figure for school seems low. (8/31)
The Arcadia property owner is not proposing a school, but
continues to work with the Evergreen School District. School issues
will continue to be evaluated at upcoming Task Force meetings.
With
respect to reserving space for schools, does this include space
for a high school? Does land need to be reserved? (8/31)
None of the developers of the opportunity sites are proposing
to reserve land for a new high school.
When
do schools get built compared to housing? (8/31)
School districts determine when schools are needed in light
of demographic projections and new development.
Is
the school assessment study being done? (8/31)
Each school district will have the opportunity to present
their needs to the Task Force.
Regarding
the Evergreen Elementary school site at Arcadia, is a combination
at the middle school site possible? (9/21)
Yes, reconfiguration of the current middle school is possible.
Can
the school districts negotiate joint uses? (10/19)
Yes.
Is
a new elementary school required on the Arcadia property? Would
it be built as part of EEHVS? (11/16)
The Evergreen School District is evaluating their school needs.
Is
there a proposed high school? (11/16)
No, not at this time.
How
will EEHVS accommodate high school students? (11/16)
East Side Union High School District is convening a working
group of interested persons on this issue.
When
will the Task Force be able to resolve the shared schools and
parks issue? (12/14)
Each school district will have the opportunity to present
their needs to the Task Force.
Will
School land be purchased with amenity funds? (12/14)
It has not been decided whether funds that would have otherwise
gone to pay for amenities can or should be used to purchase land
for schools.
How
will the disparities between the different school district taxes
impact property owners? (1/18)
The City does not have the information necessary to answer
this question.
Does
the demographic
study for the East Side Union High School District look at
the EEHVS development scenarios? (2/25)
The study looked at the worst-case development scenario.
Can
industrial land be designated for a future high school? (2/25)
Yes.
Is
it feasible for the school [ESUHSD] to purchase 50 acres of land?
(2/25)
There are ways to get it done.
What
about elementary schools? (2/25)
There has been an ongoing dialogue with the school districts.
The developers have been agreeable to meeting with the districts.
What
number of kids on a high school campus would satisfy the community?
(2/25)
Will
trade-offs be discussed with respect to the transit-oriented development
of Arcadia? (8/31)
Yes.
Suggest
adding a requirement of construction or an in-lieu fee for affordable
housing. (8/31)
This was analyzed with the Trade-Off Analysis.
Where/how
will schools be added to the Trade-Off Analysis? (8/31)
Schools are not analyzed as part of the Trade-Off analysis
because schools are “non-negotiable” according to the Guiding
Principles. The school districts are analyzing their needs and
resources.
Is
there a money starting point transportation improvements and amenities?
(8/31)
Yes. The Task Force binder contains information on estimated
costs. (See
6-3-05 memo, Attachment 6).
Could
there be a way to identify the negotiated portion of transportation
improvements? (8/31)
Yes. These are identified in Attachment
6 as Tier 1 and Tier 2.
Need
clarification on transportation improvements and to look at not
increasing traffic. (8/31)
This will be discussed as the Task Force considers the draft
updated Evergreen Development Policy.
There
needs to be a clear definition of the amenities. (8/31)
The amenities are included in the Task Force binder (see 6-3-05
memo, Attachment
5). The Task Force will discuss the amenities at its December
meeting.
Will
the development plans as submitted be analyzed? (8/31)
Yes.
Transportation
improvements and amenities should be split and should be non-negotiable.
(8/31)
Route 101 and required mitigations are non-negotiable. Additional
transportation investments and amenities are negotiable. The Task
Force will have input on the priority of the negotiable items
at a future Task Force meeting.
Office/small
office development potential should be added, possibly as a sub-item
under the retail development potential. (8/31)
This is included in the Retail
Study, which showed demand for office.
Owning
versus renting residential property should be a key variable.
Evergreen is currently not in balance; there needs to be more
rental property available. (8/31)
Affordable housing is typically provided as rental units.
As the developers refine their proposals, the Task Force will
have an opportunity to inquire specifically about affordable rental
and ownership opportunities.
How
does potential development in Coyote Valley, Edenvale and other
areas impact the Evergreen*East Hills area? What impact will more
development elsewhere have on freeway interchanges in the Evergreen
area? (8/31)
The EIR for EEHVS includes analysis of potential cumulative
impacts of potential development in other areas.
With
respect to Key Variable No. 4 (Industrial Land Retention Options):
Is industrial development factored in the traffic impacts? (8/31)
Yes,
one scenario being studied is the “no project”, which would retain
the campus industrial.
Surprised
talking about a CFD. (12/14)
A CFD as a potential financing mechanism has been discussed
at previous Task Force and City Council meetings.
Why
use upfront financing strategy versus “paying as you go”? (12/14)
There
are fewer problems with upfront financing.
Is
it possible to do a hybrid approach by combining the upfront financing
strategy with “paying as you go”? (12/14)
The
City is currently reviewing financing options for the Evergreen
East Hills Vision Strategy. The financing plan may incorporate
pay-as-you-go financing such as impact fees, special tax bonds,
and developer contributions. The challenge with the EEHVS is that
the first infrastructure investments that need to occur are the
Highway 101 improvements. They are currently estimated to cost
over $81 million. The funds need to be on hand at the onset of
construction.
Do
property owners in the CFD have an option to finance upfront or
“pay as you go”? (12/14)
Typically,
CFDs can be structured to allow property owners the option to
prepay their special tax lien at close of escrow or remain a participant
of the long-term financing of the bonds.
How
will a CFD impact properties not located within the opportunity
sites? (12/14)
Opportunity sites could have a CFD. Non-opportunity sites
will have traffic impact fees.
Which
financing method was used for the Evergreen Specific Plan? (12/14)
The ESP used a contingent liens approach.
Are
the assumptions using current home values even though the EEHVS
will take years to complete? (12/14)
The assumptions use today's values.
Concerned
that the existing tax rate is 1.32 percent, but the effective
tax rate is 1.75 percent. (12/14)
Only developed properties will pay this tax. Two percent is
a common CFD effective tax rate statewide. This may be high for
San José, but 1.75 percent is a reasonable effective tax
rate.
How
will affordable housing affect the bonding capacity? (12/14)
Affordable housing reduces the level of available bonding.
How
will maintenance costs be addressed? (12/14)
The
City continues to evaluate maintenance needs for the improvements
proposed on the amenities list. As part of the overall financing
plan, staff will identify the needs and make recommendations.
Some examples include use of a maintenance district, a CFD for
maintenance like that used in the Evergreen Specific Plan, shared-use
maintenance agreements or other proposals.
What
is the capacity for passing future bonds? (1/18)
For
the purposes of the Trade-off Analysis an effective tax rate of
1.75% was used. A rate of 1.75% acknowledges potential for other
future bonds (e.g. school district bonds). The bonding capacity
also goes up as home values go up over time.
A
CFD shouldn't be discussed because the Task Force expected the
developers to pay for the amenities and other investments. (1/18)
The
City Council's approved Work Plan included direction to discuss
a CFD as a funding option.
Who
approves CFDs? (1/18)
Developers/current
property owners propose and prepare the CFD as part of the entitlement
process. Because only the properties owned by the participating
property owners will be subject to the CFD tax, a general vote
is not required. The City Council must also approve the CFD. Existing
property owners are not directly affected by the CFD.
What
if existing property owners are forced to pay for a new CFD? (1/18)
Existing property owners cannot be forced to pay for a CFD
unless a CFD is adopted through a general election. This is not
proposed as part of this project.
What
percentage of the $235 million comes from the developers versus
the CFD? What is the pay-off (lien) per home? (1/18)
This
has not yet been determined.
Why
can't there be a guarantee that infrastructure would be paid for
through other financing mechanisms? (1/18)
A CFD is one possible option. An advantage of a CFD is that
is provides considerable surety that infrastructure improvements
will be built since the City administers the CFD and has guaranteed
revenue streams through the bonding process.
What
other areas have CFDs based on 1.75% tax rate or higher? Are there
other cities/areas with similar CFDs and demographics? (1/18)
One
example is Roseville where CFDs have been approved at 1.75% and
higher rates. Based on studies, other factors such as demographics
seem to have more impact upon willingness of homeowners to pass
bond measures.
As
new property owners come into the CFD will they pay more to the
CFD? (1/18)
The special tax is apportioned by property type, not property
value, so new property owners of a given type will pay the same
amount as the existing owners of that type of property.
Is
it possible to pay for amenities up-front? Can any other financing
mechanisms accomplish the amenities? (1/18)
The
proposed Evergreen Development Policy includes a phasing plan
that requires commitment of funds in advance of development at
intervals according to the phasing plan. The Task Force may make
recommendations as to the front-loading of financing.
Where
is the flexibility for industrial retention? The study does not
address possibly moving jobs to the Arcadia site. (1/18)
This is a separate policy discussion that does not need to
rely upon data from the Trade-Off analysis. The analysis looks
at the impact of retaining some of the existing industrial lands
for industrial use. The Task Force may make a separate recommendation
to increase the amount of industrial or commercial uses on the
Arcadia site or other opportunity sites.
How
is the burden [of impact fees] determined? (1/18)
There
are legal restrictions upon how an impact fee is imposed. Greater
contribution amounts can be agreed upon through a voluntary process,
but the amount of contribution required for a non-participating
developer is restricted based upon nexus requirements.
Other
than the intersections shown on the preliminary traffic study
results, were other roads studied? Was removing HOV lanes considered?
(9/21)
Yes,
many intersections were studied, see materials from Traffic Analysis
Workshop and distributed at the November Task Force meeting. Yes,
the HOV lanes are assumed to be removed in the analysis (worse
case).
What
are the “Approved Improvements” shown on the preliminary traffic
study results handout? (9/21)
The
approved development includes existing and approved but not developed
projects as well as changes to roadways as a result of the light
rail project.
Traffic
is terrible today; what is the volume to capacity ratio? (9/21)
The ratio will be included in the Draft EIR for EEHVS.
Is
there a study planned to look at White Road? (9/21)
The transportation analysis in the EIR looks at White Road
as well as other major and minor roadways.
Does
the background include Edenvale? (9/21)
Yes.
E
and F represent heavy traffic? (9/21)
Yes.
Is
the Evergreen Policy more strict than the City's Level of Service
Policy? (9/21)
The impact criteria is different; it is tighter than the citywide
criteria.
Is
the Coyote Valley EIR taken into account? (9/21)
Yes, as well as other projects which might affect the Evergreen*East
Hills area.
Describe
the “snapshot” of traffic. (9/21)
The snapshot is of the worst hours of traffic, the morning
and afternoon peak traffic hours.
Positive
and negative impacts of weekend traffic should be looked at; Saturday
is as bad as a Friday now. What would it take to include weekend
traffic in the study? (9/21)
An analysis of weekend traffic has been completed as part
of the Transportation
Impact Analysis – Operations Analysis.
Compared
to the morning and afternoon peak during the week, how would weekend
change things? (9/21)
The worst traffic is in the morning between 7:00 a.m. and
9:00 a.m. and in the afternoon between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
When
will the weekend count report be available? (2/25)
The Transportation
Impact Analysis – Operations Analysis is available on the
EEHVS website.
Provide
more details of the proposed transportation improvements. (10/19)
The Task Force binder contains information on transportation
investments. (See 6-3-05 memo, Attachment 6).
How
can LOS be brought to ‘D'? (12/14)
Assuming
current conceptual Capitol LRT designs the following would be
required:
•
Capitol/Capitol: Add 4 th southbound lane, which would require
right-of-way take including demolition of 3 single-family residences.
•
Capitol/Story: Add 4 th northbound lane and free eastbound and
westbound right turn lanes, which would require extensive right-of-way
take including converting Kollmar Drive to a cul-de-sac, shifting
Capitol Avenue frontage road and demolition of at least 1 single-family
home and 1 church.
•
Capitol/Ocala: Add 4 th northbound lane, which would require demolition
of 13 single-family homes.
*See
EEHVS EIR Appendix E: Transportation Impact Analysis pages 81-82.
What
is the timing of transportation improvements to 101? (2/25)
The
timing of freeway improvements depends on the available funding.
With funding and environmental review in place the freeway improvements
could be done within 2 to 4 years. City staff understands that
freeway improvements are a high priority for everyone. There is
currently no money for 101 improvements; the proposed EEHVS provides
a funding source.
Currently
regional or state funding for construction of the US 101 corridor
improvements in Evergreen would not reasonably be available for
approximately 10 years. This timeline is based on the lack of
funding opportunities and the number of projects that are a priority
over US 101 or are already being constructed and will be paid
for with future funds.
However
there is a $19.9 billion state transportation infrastructure bond
measure proposed for the November ballot that would likely improve
the timeline for construction if approved by the voters. The US
101 corridor improvements are considered in the “top 10”
priority for future State highway funding based on Valley Transportation
Plan 2030. If the State transportation bond measure passes, it
is possible the US 101 improvements in Evergreen could be funded
by State transportation bond within the same timeframe as with
EEHVS funding. However if the bond measure does not pass there
are no other regional or state funds available for near term construction.
What
is traffic calming? (2/25)
Traffic
calming is identifying and implementing ways to help protect and
preserve the function of neighborhood streets. If there are existing
issues in the local communities the Department of Transportation
can work with the communities to address those issues.
|
