HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2018 City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda Packet
September 6, 2018 3:10 PM City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Page1 MAYOR
Mayor Roland Velasco
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Marie Blankley
Dion Bracco
Daniel Harney
Peter Leroe-Muñoz
Fred Tovar
Cat Tucker
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF GILROY
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
7351 ROSANNA STREET
GILROY, CA 95020
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2018
CITY COUNCIL PACKET MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE AT www.cityofgilroy.org
AGENDA CLOSING TIME IS 5:00 P.M. THE TUESDAY PRIOR TO THE MEETING
COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC WILL BE TAKEN ON AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN BY
THE CITY COUNCIL. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required, to
complete a Speaker’s Card located at the entrances. Public testimony is subject to reasonable
regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions for each individual speaker. A minimum
of 12 copies of materials should be provided to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council and
Staff. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408)
846-0204. A sound enhancement system is also available for use in the City Council Chambers.
If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this
meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final
administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the
California Code of Civil Procedure.
A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9 (d)(2) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City
on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstan ces, there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the City.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the
agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of
Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials
are also available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org subject to
Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Monday of each month, at 6:00 p.m. If a
holiday, the meeting will be rescheduled to the following Monday, with the exception of the single
meeting in July which lands on the first day of the month not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or
Sunday.
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
09/10/2018 Page2 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public.
Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the
people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the
people and that City operations are open to the people's review.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE
OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN
GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or
shawna.freels@cityofgilroy.org
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Invocation
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
4. Roll Call
B. Orders of the Day
C. Employee Introductions
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
1. Proclamation Naming the Week of September 17-24, 2018 as Constitution
Week
2. Proclamation Naming the Month of September as Emergency
Preparedness Month
3. Proclamation Naming the Month of September Childhood Cancer
Awareness Month
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
A. PUBLIC COMMENT BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON ITEMS NOT ON THE
AGENDA BUT WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL (This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Council
on matters not on this agenda. The law does not permit Council action or extended discussion of
any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If Council action is requested, the
Council may place the matter on a future agenda. Written material provided by pub lic members for
Council agenda item “public comment by Members of the Public on items not on the agenda” will be
limited to 10 pages in hard copy. An unlimited amount of material may be provided electronically.)
A. Library Commission Annual Presentation to Council
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
09/10/2018 Page3 IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Bracco –Santa Clara Co. Library JPA, SCRWA Board, Street
Naming Committee, SC Valley Joint Water Resources Committee, URM Task Force
Council Member Tucker – Caltrain Citizen's Advisory Committee, Gilroy Welcome
Center, General Plan Advisory Committee, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency
Governing and Implementation Boards, Recycling and Waste Commission
Council Member Blankley - Gilroy Sister Cities Association, HSR Sub-Committee, SC
Valley Joint Water Resources Committee, SCRWA Board, South County United for
Health, Street Naming Committee
Mayor Pro Tempore Harney – Gilroy Downtown Business Association, Gilroy Gardens
Board, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency Governing and Implementation Boards,
Santa Clara Valley Clean Energy Authority, VTA Board (Alternate), VTA Policy Advisory
Committee
Council Member Tovar – Santa Clara Co. Expressway Plan Advisory Board, SCRWA
Board, Street Naming Committee, VTA Committee for Transit Accessibility
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz - ABAG, Economic Development Corporation Board,
Cities Association of Santa Clara Co. Board, HSR Station Area Planning Advisory
Committee & HSR Sub-Committee, Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. Water Comm.,
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA), VTA Mobility Partnership
Mayor Velasco – Gilroy Youth Task Force, Economic Development Corporation Board,
General Plan Advisory Committee, Historic Heritage Committee, South County Youth
Task Force Policy Team, South County Joint Plann ing Advisory Committee , VTA South
County City Group, URM Task Force
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine
and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
request is made by a member of the City Council or a member of the public. Any person desiring
to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item rem oved from the
consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be
discussed in the order in which it appears.
A. Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Regular Meeting
B. Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable
Housing Crisis: Density is our Destiny
C. Approval of the 2019 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule
D. Update to the Gilroy Conflict of Interest Code During Biennial Review
E. Adoption of the City's Debt Policy for Community Facilities District 152
F. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Creating
an Expedited and Streamlined Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle
Charging Stations, In Compliance with Assembly Bill 1236 (introduced
8/20/18 with a 7-0 vote)
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
09/10/2018 Page4 G. Claim of Vanessa Hernandez (The City Administrator recommends a “yes”
vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
H. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Rescinding Resolution
2016-57, and Authorizing Officers Who May Conduct Financial
Transactions on Behalf of the City of Gilroy
I. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Rescinding Resolution
2016-58 and Re-Authorizing the Investment of Monies in the Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF) and Designating Officers Authorized to Conduct
LAIF Transactions on the City's Behalf
J. Contract Amendment with Precision Grade, Inc. in an Amount Not to
Exceed of $9,680 for the Construction of the Las Animas Park Trail
Rehabilitation Project No. 18-PW-247 and Approval of Fiscal Year 18-19
Budget Amendment
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS - NONE
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Establishment of an Attendance Policy for City Boards, Commissions and
Committees
1. Staff Report: Shawna Freels, City Clerk
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting and
establishing an attendance policy for City Boards, Commissions and
Committees.
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Consideration of the Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Gilroy Amending Gilroy City Code Section 16.6-1 to Allow No Limit
Antes, Wagers, or Bets
1. Staff Report: Scot Smithee, Police Chief
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
a) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading; and
b) Motion to introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
amending Gilroy City Code Section 16.6-1 of Chapter 16 entitled “Offenses -
Miscellaneous” pertaining to permitted games and cardroom wagers.
B. Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional Housing
Needs Allocation Sub-Region
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
09/10/2018 Page5 1. Staff Report: Sue O'Strander, Deputy Director of Community Development
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Receive report and direct staff to prepare a letter to the Cities Association of
Santa Clara County conveying the intention to participate in the Santa Clara
County Sub-Regional RHNA process.
C. Consideration of Proposed Finance, Fire and Recreation Departmental
Position Adjustments
1. Staff Report: Jimmy Forbis, Finance Director
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Approval of position adjustments in the following Departments:
1. Finance –
a. delete Supervising Accounting Technician and Purchasing
Coordinator;
b. add Accounting Assistant I/II and Accounting Technician I/II;
c. retitle Accountant II to Accountant.
2. Recreation Department – delete Office Assistant I; add Management
Assistant.
3. Fire – retitle Fire Administration Technician to a Management Assistant.
D. Use of Council Chambers for Local Public Election Candidate Forums
1. Staff Report: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Approval of the use of Council chambers for local public election candidate
forums.
E. An Emergency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Am ending Section 30.37.20(d)(13) of Article 37 of Chapter 30 of the Gilroy
City Code Pertaining to "Sign Regulations"
1. Staff Report: City Attorney Andy Faber, City Attorney
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
a) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading; and
b) Motion to adopt an Emergency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Gilroy Amending Section 30.37.20(d)(13) of Article 37 of Chapter 30 of the
Gilroy City Code Pertaining to "Sign Regulations"
F. Approval of a 4% Salary Increase for City Administrator Gabriel Gonzalez
Effective Retro-Active to March 1, 2018
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
09/10/2018 Page6 1. Staff Report: Mayor Roland Velasco, Mayor
2. Public Comment
3. Possible Action:
Approval of a 4% salary increase for City Administrator Gabriel Gonzalez
effective retro-active to March 1, 2018.
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Subdivision
(d) of Government Code Section 54956.9, and Gilroy City Code Section
17A.11 (3) (b) One (1) Case as Defendant
1. Public Comment on Closed Session Items
2. City Attorney’s Advice Re: Entering into Closed Session
3. Adjourn to Closed Session
ADJOURN TO OPEN SESSION
Report of any action taken in Closed Session and vote or abstention of each
Councilmember if required by Government Code Section 54957.1 and Gilroy Code
Section 17A.13 (a); Public Report of the vote to continue in closed session if required
under Gilroy Code Section 17A.11 (5)
ADJOURNMENT
MEETING DATES
SEPTEMBER, 2018
10* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
17* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
24* Special Joint Meeting with GUSD Board - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
OCTOBER, 2018
1* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
15* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
NOVEMBER, 2018
5* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
19* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
DECEMBER, 2018
3* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
17* Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
* meeting is webstreamed and televised
Proclamation of the City of Gilroy
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States of America,
the guardian of our liberties, embodies the principles of limited government
in a republic dedicated to rule by law; and
WHEREAS, September 17, 2018 marks the two hundred and
thirty-first anniversary of the framing of the U.S. Constitution by the
1787 Constitutional Convention; and
WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition
to this magnificent document, and it’s memorable anniversary, and to the
patriotic celebrations which will commemorate it; and
WHEREAS, Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a
proclamation by the President of this great country designating September
17 through 23rd as Constitution Week.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROLAND VELASCO,
Mayor of the City of Gilroy, and on behalf of the entire City Council, do
hereby proclaim the week of September 17 through 23, 2018 as
Constitution Week
in the City of Gilroy and ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals of the Framers of
the Constitution by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this
guardian of our liberties.
____________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
2.A.1
Packet Pg. 7 Communication: Proclamation Naming the Week of September 17-24, 2018 as Constitution Week (Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations)
Proclamation of the City of Gilroy
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy is susceptible to natural disasters to include
earthquakes, wild land fires, floods, and other large-scale emergencies we cannot predict.
These emergencies will test our grit and challenge us to overcome tragedy. Together, we can
protect our families and help our communities by planning for emergencies and for the
unexpected; and,
WHEREAS, we cannot always control how, when, or where they occur, but we
can prepare practical responses before disasters strike. By discussing with our families,
friends, and neighbors how we will protect ourselves and our community, we can contribute
to and share in a stronger, more resilient City. When large scale emergencies occur, law,
fire and emergency medical services will be overwhelmed with priority calls and our City
employees will serve as Disaster Service Workers; and
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy will join the Nation in focusing on this year’s
theme, “Disasters Happen. Prepare Now. Learn How” with an emphasis on
preparedness for all community members. Each week of September the City of Gilroy
will share the National Emergency Preparedness weekly themes with our community.
Gilroy will celebrate the spirit of resilience by rededicating ourselves to the important task
of being prepared in the face of any crisis. During National Emergency Preparedness
Month, let us all renew our commitment to ready ourselves, our families, and our
communities for any challenge.
NOW THEREFORE, I Roland Velasco, Mayor of the City of Gilroy, on
behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim September, 2018 as
Emergency Preparedness Month
in the City of Gilroy, and encourage all Citizens to recognize the importance of
preparedness and to work together to enhance our resilience and readiness.
______________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
2.A.2
Packet Pg. 8 Communication: Proclamation Naming the Month of September as Emergency Preparedness Month (Proclamations, Awards, and
Proclamation of the City of Gilroy
WHEREAS, the character of our community is revealed in how we treat our most
vulnerable and each year, 1 in 285 children in our community are be diagnosed with
cancer;
WHEREAS, cancer remains the leading cause of death by disease among
children, more than asthma, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, congenital anomalies, and AIDS
combined; and
WHEREAS, families of children with cancer in the City of Gilroy receive
essential services from Jacob’s Heart Children’s Cancer Support Services, a local
organization that has gained national awards and recognition for improving the quality of
life for hundreds of local children with cancer and thousands of family members; and
WHEREAS, Jacob’s Heart holds the memories and honors legacies of hundreds
of children from our local community who have been lost to cancer, ensuring that their
precious memories will never be forgotten; and
WHEREAS, the oncology department at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital at
Stanford has worked closely with Jacob's Heart for the past 20 years as a trusted
community partner in providing family-centered care that addresses the emotional, practical
and financial struggles of families of children with cancer in Gilroy; and
WHEREAS, it is important for all Gilroy residents to recognize the impact of
pediatric cancer on families within our community and honor the lives of children in our
community whose lives have been cut short by cancer; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ROLAND VELASCO, Mayor of the City
of Gilroy and on behalf of the entire City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of
September, 2018 as
Childhood Cancer Awareness Month
and wish to recognize Jacob’s Heart Children’s Cancer Support Services for 20
years of support to our community, acknowledge the organization’s contributions in
honoring children with cancer in our community.
____________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor Roland Velasco, Mayor
2.A.3
Packet Pg. 9 Communication: Proclamation Naming the Month of September Childhood Cancer Awareness Month (Proclamations, Awards, and
1
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/20/2018
City of Gilroy
City Council Meeting Minutes
August 20, 2018
SPECIAL MEETING 5:30 P.M. - INTERVIEWS
A. Interviews for the Arts and Culture Commission
The Council interviewed candidates for the Arts and Culture Commission.
REGULAR MEETING 6:00 P.M.
I. OPENING
A. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Mayor Roland Velasco
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Velasco.
2. Invocation
The invocation was given by Pastor Malcolm MacPhail of New Hope Community
Church.
3. City Clerk's Report on Posting the Agenda
City Clerk Shawna Freels announced that the agenda had been posted on
August 15, 2018 at 5:45 p.m.
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Mayor Roland Velasco Mayor Present 6:00 PM
Marie Blankley Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Dion Bracco Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Daniel Harney Mayor Pro Tempore Present 6:00 PM
Peter Leroe-Muñoz Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Fred Tovar Council Member Present 6:00 PM
Cat Tucker Council Member Present 6:00 PM
B. Orders of the Day
There were no agenda changes.
C. Employee Introductions
Chief Anderson introduced newly promoted employees Management Analyst
Trainee Jennifer Fortino, Fire Captain Herb Lee and Fire Engineer Jeff MacPhail,
and announced the recent promotion of Fire Engineer Heinz Maibaum.
Recreation Director De Leon introduced new employees Recreation Coordinator
Jaime Jimenez and Assistant Instructor Monica Gonzales, and recently promoted
Recreation Specialist Vincent Bautista.
6.A
Packet Pg. 10 Communication: Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
2
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/20/2018
Community Development Director Abrams introduced newly promoted Deputy
Director of Community Development Sue O'Strander.
II. CEREMONIAL ITEMS
A. Proclamations, Awards, and Presentations
1. Certificates of Recognition for Eagle Scouts Daniel Carter, William
Murphy and Jorge Lopez
Mayor Velasco presented certificates to the Eagle Scouts.
III. PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL
Jesus Montejano-Gamez spoke on the possibility of developing a cannabis
industry in Gilroy to increase tax revenues explaining that jobs could be created
and an opportunity could be made for younger generations to start businesses.
Ron Kirkish spoke on the negatives of bringing marijuana into the City detailing
the organized crime that came along with the cannabis industry.
Jan Bernstein Chargin spoke on the issue of homelessness sharing the number
of people assisted in the county through the county-wide case management
system. She explained that the Compassion Center camping program for
homeless had several successes but there was still a need for more housing.
Public comment was then closed.
A. Housing Advisory Committee Annual Presentation to Council
The presentation was given by Housing Advisory Committee Chair Echelberry.
IV. REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Tucker reported on the Welcome Center meeting highlighting
the design awards received for the Visit Gilroy website and the recent award of
$50,000 to create a County Tourism marketing plan. She then spoke on the
recent meeting of CalTrain explaining that their business plan did not include th e
City of Gilroy and she would be meeting with County Supervisor Chavez to
pursue inclusion of the City in the plan.
Council Member Blankley reported on the annual planning session of the South
County United for Health describing the need for revenues for health related
priorities in the County.
Council Member Tovar thanked the Downtown Association and Chamber of
Commerce for the downtown live summer series and spoke on the Garlic City
concert series that would be held on Fridays at Christmas Hill Park. He
concluded by announcing the joint meeting with the Water District.
Council Member Leroe-Muñoz spoke on the success of the prior weekend's
Garlic City Car Show event and congratulated the three Eagle Scouts explaining
that he had attended their court of honor event on behalf of the Mayor. He
concluded by suggesting that the public to visit the readyforwildfire.org website to
prepare for fire season.
6.A
Packet Pg. 11 Communication: Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
3
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/20/2018
Mayor Velasco reported that the Economic Development Corporation Board had
addressed filling new downtown vacancies with higher quality businesses, and
spoke on a potential buyer for an industrial facility which would eliminate any
industrial vacancies in the City. He thanked all those involved in the Garlic City
Car Show sharing the success of the event and invited the public to attend the
Cydney Casper Park ribbon cutting.
V. FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
There were none.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE)
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar, Tucker
A. Minutes of the August 6, 2018 Regular Meeting
B. Acceptance of Office of Traffic Safety Grant in the Amount of $76,000
C. Claim of Maria Ramirez (The City Administrator recommends a “yes” vote
under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
D. Claim of Debbie Griffith (The City Administrator recommends a “yes” vote
under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial of the claim)
E. Approval of the Design of a Public Art Sculpture for the Alexander Station
Project (AS 13-33)
F. Approval of the Design of a Public Art Sculpture for the Harvest Park
Project (M 18-05)
G. Adoption of Ordinance 2018-10 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Approving Zoning Application Z 18-01 for a Property Located within the
Hecker Pass North Residential Cluster Area to Allow for a Planned Unit
Development Zoning Amendment, Filed by Hecker Pass North, LLC, c/o
Skip Spiering (APN 783-04-023) (introduced 8/6/18 with a 7-0 vote)
H. Notice of Acceptance of Completion of Property Improvement Agreement
No. 2014-02 (and First Amendment), Cydney Casper Park, Glen Loma
Ranch Phase I
I. Consideration and Direction to Gilroy's Voting Delegate on the 2018 League
of California Cities Resolutions
VII. BIDS AND PROPOSALS
There were none.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Hearing to Consider the Report of Abatement of Weeds and Refuse
Within the City of Gilroy and Confirming the Imposition of Assessment
Liens Against the Land (continued from 8/6/2018 meeting)
The staff report was presented by Community Development Director Abrams.
The public hearing was opened; there being none, it was then closed.
6.A
Packet Pg. 12 Communication: Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
4
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/20/2018
Possible Action:
Adoption of Resolution 2018-37 of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
confirming the report of the Chief of the Fire Department setting forth the
description of property, naming the owners thereof and the costs of
abating the nuisance caused by the growing of weeds and accumulation of
refuse on the property, and providing that such costs shall constitute
assessments against the land.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
IX. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Appointments to Three Open Seats on the Arts and Culture Commission
There were no public comments.
Appointments of Nancy Fierro to the 12/31/2021 term, Maricela Andrade to the
12/31/2020 term and Marika Somorjai to the 12/31/2019 term.
Possible Action:
Motion to appoint three members to the Arts and Culture Commission with
terms ending 12/31/2019, 12/31/2020 and 12/31/2021.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
SECONDER: Marie Blankley, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
X. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS
A. Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Creating
an Expedited and Streamlined Permitting Process for Electric Vehicle
Charging Stations, In Compliance with Assembly Bill 1236 (introduced
8/20/18 with a 7-0 vote)
The staff report was presented by Building Official Allen.
There were no public comments.
Possible Action:
a) Motion to read the ordinance by title only
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Peter Leroe-Muñoz, Council Member
SECONDER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
City Clerk Freels read the ordinance title.
6.A
Packet Pg. 13 Communication: Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
5
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/20/2018
Direction was given to staff to participate in the Member Agency working group to
identify grants through the Bay Area Air Quality District to be available to
members of the community.
a) Motion to introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
which sets forth an expedited, streamlined permitting process for
electric vehicle charging stations.
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
SECONDER: Daniel Harney, Mayor Pro Tempore
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar,
Tucker
XI. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORTS
City Administrator Gonzalez announced the upcoming community and business
informational open house being held on August 28th to highlight the second
phase of the First Street repair project, and spoke on the Caltrans plans for
Highway 152/First Street reconstruction. He reported on an upcoming meeting
with High Speed Rail staff on a new proposal for the rail line and concluded by
describing recent downtown corridor meetings with the Downtown Association
and Chamber to be incorporated into an upcoming study session for Council.
XII. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS
There were none.
XIII. CLOSED SESSION
6.A
Packet Pg. 14 Communication: Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
6
City Council Meeting Minutes
08/20/2018
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION; Significant
Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Subdivision (d) of
54956.9 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11(3)(a); Case Name: C. DeMelo
v. City of Gilroy, et al.; Santa Clara Co. Superior Court, Case No.
18CV331272, Case Filed July 17, 2018
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION; Significant
Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Subdivision (d) of
54956.9 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.11(3)(a); Case Name: Patricia
Harrell v. City of Gilroy, et al.; Santa Clara Co. Superior Court, Case No.
17VC314125, Filed August 7, 2017
C. CONFERENCE WITH NEGOTIATOR – COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 and Gilroy City Code
Section 17A.11 (4) Collective Bargaining Unit: Local 2805, IAFF Fire Unit
Representing Gilroy Fire Fighters; City Negotiators: Gabriel Gonzalez, City
Administrator; LeeAnn McPhillips, HR Director; Anticipated Issues(s)
Under Negotiation: Wages, Hours, Benefits, Working Conditions;
Memorandum of Understanding: MOU between the City of Gilroy and the
Gilroy Fire Fighters
D. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54957 and Gilroy City Code Section 17A.8 (a) (4)
Name/Title: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator (Annual Review)
City Attorney Faber announced that the Council would be entering into closed
session on items XIII.A and B as discussion of the litigation in open session
would unavoidably prejudice the city's position in the cases.
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Possible Action:
Motion to Adjourn to Closed Session
RESULT: APPROVE [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dion Bracco, Council Member
SECONDER: Fred Tovar, Council Member
AYES: Velasco, Blankley, Bracco, Harney, Leroe-Muñoz, Tovar, Tucker
The Council adjourned to closed session at 7:27 p.m.
/s/ Shawna Freels, MMC
City Clerk
6.A
Packet Pg. 15 Communication: Minutes of the August 20, 2018 Regular Meeting (CONSENT CALENDAR (ROLL CALL VOTE))
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report,
Affordable Housing Crisis: Density is our Destiny
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Kristi Abrams
Stan Ketchum
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
a) Approve the responses to findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury
Report and direct staff to transmit them to the Civil Grand Jury, and
b) Direct staff to conduct further analysis of the creation of an Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance and schedule a City Council study session in November, 2018 for further
discussion and consideration.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recently, the 2017-18 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issued the report entitled
“Affordable Housing Crisis – Density is Our Destiny”. The report contains various
findings and recommendations, each assigned to various cities and/or the County. For
Gilroy, ten findings and nine recommendations were assigned. This report focuses on
three recommendations that would require significant changes in city policy: adoption of
housing impact fees on Gilroy employers, participation in a proposed Santa Clara
6.B
Packet Pg. 16
County Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Sub-region, and adoption of an
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Jurisdictions identified in the findings and recommendations are required to provide
responses to the Civil Grand Jury within 90 days of issuance of the report (September
20, 2018).
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2018, the 2017-18 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issued the report
entitled “Affordable Housing Crisis – Density is Our Destiny” (see Attachment 1). The
report contains various findings and recommendations. Each finding and
recommendation is “assigned” to various cities and/or the County. Pursuant to Penal
Code Sections 933 and 933.05, jurisdictions identified in the findings and
recommendations are required to provide responses to the Civil Grand Jury within 90
days of issuance of the report (September 20, 2018).
There were ten findings and nine recommendations specifically assigned to Gilroy. For
each finding, respondents must either agree with the finding or, if disagreeing, provide
an explanation. For each recommendation, respondents must respond with one of the
following actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, include a summary of the
implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in
the future, include a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, include an explanation and the
scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to
be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department
being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency
when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of
publication of the grand jury report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is
not reasonable, include an explanation.
As part of this report, the Civil Grand Jury interviewed elected and appointed
government officials, leaders of non-profit organizations and housing developers from
all 15 cities and the county. The report addresses a wide range of issues related to
affordable housing, including the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process,
inclusionary housing ordinances, density bonus implementation, housing linkage fees,
accessory dwelling units and NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”) and YIMBY (“Yes In My
Back Yard”) movements, and more.
ANALYSIS
6.B
Packet Pg. 17
Attachment 2 to this report comprises the draft responses to the findings and
recommendations assigned to Gilroy. For each item, a response of ‘Agree’ or
‘Disagree’ is included, together with accompanying explanatory text. This report will not
provide additional discussion of those responses, except as noted. Of the nine
recommendations, three would require significant changes in city policy and warrant
further elaboration, as provided below.
Recommendation 2a: The County should form a task force with the cities to
establish housing impact fees for employers to subsidize BMR housing by June 30,
2019.
Recommendation 2b: Every city in the County should enact housing impact fees for
employers to create a fund that subsidizes Below Market (BMR) housing by June 30,
2020.
Proposed Response: These recommendations will not be implemented because
they are not reasonable. The Grand Jury Report discussion of this recommendation
refers to major Tech companies in cities like Mountain View and Cupertino, where
such fees either already exist or are being considered. Such companies have
generated thousands of employees and generated significant housing demand, as
noted in Finding 2a. Cities like Gilroy with slightly lower cost housing, are housing
many of these workers who make long distance commutes to their jobs. At the
same time there are no such Tech employers in Gilroy. The imposition of such
impact fees would be detrimental to Gilroy’s economic development efforts to both
retain current employers and recruit new ones.
Findings 3a, 3c and 3d address the concept of a Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) sub-region. Finding 3a states that such sub-regions in other San Francisco
Bay Area counties enable their cities to develop promising means to meet their
collective BMR requirements and that “Such sub-regions can serve as instructive
examples for cities in the County.” Staff agrees with this finding and notes that the
Cities Association of Santa Clara County has proposed formation of a county-wide
RHNA Sub-region and has asked all cities in the county to support implementation of
the sub-region by October 2018 (this topic is addressed in a separate Staff report on
this same agenda).
Findings 3c and 3d state that “More BMR units could be developed if cities with lower
housing costs form RHNA sub-regions with adjacent cities with higher housing costs”
and that ”High-cost/low-cost RHNA sub-regions would be attractive to low-cost cities if
they are compensated by high-cost cities for improving streets, schools, safety, public
transportation and other services.” Staff disagrees with both of these findings. On the
surface, a simple low-housing cost city/high housing cost city RHNA formula would not
be viable. The methodology for sharing/ transferring RHNA allocations between
jurisdictions is more complex and must include a variety of relevant factors, in addition
to the cost of housing, including the full range of service costs to support such housing.
6.B
Packet Pg. 18
Also, the Plan Bay Area, which the RHNA implements, calls for a minimum of 70% of
new housing to be built in Preferred Development Areas (PDA) and other transit-rich
areas. In Gilroy, the Downtown Specific Plan area is the City’s only PDA. There are
already 441 units of BMR housing under construction and planned for this area.
Focusing significant additional BMR housing in the Downtown area may be
inappropriate due to the potential affects from over-concentration. The creation of a
robust downtown requires a mix of affordable and market -rate housing. Finally, such an
approach would be difficult, if not impossible for governing bodies of lower-cost housing
cities to accept and promote to their constituents.
Recommendation 3a: Every city in the County should identify at least one potential
RHNA sub-region they would be willing to help form and join, and report how the
sub-region(s) will increase BMR housing, by the end of 2019.
Recommendation 3b: A RHNA sub-region should be formed including one or more
low-cost cities with one or more high-cost cities, by the end of 2021.
Proposed Response: These recommendations require further analysis. Gilroy
agrees that there is merit in pursuing formation of a county -wide RHNA Sub-region.
The Gilroy City Council will consider supporting the proposed sub -region at its
September 10, 2018 meeting. As noted in the response to Finding 3c, Gilroy
disagrees with the concept of identifying low -cost housing cities and high-housing
cost cities to be linked in a sub-region allocation. The direction to report upon how
the countywide sub-region will increase BMR supply by the end of 2019 is
unrealistic.
Recommendation 5: Inclusionary BMR percentage requirements should be
increased to at least 15% in Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Palo
Alto, by the end of 2019.
Proposed Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. Prior to
December 21, 2018, the Gilroy City Council will review and consider creation of a
citywide Inclusionary Housing ordinance requiring a minimum of 15% of new
dwelling units to be affordable to very low, low, and moderate income families.
An Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would require the development of affordable
housing in all market-rate housing projects, citywide. Currently, Gilroy requires the
inclusion of 15% affordable housing in Neighborhood Districts, only. A number of
factors point to the need for the city to consider all available approaches to providing
housing for all income levels, consistent with the General Plan Housing Element and
state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). T hese include the
extreme housing affordability crisis and the recent strengthening of the Housing
Accountability Act with greater levels of performance and accountability review and
enforcement. On this basis, it is recommended that staff conduct further analysis
regarding creation of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and schedule a City Council
study session in November, 2018 for further discussion and consideration.
6.B
Packet Pg. 19
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the responses to findings and recommendations in the Civil Gra nd Jury
Report and direct staff to transmit them to the Civil Grand Jury prior to the
September 20, 2018 deadline. This action is recommended.
2. The City Council may direct staff to modify any of the responses in the draft
document in Attachment 2, prior to preparing the final document for transmittal to
the Civil Grand Jury. This action is not recommended.
3. Should the City Council choose not to proceed with the proposed responses to
the Grand Jury report, the city would be in violation of the California Penal Code
sections requiring jurisdictions to respond to Grand Jury findings and
recommendations. This action is not recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Adequate resources were available for the preparation of this report. The responses to
recommendations 3a and 5 recommending the city conduct further analysis of city
participation in the Santa Clara County RHNA Sub-region and the preparation of an
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance will require additional staff resources and possibly
some consultant resources.
CONCLUSION
The City Council should direct staff to forward the proposed responses to findings and
recommendations contained in Attachment 2 to the Civil Grand Jury.
NEXT STEPS
1. Based on City Council direction, staff will prepare a final version of the response to
the Civil Grand Jury report and transmit it to the Grand Jury prior to the September
20, 2018 deadline.
2. Based on City Council direction, staff will conduct further analysis of the creation of
an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and schedule a City Council study session in
November, 2018 for further discussion and consideration.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
On August, 8, 2018, Planning Staff met with the Gilroy Housing Advisory Committee to
review the findings and recommendations of the Civil Grand Jury Report.
Attachments:
1. SCC Civil Grand Jury Report
2. Responses to Civil Grand Jury Report
6.B
Packet Pg. 20
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS
DENSITY IS OUR DESTINY
Civil Grand Jury of Santa
Clara County
June 21, 2018
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 1 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary ………………………………………....…..... 2
Background …………………………….....………...…. 3
Methodology ..................................................... 4
Discussion ………………………......……………........ 4
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Suggested Solutions
Communications Campaign ...................... 11
Strengthening RHNA ................................ 11
As Goes San Jose RHNA Performance –
So Goes the County .................................. 14
Inclusionary Housing Ordinances .............. 17
Density Bonus Implementation
and Density Near Transit .......................... 18
California Versus Its Cities ....................... 18
Housing and Employment – Commercial Linkage
Fees ......................... 19
Employer Contributions ........................... 21
Accessory Dwelling Units .......................... 23
Residential Impact Fees and Parcel Taxes ...... 23
VTA Serves as Model for Public Entities ..... 24
Findings and Recommendations ......................... 25
Required Responses .......................................... 30
Appendix .......................................................... 31
Glossary and Abbreviations ................................ 42
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 2 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
SUMMARY
The critical need for affordable housing is the issue of the day in Santa Clara County … and
our cities are flailing. Higher densities are a necessary solution, but cities are not fully
embracing this solution in the face of resident resistance, and a lack of funding, land and
urgency. In addition, there is confusion as to the effect of higher densities on traffic
congestion.
California’s report card gives Santa Clara County (County) cities an F. Everyone shares the
blame and the challenge. A city marches to the beat of its populace, and with citizen
resistance, the affordable housing crisis continues.
However, innovation-focused Silicon Valley points to some affordable housing successes. In
December 2017, the Mountain View City Council approved general development plans for
nearly 10,000 housing units. This North Bayshore plan includes 2,000 affordable units, 30%
more than officials envisioned just a few years earlier. The County’s other successes include
the new 262-unit Alexander Station in Gilroy, with every unit priced for below-median-
income households, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) organized
housing efforts.
An increasing number of people are one missed pay check away from relocation or
homelessness. The lack of affordable housing is destined to have an increasingly profound
impact on the County. Ironically, the County’s great economic success is a cause of the
exceedingly high housing costs.
The 2017-18 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) tackled the issue of affordable,
or below market rate (BMR) housing. The Grand Jury’s investigation made one thing clear
— drastic action is long overdue. Greater communication about the need for every city to do
its share will help. Cities can increase densities and enact policies to spark more BMR
housing. Yet, there are only minimal repercussions for cities that do not meet State-set BMR
housing objectives.
Passage of Measure A, a $950 million housing bond, in 2016 demonstrates that County voters
are willing to pay a price to help solve the problem. Housing officials estimate Measure A
will create and preserve 5,000 housing units for the neediest.1 That is a start, but the County
needs more than 67,000 such units.2
Besides cities, other governmental entities and the County’s largest employers must step up.
There is no getting around that higher densities are needed, with a greater focus on putting
housing near jobs and near transit hubs, taking pressure off regional infrastructure.
Increasing fees that developers can pay in lieu of providing BMR units within projects is
1 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc/Pages/Affordable-Housing-Bond-Measure-A.aspx
2 Ibid
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 3 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
critical. Some cities need to boost their inclusionary ordinances, which require that
developments include BMR units. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) should be encouraged.
Employers must shoulder some of the load, perhaps via a BMR housing impact fee based on
number of employees.
San Jose, which accounts for more than half the County population, has long had more
housing than jobs and has not implemented commercial linkage fees. However, the time has
come for the nation’s 10th-largest city to take that step. Smaller cities with little commercial
sites should consider residential impact fees or parcel taxes.
Cities can create a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) sub-region that pools the
resources of more than one city to meet housing needs. Cities should have to report not just
housing permits issued, as is now the case, but also the number of BMR units actually
constructed.
BACKGROUND
The phrase “below market rate” itself reveals a big part of the challenge. Funding for BMR
housing comes from a variety of federal, state, local and private sources.
The need for more housing has challenged the County for more than a decade. The Grand
Jury focused on BMR housing, which consists of households with incomes designated as
Extremely Low Income (ELI), Very Low Income (VLI), Low Income (LI) and moderate. (See
Table A1 in the Appendix.)
The average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in San Jose jumped 21% to $2,8343
this year from $2,3504 five years ago. As for single-family homes, the middle class is being
priced out. In February 2018, the median price of a single-family home in the County rose a
staggering 34% from February 2017, to $1.29 million5. From 2012-16, wages in Santa Clara
County, San Mateo County and San Francisco County areas have risen an average of 2.8
percent a year, while average housing rents have risen roughly 9 percent a year.6
Housing growth continues to fall far behind job growth in the County. The San Francisco Bay
Area Planning and Urban Research Association reports that from 2010 through 2015, San
3 https://www.rentcafe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ca/santa-clara-county/san-jose/
4 San Jose Housing Market Update Q2 2013, referenced source is RealFacts,
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19820 , page 4
5 https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/22/bay-area-home-prices-keep-going-up-one-county-sets-a-
new-record/
6 https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/bay-area-rent-increases-far-outstrip-wage-gains/
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 4 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Jose created 171,000 jobs, but just 29,000 housing units. From 2010 through 2016,
employment in Silicon Valley jumped 29%, while housing inventory rose just 4%.7
METHODOLOGY
The Grand Jury interviewed over 65 people for this report, many more than once. Those
interviewed included elected and appointed government officials, leaders of nonprofits and
developers.
The investigation covered BMR housing challenges faced not just by the County and its 15
cities, but also by nonprofits and agencies such as the Housing Authority of Santa Clara
County, as well as the VTA and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD).
The Grand Jury researched the Housing Elements for each city and for the County, as well as
the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the current housing cycle tracked by
RHNA, 2015-2023, and the prior cycle, 2007-2014. More than 100 documents and media
articles were reviewed and a visit to a homeless shelter helped the Grand Jury appreciate the
impact of our BMR housing shortage in a more personal manner.
DISCUSSION
Density is our Destiny
Density is at the heart of the many BMR housing solutions. The Grand Jury’s review focused
on the County’s 15 cities and unincorporated area, and included these topics:
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA - pronounced ree-na),
NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) vs. YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) advocacy
inclusionary housing ordinances
transit-oriented development
jobs-housing ratios
linkage and impact fees
employer contributions
accessory dwelling units
governmental entities other than cities
7 http://svlg.org/new-study-shows-students-making-incremental-progress-in-some-key-educational-areas-
and-a-vexing-exodus-of-residents-from-the-bay-area
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 5 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
California law vests most land-use regulatory authority with cities and counties. Since 1969,
California has required that these jurisdictions adequately plan to meet their housing needs.
Cities and counties must adopt Housing Elements, updated in every eight-year cycle, as part
of their general plans.8
California’s RHNA is crucial to the Housing Elements. The State requires cities to submit
Annual Progress Reports on their Housing Elements to the California Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.9
Yet, the RHNA process does little to ensure that housing needs are met. Cities and counties
face no consequences other than bad press for failing to meet their RHNA objectives.
The State Legislature is starting to force cities to increase the housing permitting pace, a
source of conflict between the State and cities.
HCD determines the RHNA goals for California’s regional planning bodies, which are known
as Council of Governments (COGs). Each COG uses demographic data to calculate housing
needs and assign RHNA goals for each city and county, in eight-year cycles.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the COG for the nine Bay Area counties.
The RHNA process requires local governments to be “accountable” for projected housing
needs. RHNA provides a benchmark for evaluating local zoning and regulatory actions.10
The County’s BMR RHNA results for the prior cycle (2007-2014) are shown in Figure 1.
This data is provided in Appendix, Table A2. None of the County’s 15 cities met their BMR
goals last cycle, and 11 failed to even reach half.
Figure 1 shows that the best BMR performers in the last cycle were unincorporated County
(92%), Sunnyvale (85%) and Campbell (83%), while the worst were Saratoga (8%), Los
Gatos (13%) and San Jose (15%).
Figure 2 shows how the cities are doing this cycle through 2017, with Los Gatos (2%),
Campbell (2%) and Santa Clara (2%) barely making a dent in BMR permits and Milpitas
AWOL (0%). This data is provided in Appendix, Table A3.
Los Gatos and San Jose requested that their 2014 permits be counted in the current 2015-
8 California Department of Housing and Community Development, “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and
Housing Elements”, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml
9 Ibid.
10 California Department of Housing and Community Development, “Projected Housing Needs – Regional
Housing Needs Allocation”, http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housing-
needs/projected-housing-needs.shtml
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 6 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
2023 cycle.11 The request was granted so now these two cities have an extra year of units
credited compared to the other cities in the County. For these two cities, the numbers in
Figure 2 include 48 months of performance, vs. 36 months for the other cities. The RHNA
need in the current cycle is calculated from Jan 1, 2014, through Oct 31, 2022. (See “RHNA
current cycle” definition in the Glossary.)
Figure 3 shows performance in BMR and overall permits for the prior cycle and current cycle
through 2017. Three cities struggled to provide BMR units but succeeded in above-moderate
housing: Milpitas (19% of BMR vs. 366% of above-moderate), Los Altos (13% vs 645%) and
Los Altos Hills (41% vs 375%). This data is provided in Appendix, Table A4.
Trailing in BMR units are Los Gatos (7%), Saratoga (7%), San Jose (10%) and Cupertino
(10%).
As the Figures on the following pages show, no city met its BMR objective in the prior cycle
and only Gilroy is close to being on pace in the current 2015-2023 cycle. Proposed SB 828
says RHNA goals should be viewed as the minimum numbers needed. Worse yet, the Grand
Jury found that many BMR permitted units have not been built. Because there is no
requirement that constructed units be reported, the permitted units might never be built.
San Jose is presented in gold in Figures 1 through 4 to highlight its importance to the County,
as discussed below in the section headlined As Goes San Jose’s RHNA Performance, So Goes
the County’s.
11 San Francisco Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2015-2023 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA),
https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdfs/2015-2023%20_RHNAProgressReport.pdf
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 7 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 1: RHNA results for the 2007-2014 cycle
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 8 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 2: RHNA results for 2015-2023 cycle, through 201712
12 Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements, 5 th Annual Progress Report Permit Summary,
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml
f
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 9 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 3: RHNA results for 2007-2017
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 10 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
The Debate and Suggested Solutions
The Grand Jury reviewed scores of topics that cover aspects of the BMR housing challenge.
This report focuses on several potentially impactful solutions. But first, there is a need to
understand the resistance to continued growth.
The Debate
There often are sound reasons to limit development. Too much development stresses
infrastructure, as vocal local residents often are quick to point out. The NIMBY (Not in My
Backyard) mindset can be strong, with arguments that sway politicians and discourage BMR
developers.
NIMBY arguments often center on transportation and schools. Greater housing density
requires acceptance of greater traffic congestion and therefore the need for modes of travel
other than the automobile. Improving transportation is often an elusive piece of the housing
puzzle, especially in cities with a high jobs-to-employed resident imbalance. Commute times
have increased by 17% in Silicon Valley this past decade. Commute times have more than
doubled to 66,000 additional vehicle hours daily.13
Another big piece of the puzzle is the stress that added population puts on overburdened
schools.
A grassroots movement known as YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard), led largely by millennials,
has started to exert influence in support of denser developments.14 YIMBYs support more
affordable housing and backed the failed SB 827, which would have forced cities to increase
development densities near transit hubs.15
The no-more-growth/no-more-jobs constituency is vocal. They want to cap jobs and
population near current levels. The ramifications of these views for our economy must be
clearly communicated.
Planners must consider which key variables should be monitored and optimized when
considering growth implementation and limits. The Grand Jury urges leaders in the County
to clearly articulate their views regarding the most critical variables to monitor and manage
in determining the preferred pace and limits for housing and employment growth.
13 2018 Silicon Valley Index, Rachel Massaro, Institute for Regional Studies and Joint Venture Silicon Valley,
page 9 https://siliconvalleyindicators.org/download-the-2018-index/
14 https://cayimby.org/
15 Ibid.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 11 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Communications Campaign
The Grand Jury found strong support among both public-sector and private-sector leaders
for a unified communications campaign to educate County citizens regarding the critical
need for BMR housing and the necessity of every jurisdiction doing its RHNA share.
Many residents do understand the need. The proof came on Nov. 8, 2016, when more than
450,000 County residents voted to approve affordable housing Measure A, needed to issue
$950 million in bonds to fund BMR housing countywide. Still, the margin of approval was a
thin 1.21 percentage points above the two-thirds required.
SB 316 is on the Nov. 6, 2018, ballot. It authorizes the issuance of $3 billion in bonds for BMR
housing statewide. But officials say Measure A and SB 3 won’t be enough to meet demand for
BMR housing.
Officials say more outreach describing the magnitude of the problem is needed. While the
Cities Association of Santa Clara County is among entities that could lead the way, the Grand
Jury believes the County is the logical choice to facilitate a unified communications campaign
that aims to convert NIMBYs into YIMBYs and ease the road ahead for higher densities and
more BMR housing.
A communications campaign could inform residents about a lesser-known component of
Measure A. It includes support of social services such as counseling and job training for the
ELI, VLI and LI segment. As one County official put it, “Housing is actually a treatment,” a part
of whole-person care. That message, properly articulated, can go a long way toward
overcoming the objections of the NIMBYs.
The communications campaign should analyze the need for higher densities in the context
of the leadership consensus for preferred pace and limits for housing and employment
growth.
Strengthening RHNA
One avenue for possible cooperation among cities is to form one or more RHNA sub-regions.
ABAG encourages forming sub-regions. San Mateo, Napa and Solano counties have done so,
but not Santa Clara County.
Sub-regions offer promise of encouraging more BMR housing. A sub-region gives cities more
control and flexibility to meet their RHNA housing goals by sharing the burden with adjacent
cities. Sub-regions must be a combination of geographically contiguous local governments
and require ABAG’s approval. The Cities Association of Santa Clara County17 is considering
16 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB3
17 http://citiesassociation.org/
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 12 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
the possibilities of sub-regions.
BMR categories are defined by the countywide median income (Table A1 in the Appendix).
The consequence is widely different ratios between cities in the median price of housing
(which is a city statistic) and the median income of buyers (which is a countywide statistic).
As a result, fewer developers are willing to consider BMR developments in the cities with the
highest-priced real estate: Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Los Gatos and Monte
Sereno. Their high real estate values make it harder for developers to meet their target
return on investment without greater public subsidies.
As of late 2017, 83% of County residents earning less than $50,000 a year were rent-
burdened, defined as paying more than 30% of pretax income to monthly rent.18 The
workforce the County needs to maintain Silicon Valley’s vibrant economic engine is all too
frequently leaving for more affordable places. Studies show that even tech engineers
struggle to afford homes in the County.19
The total cost of BMR units, as with any housing, largely depends on the underlying real
estate values. The Grand Jury calculated the hypothetical cost to developers, government
entities, buyers and all other stakeholders in creating a BMR unit. This was done in order to
look at the potential to create more BMR units in a sub-region that combines lower-cost with
higher-cost cities.
The County’s median purchase price for a two-bedroom ranges from $609,000 in Gilroy to
$4,090,000 in Los Altos Hills, according to real estate firm Zillow’s website on May 25, 2018
(Figure 4 and Table A620 ). The high end price is 6.7 times greater than the low end. The 6.7
value is referred to as location leverage for obtaining BMR housing.
Housing officials stress, and the Grand Jury agrees, that BMR housing should not be
concentrated in the lowest-cost areas in part because this would result in a burden shift from
wealthier cities to less wealthy ones. Still, there can be win-win situations. Cities with higher
real estate prices and little developable land could form a sub-region with adjacent cities
having lower prices to leverage more BMR units for the County overall for a given amount of
investment.
For example, a Los Gatos-San Jose sub-region would provide a location leverage of about 2
because the Los Gatos median price for a two-bedroom home is $1.43 million and San Jose’s
$773,000. Nearly twice as many BMR units could be created in San Jose as in Los Gatos, for
the same cost of development and therefore purchase price.
18 https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/05/lifestyle-switch-more-bay-area-residents-are-choosing-to-
rent-than-ever-before-and-theyre-paying-through-the-nose/
19 https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/14/buying-a-bay-area-home-now-a-struggle-even-for-apple-
google-engineers/
20 Data from 15 Zillow.com city sites including https://www.zillow.com/palo-alto-ca/home-values/ and
https://www.zillow.com/gilroy-ca/home-values/
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 13 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 4: Median Prices of Two-Bedroom Homes in Santa Clara County
The potential cost benefit of creating a single sub-region comprising the entire County is
presented in Appendix, Table A6. The cities in such a sub-region would strike their own
alliances depending on their mutual needs. The data in Table A6 describe two extreme
situations for the expected sales cost of creating the BMR units needed in the County to meet
its RHNA objectives. The highest cost option is where no sub-regions are created. The total
sales price for the 32,791 BMR units required in the current cycle would be $31.9 billion with
an average price of $975 thousand.
The lowest cost sub-region option would be to place all of the BMR units in the least
expensive city (Gilroy). The total sales price for all of the BMR units needed to meet the
County’s RHNA objective using this lowest cost option would be $20.1 billion (at an average
cost of $609 thousand), which would be an $11.9 billion savings. The lowest cost sub-region
option is presented only for comparison purposes. There is no political or social justification
for this lowest cost option. It is presented only to compute the lowest possible cost of BMR
housing that meets the Countywide RHNA objectives.
The higher cost cities are encouraged to evaluate their potential savings with lower cost
cities using an RHNA BMR objective sharing approach, and to determine where savings and
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 14 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
regional considerations support such sharing. Such regional considerations include the
impact of BMR units on critical infrastructure and services, including; public safety,
transportation, schools, retail access, parks, and social and health services.
Cities that take on additional BMR units would need to be incentivized by their sub -region
partners, perhaps with extra funding for transportation infrastructure, parks, schools, safety
and social services.
There are other scenarios where a RHNA sub-region makes sense. The Grand Jury envisions
combining cities that have few vacant buildable parcels and no rail transit hubs with adjacent
cities that could accommodate more dense transit-oriented developments (TOD).
As Goes San Jose’s RHNA Performance, So Goes the County’s
San Jose’s roughly 1.05 million residents comprise more than 55% of the County population.
San Jose has long complained of its lack of jobs vs. housing, a challenge because commercial
development brings in more tax revenue than the cost of services, while residential
development demands are just the opposite. San Jose has the highest housing-jobs imbalance
of any of the largest U.S. cities.21
San Jose has ambitious goals for both commercial and residential development. In September
2017, Mayor Sam Liccardo established an objective of 25,000 new housing units in five years,
starting in 2018, with 10,000 (40%) of those units below market rate.22 That would require
almost a doubling of San Jose’s permitting pace. The 10,000 BMR target would require a
permitting pace five times faster than the average over the past 11 years.
The Liccardo plan directs staff to identify barriers to meeting this objective. Developers
characterize the city’s approval process as overly burdensome, which critics attribute to the
city:
being too conservative regarding litigation risks
maintaining unrealistic open space requirements
requiring full approval of its Urban Village plans before construction can start
maintaining architectural requirements that are too expensive
having high turnover in the city’s planning department
Developers indicate they require a 10% to 14% return on investment (ROI) to deem a project
viable.23 They say high land, materials and labor costs in this County make achieving the
21 US Suburbs Approaching Jobs-Housing Balance, Wendell Cox, Apr. 12, 2013
http://www.newgeography.com/content/003637-us-suburbs-approaching-jobs-housing-balance
22 Sam Liccardo’s 15 point plan for “Responding to the Housing Crisis” – 9/28/2017,
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=667033
23 “Construction costs could limit where homes are built in San Jose” by George Avalos, 5/1/2018
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 15 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
target margins challenging.
San Jose’s General Plan provides valuable elements for BMR housing. In December 2014, San
Jose amended its General Plan, establishing a goal that at least 15% of new housing be priced
for ELI, VLI and LI households.
In December 2016, the city amended its General Plan to:
Establish a 25% goal for affordable housing in each Urban Village
Allow 100% restricted (deed or income) affordable housing to move forward ahead
of market-rate development in Urban Villages
Allow selected commercial sites of at least 1.5 acres to convert to mixed-use
residential-commercial developments if the project includes 100% restricted-
affordable housing
But developers say the city’s slow pace in approving Urban Villages has delayed
development. San Jose officials say 12 of 64 total Urban Villages have been approved, and a
13th was pending at the time of this report.
Figure 5 and Appendix, Table A7 show that San Jose is 36,000 units short of meeting its BMR
objectives for the prior and current RHNA cycles. The current cycle runs until October 2022,
so San Jose has only four years to catch up.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/01/construction-costs-could-limit-where-san-jose-homes-are-
built-google-adobe-diridon/
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 16 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Figure 5: BMR Permits - Unit Deficit
To make up that deficit, San Jose would have to issue 9,000 BMR permits per year through
this cycle, while it has averaged only 400 per year between 2007-2017. This BMR deficit
emphasizes why San Jose must maintain a strong BMR push even as it focuses on adding jobs.
The San Jose BMR deficit dwarfs that of any other city in the County. The city with the next-
highest BMR deficit is Santa Clara, at 4,200 units. This enormous difference in BMR unit
deficit demonstrates San Jose’s shortcomings and that the County cannot make substantial
progress in meeting its RHNA BMR goals if San Jose does not perform. San Jose’s importance
is why it is highlighted in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 5.
San Jose is ahead of pace for above-moderate housing, as Figure 3 shows. This housing is
needed, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of BMR housing. In 2013, San Jose expanded
and extended its Downtown High-Rise Development Incentive Program, which in three
downtown areas provides exemptions to the inclusionary housing ordinance and reduces in-
lieu fees to half of the rest of downtown.24 This shows San Jose’s willingness to relax BMR
requirements. Given, the lack of BMR unit production by San Jose, the Grand Jury encourages
San Jose to push as hard as possible to use tools to create BMR units to their fullest advantage.
24 City of San Jose 2014-2023 Housing Element, page IV-33
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 17 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Inclusionary Housing Ordinances
Inclusionary housing ordinances (IHOs) require that developers allocate a percentage of
units for BMR housing. Eight cities in the County allow developers to pay fees in lieu of
providing the units on-site.
As Appendix, Table A8 shows, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga do not
have inclusionary ordinances. All but Morgan Hill have residential zones with large lot sizes
and few sites for large housing developments. Due to the small number of potential multi-
unit developments in Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, inclusionary ordinances
would generate few BMR units in these cities and are not a priority.
As shown in Table A8, seven Santa Clara cities have BMR inclusionary requirements of 15%
to 20%. But the inclusionary ordinances for Los Altos, Milpitas, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale
require less than 15%. Raising that percentage could help spark more BMR housing.
Setting the percentage too high, however, can be a problem. San Francisco’s housing
development applications sank after the city hiked its BMR inclusionary percentage to 25%
from 12% for new rental projects, forcing the city to compromise at 18%.25 Palo Alto, much
coveted by developers, is considering a 25% requirement but only in some situations.
Morgan Hill has a voter-approved Residential Development Control System 26 (RDCS)
instead of an IHO. The RDCS makes developers compete for development permits based on
how well their applications meet the city’s goals.
One issue that weakens inclusionary ordinances is the use of in-lieu fees. Cupertino, Milpitas,
Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale give developers the option of
paying these fees instead of creating BMR units within their development. Many officials
interviewed by the Grand Jury said these fees are a bargain for developers, who often choose
that option. In-lieu fees usually go into the cities’ BMR housing funds, but it can be many
years before the fees translate into BMR units. Officials say in-lieu fees usually produce fewer
BMR units than the on-site requirement would have realized.
The Grand Jury believes that in-lieu fees should be avoided and that cities should incentivize
developers to build BMR units within their developments. If cities retain in-lieu fees, they
should be raised above comparable inclusionary requirements. The fee should be set at least
one-third higher than the inclusionary requirement to encourage on-site BMR units. For
example, Santa Clara has a 15% BMR inclusionary requirement. So, at one-third higher, the
in-lieu fee would be no lower than the cost equating to a 20% inclusionary requirement.
25 Roland Li, May 18, 2017, https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/05/18/sf-affordable-
housing-compromise-development.html
26 http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/109/RDCS-Process
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 18 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Density Bonus Implementation and Density Near Transit
All cities must offer density bonuses to allow developers to build more units overall so long
as they allocate more units for BMR. Density bonuses can generate more BMR units,
especially in Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs). Transit experts advocate densities of
at least 50 units per acre for TODs.27 Such densities can effectively increase transit system
usage and enable developers to meet their profitability goals.
A 2016 State law28 extends density bonuses to mixed-use developments 29 and offers related
incentives and concessions to make projects financially feasible. Mixed-use development
can be especially attractive near transit hubs because both employees and residents can
readily access mass transit and thereby ease traffic congestion. Mixed-use projects also have
the advantage of generating tax revenue from the commercial component, offsetting the cost
of the residential component.
One alternative to denser in-fill developments is housing in exurbs where land is less costly
and housing is therefore more affordable. However, persons who work in the County and
find lower-cost housing outside the County find that high transportation costs eat into their
housing cost savings.30
Residential, commercial and mixed-use TOD appeals to cities and developers for a variety of
reasons.31 TOD encourages use of mass transit by persons who live or work near a transit
hub. Parking requirements for TOD are often eased to encourage use of mass transit.
Recently defeated SB 827 would have mandated high densities near transit hubs. It failed in
part due to organized multi-city opposition. However, cities can still move forward with
their own TOD efforts. Caltrain, VTA and BART create opportunities for BMR units in cities
with transit hubs. Cities should identify parcels within one-half mile of a transit hub and
work to bring high-density BMR-related developments on those sites.
California Versus Its Cities
Cities have failed to meet their BMR and the overall housing challenge. State lawmakers
increasingly are proposing to take some control from cities in an effort to force more housing
to be built.
27 VTA interview
28 An act to amend Section 65915 of the Government Code, relating to housing
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB2501
29 California Government Code §65915(i)
30 Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability with Location Efficiency, TOD 201, by The
Center for Transit-Oriented Development, page 5
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/091030ra201mixedhousefinal.pdf
31 Id., page 8
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 19 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
SB 828, as of June 1, 2018, proposes to modify current law32 to state that cities and counties
should undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote and facilitate the development
of housing to accommodate the entire regional housing need. The proposed measure also
requires reasonable actions be taken by local and regional governments to ensure that future
housing production meets, at a minimum, the RHNA objectives.
The League of California Cities leads the cities’ fight with the State over control of land use
decisions. Local governments strongly object to any loss of local control, but State lawmakers
are looking to give RHNA allocations more teeth. Cities will increasingly face such threats if
they don’t move faster to create more BMR housing.
Housing and Employment, Commercial Linkage Fees
Figure 6 and Appendix, Table A9 provide jobs to employed resident ratios for the 15 cities in
the County. The values range from 0.33 for Monte Sereno to 3.02 for Palo Alto. A jobs to
employed resident ratio of about 1.0 is viewed as balanced by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) of Santa Clara.33
A balanced ratio is associated with lower traffic congestion impact compared to an
unbalanced ratio. However, striving to have each city attain a ratio of 1.0 would likely lead
to unnecessary inefficiencies. Given that many employed residents commute to other cities
in the region, regional balance may be as important as balance within a single city. The Grand
Jury believes a city with a ratio of 0.9 to 1.1 reasonably balances jobs and housing. The cities
that fall within the ratio range of the translucent vertical bar (0.9 to 1.1), meet this
reasonable balance. They are represented by yellow horizontal bars in Figure 6.
Cities with jobs to employed resident ratios above 1.1 have substantially more jobs than
employed residents and typically create more road congestion flow from emp loyees
commuting to and from their jobs. These cities are represented by the upper cluster of red
bars in Figure 6. These cities could alleviate regional traffic congestion by adding more
housing.
Cities with jobs to employed resident ratios below 0.9 have substantially more employed
residents than jobs and typically create more road congestion as well from employees
commuting to and from their homes. These cities are represented by the lower cluster of
red bars in Figure 6 and could alleviate regional traffic congestion by adding more jobs.
Commercial developments tend to raise revenue for cities. That puts more services and
corresponding financial burden on cities with more housing and less employment. For cities
32 Government Code (GC) Section 65584(a)(2)
33 LAFCO of Santa Clara County, Cities Service Review, Section 22, “Sprawl Prevention/Infill Development,
pages 314-315, http://santaclaralafco.org/file/ServiceReviews/CitiesSR2015/23CSRR_FA_Sprawl.pdf
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 20 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
with high employment, higher density can place more employees near their jobs. The larger
pool of potential skilled employees makes these cities more attractive for employers.
Milpitas and Palo Alto have many differences, but among their similarities are they have
fallen short on BMR housing and have jobs to employed resident ratios above 1.1. Their
commercial linkage fee revenue could be leveraged in a RHNA sub-region to provide more
BMR housing. Additionally, higher-density residential zoning would bring in more BMR units
and improve their jobs to employed resident ratios.
Figure 6: Jobs Per Employed Resident
Google and the city of Mountain View, in the North Bayshore project, set an example of
providing substantial BMR housing for the community. By comparison, Cupertino-based
Apple’s new headquarters for 12,000 employees,34 including many new employees, was
planned with no additional housing. That might have been OK if the new headquarters was
solely a consolidation of Apple’s existing space. But it appears Apple will vacate little space
and the new headquarters largely will be used to accommodate work force expansion. This
was a missed opportunity for collaboration by Cupertino.
In many cities, developers of commercial projects pay commercial linkage fees. The idea is
that cities will use these funds for new developments that would house about as many people
as are employed in that commercial project. State law requires that cities complete a nexus
34 “Here’s how much every inch of Apple’s new $5 billion campus cost to build” by Abagail Hess, CNBC, Oct. 9,
2017 - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/09/how-much-every-inch-of-apples-new-5-billion-campus-cost-to-
build.html
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 21 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
study to determine the appropriate linkage fee.35 Linkage fees justified by the nexus studies
are often much higher than the fees adopted. The nexus study evaluates the number of
employees generated by different types of development.
Appendix, Table A10 shows that Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Mountain View and
Sunnyvale have commercial linkage fees for BMR housing. Palo Alto has the highest fee, at
up to $35 per square foot. Santa Clara’s top linkage fee increases to $20 per square foot after
Jan. 18, 2019.36
Cities with larger jobs to employed resident ratios could form a RHNA sub-region to share
their commercial linkage fee income with other cities that have more sites for BMR projects.
This could have a bigger impact if the fees were shared with cities that can develop BMR
housing near transit stations.
Table A10 shows that Campbell, Milpitas and Saratoga have completed nexus studies that
provide fee recommendations, but none have enacted a commercial linkage fee. These cities
could quickly benefit from these commercial linkage fees.
San Jose, with its low jobs to employed resident ratio, has encouraged commercial
development. It has not completed a nexus study. But in view of the city’s big BMR shortfall,
the Grand Jury recommends San Jose complete a nexus study and enact a commercial linkage
fee to create more funding for BMR housing.
Employer Contributions
The County and cities should consider enacting housing impact fees on employers. Officials
interviewed by the Grand Jury have been receptive to the idea. Mountain View and Cupertino
are to be commended for exploring the idea.37
Such a fee could be appropriate because employers have benefited from their activities in
the County. They need housing and other local services for the jobs they create directly and
indirectly. Experts say one high-tech job translates into four jobs in other sectors.38 Housing
challenges and congested roads can be improved by subsidizing denser housing near
employment centers and transportation hubs.
35 Mitigation Fee Act, Gov. Code section 66000 et seq.
36 Santa Clara City Resolution 17-8482 – Establishing Affordable Housing Fees and Integrating the Fees into the
Municipal Fee Schedule, Attachment A
37 https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Apple-could-get-hit-with-employer-tax-in-its-
12927462.php
38 http://www.bayareacouncil.org/community_engagement/new-study-for-every-new-high-tech-job-four-
more-created/
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 22 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Housing impact fees set too high could make the County less desirable for companies. Still,
such a fee would be designed to help fix a region-wide problem shared by all the County’s
employers and make for a more vibrant region.
The County and cities should form a task force to establish the specifics of a BMR housing
impact fee on employers. A measure recently approved by the Seattle City Council could
provide a template. Referred to as the “Amazon Tax,” because Amazon.com is the largest
company headquartered in Seattle, the measure requires that businesses with annual
revenue above $20 million pay $275 per full-time employee each year over the next five
years. Seattle officials expect the tax will generate nearly $47 million and be used in part to
build more than 590 BMR housing units.39
Many large employers in Santa Clara County have contributed to solutions to the housing
crisis. Google is the major landowner in Mountain View’s landmark North Bayshore Plan.40
Facebook offers monetary incentives for employees who reside near work and has pledged
$30 million for affordable housing. LinkedIn was an early, major investor41 in the Housing
Trust’s TECH Fund, which aims to fund affordable housing. Cisco Systems has invested in
the TECH Fund and in March pledged $50 million42 for efforts to house the homeless in the
County. Adobe Systems, Intel, HP and Applied Materials are among major donors to the
Housing Trust.
The BMR housing crisis requires steady sources of funding, from all sectors. Given the history
of innovative solutions and philanthropy by employers, we urge the County and cities to
partner with the largest employers and groups such as the Silicon Valley Leadership Group
to develop additional solutions for the BMR housing crisis.
39 http://mynorthwest.com/925685/task-force-employee-hours-tax-seattle/
40 https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/northbayshore_.asp
41 http://www.housingtrustsv.org/news/linkedin-commits-to-affordable-housing-in-mountain-view-w-10m-
investment-in-tech-fund/
42 https://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?articleId=1918354
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 23 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs are being encouraged by several cities as the most expedient option to satisfy their
RHNA allocations. These also are referred to as “granny” or “NexGen” units. Appendix, Table
A11 provides ADU regulation and production data.
For Monte Sereno, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and unincorporated County,
ADUs are a major component of their BMR housing efforts. ADUs are attractive in these cities
because they have mostly large-lot single-family residences.
These cities should require deed restrictions for ADUs, guaranteeing that these units remain
within the BMR income categories. If such deed restrictions for ADUs cannot be required, the
cities should provide incentives so owners are encouraged to voluntarily include long-term
deed restrictions.
ADUs can fit the bill for families, so long as the cities allow ADUs to be a certain size, perhaps
1,200 square feet or more, to accommodate family households.
Residential Impact Fees and Parcel Taxes
Cities with limited commercial development or developable land lack ways to generate
funding to meet BMR objectives. These cities have limited options to raise revenue in view
of Proposition 13 and the elimination of redevelopment agencies. They also have small
populations and small RHNA requirements.
An impact fee imposed on new residential development is one tool these cities could use.
Such fees are already in place in Palo Alto, San Jose and Sunnyvale, as shown in Table A8.
The fee is based on the connection between the development of market-rate housing and the
need to expand the supply of BMR housing. Such fees are typically 10% of construction costs
and are just one of many substantial fees developers have to pay.
BMR parcel taxes could be an answer but require voter approval. Fulfilling the jurisdiction’s
RHNA BMR allocation would be a proper purpose for a parcel tax.
What level of revenue could be achieved from a parcel tax? In Monte Sereno there are 1,222
assessor’s parcels. A tax of $1,000 per parcel would generate more than $1.2 million a year.
At an estimated price of $500,00043 per BMR unit, that could produce two BMR units per
year. The RHNA allocation to Monte Sereno for ELI, VLI and LI for the current cycle is 35
units.
The same formula for the 3,014 assessor’s parcels in Los Altos Hills brings in $3 million per
year, which could yield six BMR units. The Town’s current RHNA allocation for ELI, VLI and
43 The per unit cost of $500,000 is obtained using an average unit size of 1,000 sq ft, $300 per sq ft construction
cost, a density of 20 units per acre, and land cost of $4 million per acre.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 24 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
LI is 74.
VTA Serves as Model for Public Entities
The VTA recognizes the importance of developing its real estate assets and has created a
Joint Development Program (JDP).44 The VTA is creating high-density projects on its land
adjacent to transit by partnering with developers.
The VTA transit-oriented developments (TODs) include BMR housing with the aim to
improve VTA ridership. The VTA’s development process includes inter-agency coordination
and collaboration with developers, cities and other stakeholders.45 The VTA development
process can serve as a model for other public entities including the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD) and the County. Potential County sites include Civic Center, Fairgrounds
and Burbank area.
The VTA says its JDP encourages higher-density development.46 Local jurisdiction
willingness to rezone transit-adjacent properties from commercial to residential or mixed
use is a critical step for creating BMR housing. This is especially important in San Jose, where
nine of 18 potential TOD sites presently have non-residential zoning.47
The VTA properties having potential for BMR units are listed in Appendix, Table A12. The
Almaden and Cottle sites can provide more BMR units if San Jose would rezone these parcels
for mixed-use including residential.
With the VTA model in mind, the County and SCVWD should identify parcels they own that
are suitable for BMR.
44 VTA Joint Development Program, http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-
1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/VTA%20Joint%20Development%20Policy.pdf
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Grand Jury interview with VTA
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 25 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1a
Lack of housing near employment centers worsens traffic congestion in the County and
increases the urgency to add such housing. Cities to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy,
Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Finding 1b
Mass transit stations (Caltrain, VTA, BART) create opportunities for BMR units. Cities to
respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa
Clara and Sunnyvale.
Finding 1c
Density bonus programs are not being used aggressively enough to produce the needed BMR
units within one-half mile of transit hubs. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas,
Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Recommendation 1a
To improve jobs-to-housing imbalances, the cities of Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Milpitas,
Mountain View and Sunnyvale should identify, by June 30, 2019, parcels where housing
densities will be increased. The identification should include when projects are expected to
be permitted and the number of BMR units anticipated for each parcel.
Recommendation 1b
Cities should identify parcels within one-half mile of a transit hub that will help them meet
their LI and moderate-income BMR objectives in the current RHNA cycle, by the end of 2019.
Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San
Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Recommendation 1c
Cities should revise their density bonus ordinances to provide bonuses for LI and moderate-
income BMR units that exceed the minimum bonuses required by State law for parcels within
one-half mile of a transit hub, by the end of 2020. Cities to respond are Campbell, Gilroy,
Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Finding 2a
Employers in the County have created a vibrant economy resulting in an inflated housing
market displacing many residents. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Finding 2b
Contributions to BMR housing from employers in the County are not mandated nor evenly
shared. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 26 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Recommendation 2a
The County should form a task force with the cities to establish housing impact fees for
employers to subsidize BMR housing, by June 30, 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities
and the County.
Recommendation 2b
Every city in the County should enact housing impact fees for employers to create a fund that
subsidizes BMR housing, by June 30, 2020. Agencies to respond are the County and all 15
cities.
Finding 3a
RHNA sub-regions formed by several San Francisco Bay Area counties enable their cities to
develop promising means to meet their collective BMR requirements. Such sub-regions can
serve as instructive examples for cities in the County. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
Finding 3b
Developers are less willing to consider BMR developments in cities with the County’s highest
real estate values because these developments cannot meet their target return on
investment. Cities to respond are Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Palo
Alto and Saratoga.
Finding 3c
More BMR units could be developed if cities with lower housing costs form RHNA sub-
regions with adjacent cities with higher housing costs. Responding agencies are all 15 cities.
Finding 3d
High-cost/low-cost RHNA sub-regions would be attractive to low-cost cities if they are
compensated by high-cost cities for improving streets, schools, safety, public transportation
and other services. Cities to respond are Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill and San Jose.
Finding 3e
High-cost/low-cost RHNA sub-regions could be attractive to high-cost cities because they
could meet their BMR requirements without providing units in their cities. Cities to respond
are Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale.
Recommendation 3a
Every city in the County should identify at least one potential RHNA sub-region they would
be willing to help form and join, and report how the sub-region(s) will increase BMR housing,
by the end of 2019. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
Recommendation 3b
A RHNA sub-region should be formed including one or more low-cost cities with one or more
high-cost cities, by the end of 2021. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 27 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Recommendation 3c
High-cost cities and the County should provide compensation to low-cost cities for increased
public services required for taking on more BMR units in any high-rent/low-rent RHNA sub-
region, by the end of 2021. Agencies to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos
Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale
and the County.
Finding 4a
Commercial linkage fees can be an important tool to generate critical revenues to support
BMR housing. Cities to respond are Campbell, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Los Altos and San Jose.
Finding 4b
Use of commercial linkage fees is overdue and could be expected to substantially increase
BMR units. Cities to respond are Campbell, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Los Altos and San Jose.
Recommendation 4
Campbell, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Los Altos and San Jose should enact commercial linkage fees
to promote additional BMR housing, by June 2019.
Finding 5a
Uneven BMR achievements among cities is caused in part by varying inclusionary BMR unit
percentage requirements. Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Finding 5b
Inclusionary ordinances in cities having only a small number of potential multi-unit
developments would generate too few BMR units to justify their passage. Cities to respond
are Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Recommendation 5
Inclusionary BMR percentage requirements should be increased to at least 15% in Gilroy,
Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, by the end of 2019.
Finding 6
In-lieu fees, when offered as an option, are too low to produce the needed number of BMR
units and delay their creation. Cities to respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Milpitas,
Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale.
Recommendation 6
Cities with an in-lieu option should raise the fee to at least 30% higher than the
inclusionary BMR equivalent where supported by fee studies, by the end of 2019. Cities to
respond are Campbell, Cupertino, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara
and Sunnyvale.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 28 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Finding 7
NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition adversely affects the supply of BMR housing units.
Agencies to respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Recommendation 7
A task force to communicate the value and importance of each city meeting its RHNA
objectives for BMR housing should be created and funded by the County and all 15 cities, by
June 30, 2019.
Finding 8
It is unnecessarily difficult to confirm how many BMR units are constructed in a particular
year or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units. Agencies to
respond are all 15 cities and the County.
Recommendation 8
All 15 cities and the County should annually publish the number of constructed BMR units,
starting in April 2019.
Finding 9
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) offer a prime opportunity for cities with low housing
density and limited developable land to produce more BMR units. Cities to respond are Los
Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Recommendation 9a
ADU creation should be encouraged by decreasing minimum lot size requirements and
increasing the allowed unit maximum square footage to that prescribed by state law, by the
end of 2019. Cities to respond are Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and
Saratoga.
Recommendation 9b
Increasing BMR unit creation by incentivizing long-term affordability through deed
restrictions for ADUs should be adopted, by the end of 2019. Cities to respond are Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Finding 10
Lack of funding mechanisms to create BMR housing has restricted BMR achievement by
cities with limited commercial development or developable land. Cities to respond are Los
Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Recommendation 10a
Residential development impact fees to fund BMR developments should be enacted by the
cities of Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, by the end of 2019.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 29 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Recommendation 10b
Parcel taxes to fund BMR developments should be brought as a ballot measure to the voters
of the cities of Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga, by the 2020 elections.
Finding 11
The VTA is a valuable model for effectively generating BMR housing on publicly owned
property. Agencies to respond are the County and the SCVWD.
Recommendation 11a
The County should identify or create an agency, modeled after the VTA’s Joint Development
Program, to coordinate partnerships between developers and both the SCVWD and the
County, for the development of BMR housing, by June 30, 2019.
Recommendation 11b
Parcels suitable for BMR housing should be offered for development by the SCVWD and the
County, by the end of 2019.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 30 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Gury requests responses as
follows:
From the following governing bodies:
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 31 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
APPENDIX
Table A1: Income limits for housing assistance eligibility in the County (as of 4/1/2018)48
Extremely Low
(30%)Very Low (50%)Low (80%)
1 $27,950 $46,550 $66,150
2 $31,950 $53,200 $75,600
3 $35,950 $59,850 $85,050
4 $39,950 $66,500 $94,450
5 $43,100 $71,850 $102,050
6 $46,300 $77,150 $109,600
7 $49,500 $82,500 $117,150
8 $52,700 $87,800 $124,700
Num ber of
Pers ons in
Household
Incom e Lim it Category (based on AMI)
Hous ing Assi stance Incom e Eligibility Lim its f or S anta Clara County
BMR is separated into three income categories: Very Low Income (VLI), Low Income (LI)
and moderate-income categories. The County’s income limits for these categories are
provided in Appendix Table A1. Very Low Income (VLI) is housing for households making
up to 50% of area median income (AMI), Low Income (LI, 50%-80% of AMI); moderate
income (80-120%) and above moderate (more than 120%). Extremely Low Income (ELI) is
a sub-category within VLI and is for households making 0-30% of AMI. Note that the values
in Table A1 are for 30% (ELI), 50% (VLI) and 70% (LI).
48 Santa Clara Housing Authority, Section 8 Housing Programs, Income Limits
https://www.scchousingauthority.org/section-8-housing-programs/waiting-lists-applicants/income-limits/
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 32 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A2: RHNA results for the 2007-2014 cycle
Pink cells and larger font entries in Tables A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 represent lower BMR achievement, and green
cells and bold font represent higher BMR achievement.
RHNA Permits
Issued
% of
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issued
% of
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issued
% of
RHNA
Met
Saratoga 235 18 8%57 20 35%292 38 13%
Los Gatos 376 48 13%186 180 97%562 228 41%
San Jose 19,271 2,956 15%15,450 13,073 85%34,721 16,029 46%
Cupertino 813 127 16%357 657 184%1,170 784 67%
Palo Alto 1,874 293 16%986 787 80%2,860 1,080 38%
Mountain View 1,447 269 19%1,152 2,387 207%2,599 2,656 102%
Gilroy 807 164 20%808 1,262 156%1,615 1,426 88%
Santa Clara 3,209 721 22%2,664 5,952 223%5,873 6,673 114%
Los Altos 243 57 23%74 784 1059%317 841 265%
Morgan Hill 812 241 30%500 1,286 257%1,312 1,527 116%
Milpitas 1,551 709 46%936 6,442 688%2,487 7,151 288%
Los Altos Hills 68 40 59%13 76 585%81 116 143%
Monte Sereno 33 21 64%8 14 175%41 35 85%
Campbell 479 399 83%413 217 53%892 616 69%
Sunnyvale 2,557 2,178 85%1,869 2,403 129%4,426 4,581 104%
Unincorporated 677 620 92%413 422 102%1,090 1,042 96%
County Total 34,452 8,861 26%25,886 35,962 139%60,338 44,823 74%
To tal
City/En tity
Abo ve Moderate (>120%))BMR Subto tal
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 33 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A3: RHNA results for 2015-2023 cycle, through 201749
RHNA Permits
Issu ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issu ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issu ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
Milpit as 2,139 0 0%1,151 1,193 104%3,290 1,193 36%
Los Gatos 445 7 2%174 60 34%619 67 11%
Santa Clara 1,745 37 2%755 611 81%2,500 648 26%
Campbell 542 12 2%391 211 54%933 223 24%
Cupertino 794 27 3%270 172 64%1,064 199 19%
Sunnyvale 3,478 87 3%1,974 1,017 52%5,452 1,104 20%
S an Jose 20,849 890 4%14,231 7,671 54%35,080 8,561 24%
Los Altos 380 21 6%97 319 329%477 340 71%
Saratoga 346 20 6%93 12 13%439 32 7%
Palo Alt o 1,401 115 8%587 189 32%1,988 304 15%
Morg an Hill 612 75 12%316 534 169%928 609 66%
Unincorporated 249 29 12%28 229 818%277 258 93%
Mountain View 1,833 231 13%1,093 1,205 110%2,926 1,436 49%
Monte Sereno 48 11 23%8 14 175%56 25 45%
Los Altos Hills 106 32 30%15 29 193%121 61 50%
Gilroy 495 287 58%475 727 153%970 1,014 105%
Count y Total 35,462 1,881 5%21,658 14,193 66%57,120 16,074 28%
City/En tity
Total BMR Data Ab o v e Mo d erate (>120%)To tal
49 https://abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 34 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A4: RHNA results for 2007-2017, compared to objectives through Oct 31, 2022
RHNA Permits
Is su ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
I ss ued
% of
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Iss ued
% o f
RHNA
Met
Saratog a 581 38 7%150 32 21%731 70 10%
Los Gatos 821 55 7%360 240 67%1,181 295 25%
Cupertino 1,607 154 10%627 829 132%2,234 983 44%
S an Jo s e 40,120 3,846 10%29,681 20,744 70%69,801 24,590 35%
Los Altos 623 78 13%171 1,103 645%794 1,181 149%
Palo Alto 3,275 408 12%1,573 976 62%4,848 1,384 29%
Santa Clara 4,954 758 15%3,419 6,563 192%8,373 7,321 87%
Mountain View 3,280 500 15%2,245 3,592 160%5,525 4,092 74%
Milpitas 3,690 709 19%2,087 7,635 366%5,777 8,344 144%
Gilroy 1,302 451 35%1,283 1,989 155%2,585 2,440 94%
Morg an Hill 1,424 316 22%816 1,820 223%2,240 2,136 95%
Sunnyvale 6,035 2,265 38%3,843 3,420 89%9,878 5,685 58%
Monte Sereno 81 32 40%16 28 175%97 60 62%
Los Altos H ills 174 72 41%28 105 375%202 177 88%
Campbell 1,021 411 40%804 428 53%1,825 839 46%
Unincorporated 926 649 70%441 651 148%1,367 1,300 95%
County Total 69,914 10,742 15%47,544 50,155 105%117,458 60,897 52%
City/ En tity
Total BMR Data Ab o ve Mo d erate (>120%)To tal
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 35 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A5: RHNA results for 2007-2017, compared with time-proportionate objectives
(75.5% for San Jose and Los Gatos, 72% for other cities)
RHNA
2017
Permits
Is su ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
RHNA
2017
Permits
Issu ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
RHNA
2017
Permits
Iss u ed
% o f
RHNA
Met
Sara t og a 418 38 9%108 32 30%526 70 13%
Los Gatos 620 55 9%272 240 88%892 295 33%
Cupertino 1,157 154 13%451 829 184%1,608 983 61%
San J o s e 30,291 3,846 13%22,409 20,744 93%52,700 24,590 47%
Los Altos 449 78 17%123 1,103 896%572 1,181 207%
Palo Alt o 2,358 408 17%1,133 976 86%3,491 1,384 40%
Santa Clara 3,567 758 21%2,462 6,563 267%6,029 7,321 121%
Mountain View 2,362 500 21%1,616 3,592 222%3,978 4,092 103%
Milpitas 2,657 709 27%1,503 7,635 508%4,159 8,344 201%
Morgan Hill 1,025 316 31%588 1,820 310%1,613 2,136 132%
Gilroy 937 451 48%924 1,989 215%1,861 2,440 131%
Sunnyvale 4,345 2,265 52%2,767 3,420 124%7,112 5,685 80%
Monte Sereno 58 32 55%12 28 243%70 60 86%
Los Altos Hills 125 72 57%20 105 521%145 177 122%
Campbell 735 411 56%579 428 74%1,314 839 64%
Unincorporated 667 649 97%318 651 205%984 1,300 132%
County Total 51,771 10,742 21%35,283 50,155 142%87,054 60,897 70%
City/ En tity
Total BMR Data Ab o v e Mod erate (>120%)Total
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 36 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A6: Lower-Cost/Higher-Cost City Combination Sub-region Benefit Analysis
- Current RHNA Cycle: 2015-2023
City Median Sale
Price ($ million)
R HNA BMR
Units
Object ive
Present
R HNA BMR
Units
Deficit
No Sub-reg ion
($ million)
Lowest Cost
Sub-region
($ million)
Gilroy $0.609 613 326 $198.53 $198.53
Morg a n Hill $0.701 612 537 $376.44 $327.03
San Jose $0.773 20,849 19,959 $15,428.31 $12,155.03
Milpitas $0.821 2,139 2,139 $1,756.12 $1,302.65
Campbell $0.940 542 530 $498.20 $322.77
Santa Clara $0.944 1,745 1,708 $1,612.35 $1,040.17
Sunnyvale $1.200 3,478 3,391 $4,069.20 $2,065.12
Mount ain View $1.310 1,833 1,602 $2,098.62 $975.62
Cupert ino $1.340 794 767 $1,027.78 $467.10
Los Gatos $1.430 445 438 $626.34 $266.74
Saratog a $1.610 346 326 $524.86 $198.53
Palo Alto $2.250 1,401 1,286 $2,893.50 $783.17
Los Altos $2.580 380 359 $926.22 $231.42
Monte Sereno $3.000 48 37 $111.00 $22.53
Los Altos Hills $4.090 106 74 $302.66 $45.07
15 City To tal n/a 35,331 33,479 $32,450.13 $20,401.50
15 City Med ian $1.192 n/a n/a n/a n/a
The median sale price values in Table A6 are for two-bedroom units in all cities other than
Monte Sereno. The value for Monte Sereno is for three-bedroom units, because there was no
data available for two-bedroom units. The Sub-region totals (No and Lowest Cost) are
computed using the Present RHNA BMR Units Deficit.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 37 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A7: Allocated BMR Permit Share and Permitted Unit Deficit
2007-2017 BMR
Allocatio n to
Permitted Un it
Deficit Gap
An aly s is
San Jo s e
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Milpit as
Pa lo Alt o
Mount ain View
Cupert ino
Morga n Hill
Gilroy
Los Gatos
Ca mpbell
Saratog a
Los Altos
Unincorporated
Los Altos H ills
Monte Sereno
Count y Tot als
0.2%102
2.0%
1.5%
59,172
8.6%3,770
4,196
57.4%36,274
2.3%1,453
4.7%2,867
7.1%
0.9%545
1.3%277
610
0.1%49
1.9%851
1.2%766
0.8%543
Allocated S h are
(%)
Permitted Un it
Deficit
4.7%2,780
1,108
5.3%2,981
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 38 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A8 – Inclusionary Ordinances and Residential Impact Fees50
City Ordinance in Place (Y/N)
Minimu m
Number of
Units
Rental
Property BMR
Req u irement
(% o f u n its)
BMR
Requirement fo r
Resid ent Owned
Un its (% o f units)
In Lieu Fees (% of sales price
or $ per sq ft)
Residential
Imp act Fee
Campbell Y 10 15%15%no requests yet N
Cupertino Y 7 15%15%$15.48-25.80 N
Gilroy N - Neighborhood District Policy 15%15%N N
Los Altos Y 5, 10 15%10%N N
Los Altos Hills N N
Los Gatos Y 5, 100 10-20%10-20%limited option N
Milpitas Y 5 N/A 5%5%N
Monte Sereno N N
Morgan Hill N - RCD S 5 8%8%$12.92 N
Mountain View Y 5 15%10%3%N
Palo Alto Y 3 N/A 15-25%$50-75 $20-35/sq ft
San Jose Y 20 15%15%$125K per BMR unit required $17.41/sq ft
Santa Clara Y 10 15%15%$6.67-20 N
Saratoga N N
Sunnyvale Y 4, 8 (full)N/A 12.5%7%$9-18/sq ft
Red cells in Table A8 indicate that a city is not taking full advantage of a key means to
generate BMR units, while a green cell indicates that a city has stepped up and is using a key
means to a greater advantage than other cities in the County. An empty cell indicates that
that no entry is needed for that cell.
50 Sunnyvale had a Rental Property BMR Requirement of 15% through 2012, when it was replaced with a Rental Impact Fee to
comply with Palmer. Sunnyvale is working on a new BMR Rental Requirement consistent with AB 1505 for City Council
consideration in 2018.
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 39 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A9 – Jobs per Employed Resident Ratios51
Table A10: Commercial Linkage Fees
* Starting Jan. 18, 2019.
Cities with a mustard cell have not completed nexus studies, and those with green have
completed nexus studies.
51 LAFCO of Santa Clara County, Cities Service Review, Section 22, “Sprawl Prevention/Infill Development,
pages 314-315, http://santaclaralafco.org/file/ServiceReviews/CitiesSR2015/23CSRR_FA_Sprawl.pdf
City Jobs per Em ployed
R es ident R ati o
Pa lo Alt o 3.02
Sa nt a Clara 2.08
Los Ga t os 1.82
Milpit as 1.50
Ca mpbell 1.35
Los Alt os 1.28
Mount ain View 1.23
Cupert ino 1.08
Sunnyvale 1.07
Morg a n H ill 1.02
Sa n Jose 0.89
Sa ra t og a 0.85
Gilroy 0.84
Los Alt o H ills 0.72
Mont e Sereno 0.33
City/En tity
Nexus
Stud y
Comp leted
Ordin an ce
in Place
Linkage Fee
($/sq ft)
Campbell Y N N/A
Cupertino Y Y $21.35
Gilroy N N N/A
Los Altos Y N N/A
Los Alto Hills N N N/A
Los Gatos N N N/A
Milpitas Y N N/A
Monte Sereno N N N/A
Morgan Hill N N N/A
Mountain View Y Y $2.68 to $25.58
Palo Alto Y Y $20.37 to $35
San Jose N N N/A
Santa Clara Y Y up to $20*
Saratog a Y N
Sunnyvale Y Y $8 to $16
Unincorporated N N N/A
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 40 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A11: ADU regulations and production
City Min imu m Lo t Area (s q ft)2007-2014
Permits
2015-2017
Permits
Po ten tial Un its
fo r 2018-2023
Ca mpbell 10,000 15 13 25
Cupertino 10,000 detached 7.2 per yr 3 32
Gilroy 6,000 20 12 15
Los Altos No limit 11 15 35
Los Altos H ills N/A 40 28 N/A
Los Ga tos No limit 14 4 55
Milpitas 2500-10,000 6 N/A N/A
Monte Sereno 8,000 15 21 9
Morg an Hill 3,500 31 41 58
Mountain View No limit 7 11 45
Pa lo Alto 5,000 35 23 N/A
Sa n Jose 6,000-8,000 N/A N/A N/A
Sa nta Cla ra 6,000 29 20 30
Sa rat og a 90% of district minimum 39 38 50
Sunnyvale 5,000-8,000 20 23 N/A
Unincorporat ed No limit N/A 96 N/A
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 41 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Table A12: VTA sites with potential for BMR unit construction
The optimistic construction dates are highlighted in the table to focus attention on the
potential near term BMR unit potential for the sites described in this table.
Description/ Address
Optimist ic
Const ruction
Complet ion
Date
Total
Acres
Develop -
able
Acres
City Present Statu s in Development
Process
Estimated
N umber of
BMR Units
Tamien - 1197 Lick Ave 6/1/21 6.9 6.9 San Jose
Current negotiations with
developer. Application for revised
entitlements June 2018.
135
Mountain View - Evelyn 6/1/21 2 2 Mtn. View Pending negotiations with City of
Mtn. View 200
Milpitas BART Station 6/1/22 1.7 1.7 Milpitas Developer RFP June 2018 35+
Santa C lara C altrain 6/1/22 0.3 0.3 Santa
Clara
Current negotiations with
developer. TBD
Ber ryessa BART Station -
southeast corner 6/1/23 3.3 3.3 San Jose Awaiting preparation of Urban
Village Plan by CSJ 70+
Blossom Hill - Blossom Hill
Rd at Canoas Creek 6/1/23 6.8 4+ (a)San Jose Developer RFP June 2018 80+
Curtner - Highway 87 at
Curtner 6/1/23 5.9 3.5+ (a)San Jose Developer RFP June 2018 70+
Ohlone - Chynoweth Ave
at Pearl Avenue 6/1/23 8.3 TBD (a)San Jose
Parking study and policy pending,
needed to identify developable
parcel
TBD
Capitol Station - Southeast
Capitol Expressway @
Narvaeaz
6/1/25 13.3 10+ (a)San Jose
Inactive - City requirement for
commer cial renders project
infeasible
Morg an Hill - 17300
Depot Street 6/1/25 6.5 TBD Morgan
Hill
Inactive - awaiting resolution of
ownership TBD
Cerone - 3990 Zanker Rd 6/1/28 54.13 40 San Jose VTA predevelopment 0
River O aks - 3331 N. First
St.6/1/28 17.5 17.5 San Jose Application to C ity for housing
allotment 280+
Gilroy - Monterey
Highway at 7th St 6/1/29 6.1 6.1 Gilroy Inactive - awaiting Hig h Speed
Rail Plans TBD
VTA (Mitchell) Block 2027 - 2032 3.3 3.3 San Jose Preliminary studies 150+
Santa Ter esa - Santa
Teresa Blvd at Miyuki Dr TBD 35.8 35.8 San Jose Inactive 0
Snell - Snell Ave at
Highway 85 TBD 6.5 TBD (a)San Jose Preliminary study done. Lower
priority than other sites.TBD
Winchester - Winchester
Blvd at Budd Avenue TBD 1.6 1.6 C ampbell Inactive - landbanking for future
development TBD
Almaden TBD 4.8 3+ (a)San Jose Preliminary studies 60+
Cottle TBD 4.7 3+ (a)San Jose Ongoing discussion TBD
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 42 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
GLOSSARY
Area Median Income – A value determined on an annual basis by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development that represents the household income for the median
household in a specified region.
Current RHNA Cycle – ABAG defines this as two distinct periods. The “planning period”
spans the due date for one housing element and the due date for the next housing element.
For the current cycle, this is Jan 31, 2015, through Jan. 31, 2023. More important for this
report, the “projection period” is the span for which the RHNA need is calculated. It is Jan 1,
2014, through Oct 31, 2022. That is 94 months for cities that include 2014 data in their
annual housing element progress updates during the current cycle, and 82 months for the
other cities. Cities that include 2014 data in the current cycle (Los Gatos and San Jose)
completed 51% of the current cycle by the end of 2017, and 75.5% of both the prior and
current cycle. The other 13 cities and County completed 44% of the current cycle as of the
end of 2017, and 72% of both cycles.
In-Lieu Fees – Funds collected from developers that enable developers to forego BMR
inclusionary unit requirements within a project. In-lieu fees are discussed in greater detail
in view of the data presented in Table 2. There are two basic types of in-lieu fees, one
determined as a percentage of the cost of the development and the other as a cost per square
foot of the development.
Jobs per Employed Resident Ratio52 – Employed residents are calculated by subtracting the
unemployed residents from the labor force. Unemployed residents are calculated by
multiplying the labor force by the unemployment rate. This ratio is influenced by levels of
in-commuting and out-commuting as well as the number of employed residents holding
multiple jobs. ABAG assumes that this ratio holds at the 2010 level, implying the rates of net-
incommuting and multiple job-holding remain constant. ABAG’s strategy is based on the
halting of the trend of increasing rates of incommuting into the region seen in recent decades,
due to road capacity constraints and additional housing production supports within the
region. This also keeps the incommute well below 2000 levels.
Urban Village53 – An urban village is a walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed use
setting that provides both housing and jobs. The urban village strategy fosters:
Engagement of village area residents in the urban village planning process
Mixed residential and employment activities that are attractive to an innovative work
force
52 Plan Bay Area Jobs Housing Connection Strategy, Appendix B : Housing and Employment Methodology,
page 114, May 15, 2012
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/pdf/JHCS/May_2012_Jobs_Housing_Connection_Strategy_A
ppendices_Low_Res.pdf
53 http://sanjoseca.gov/planning/urbanvillages
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 43 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
Revitalization of underutilized properties that have access to existing infrastructure
Densities that support transit use, bicycling, and walking
High-quality urban design
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Page 44 of 45
AFFORDABLE HOUSING C RISIS – DENSITY IS OUR DESTI NY
ACRONYMS
ABAG: Association of Bay Area Governments
AMI: Area Median Income
BMR: Below Market Rate
CTOD: Center for Transit-Oriented Development
ELI: Extremely Low Income
HCD: California Department of Housing and Community Development
IHO: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
JDP: Joint Development Program
NIMBY: Not in My Back Yard
LI: Low Income
RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
SCVWD: Santa Clara Valley Water District
VLI: Very Low Income
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
VTA: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
YIMBY: Yes in My Back Yard
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
6.B.a
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: SCC Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis: Density
Community Development
Department
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197
Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax: (408) 846-0429
http://www.cityofgilroy.org
Kristi A. Abrams
DIRECTOR
September XX, 2018
Peter L. Hertan, Foreperson
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Superior Court Building
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Mr. Hertan:
Thank you for your letter dated June 18, 2018, transmitting the Santa Clara County Civil Grand
Jury’s (SCCCGJ) final report entitled, “Affordable Housing Crisis Density is our Destiny” (Report).
In accordance with Section 933 and 933.05 of the California Penal Code, the following are the
City of Gilroy’s responses to the findings and recommendations contained in the June 21, 2018
Report.
As required by California Penal Code § 933.05 (a) the City of Gilroy has responded to each
finding by indicating one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the
response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an
explanation of the reasons therefor.
As required by California Penal Code § 933.05 (b) the City of Gilroy has responded to each
recommendation with one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the
implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and
parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for
discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or
reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This
timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury
report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
6.B.b
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Responses to Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis:
2
Following are the responses to findings and recommendations assigned to the City of Gilroy.
Finding 1a: Lack of Housing near employment centers worsens traffic congestion in the County
and increases the urgency to add such housing.
Response: Agree.
Finding 1b: Mass transit stations (Caltrain, VTA, BART) create opportunities for BMR units.
Response: Agree. However, the implication is that such stations offer adequate transit service
to encourage increased ridership from the additional, close-by new housing. This is not the case
at the Gilroy Caltrain station, which provides very limited commute se rvice. Increased transit
service is vital to the success of future transit -oriented development (TOD) in downtown Gilroy
and Morgan Hill.
Finding 1c: Density Bonus programs are not being used aggressively enough to produce the
needed BMR units within one-half mile of transit hubs
Response: Disagree. In Gilroy, two affordable housing projects, Alexander Station and
Monterey Gateway Senior Apartments, both within on-half mile of the Gilroy Caltrain Station,
have been approved incorporating density bonus provisions. Alexander Station with 262 units
(90% low income, 10% Very Low income) will begin occupancy in September, 2018. The 75-unit
senior affordable Monterey Gateway project is awaiting building permit issuance. A third
project, located on North Monterey Street, outside the Downtown, utilized a density bonus to
include 9 low-income units. In addition, a 100% affordable project, the 104-unit Cannery
project, which did not require a density bonus, is also under construction, located approximately
one-third mile from the station. We are unaware of the level of use of density bonus programs
in other jurisdictions.
Recommendation 1b: Cities should identify parcels within one-half mile of a transit hub that
will help them meet their Low Income and Moderate-Income BMR objectives in the current
RHNA cycle, by the end of 2019.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. The Gilroy General Plan 2015 – 2023
Housing Element identifies the remaining capacity of low income dwelling units that can be built
in the Downtown Specific Plan area through a combination of development on both vacant and
developed sites to be redeveloped. The Downtown Specific Plan zoning districts require new
residential development to provide a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre, the default
density standard for low income units.
Recommendation 1c: Cities should revise their density bonus ordinances to provide bonuses
for low-income and moderate income BMR units that exceed the minimum bonuses required
by State law for parcels within one-half mile of a transit hub, by the end of 2020.
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable. As noted in the response to Finding 1c, Gilroy has utilized density bonus provisions
successfully. We believe there is additional potential to utilize them in the future in projects in
the Downtown Specific Plan area, and, in particular, within one-half mile of the Gilroy Caltrain
Station. The application of density bonus provisions is dependent on market factors and other
6.B.b
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Responses to Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis:
3
variables, beyond the City’s willingness to apply them. Accordingly, we see no need to create
greater density bonus provisions.
Finding 2a: Employers in the County have created a vibrant economy resulting in an inflated
housing market displacing many residents
Response: Agree. However, it is important to point out that the vibrancy in the economy varies
drastically between the northern and southern regions of Santa Clara County. Gilroy and
Morgan Hill have historically been deemed bedroom communities, and struggle to expand as
employment centers. The lack of economic and employment growth results in continued
impacts, including lower municipal revenue generation, and accompanying constraints on
improvements in infrastructure and services, together with growing transportation-related
impacts from the significant amount of residents who travel long distances to jobs elsewhere in
the County.
Finding 2b: Contributions to BMR housing from employers in the County are not mandated nor
evenly shared
Response: Agree. Similar to the response to Finding 2a, not all employers are created equal
when it comes to ability to accept fees to support housing. South County cities, especially Gilroy
do not have high tech businesses that typically generate the amount of employment and
revenue necessary to provide financial support to city housing programs. The imposition of such
affordable housing fees on South County businesses would likely result in loss of businesses and
discouragement of future economic development.
Recommendation 2a: The County should form a task force with the cities to establish housing
impact fees for employers to subsidize BMR housing by June 30, 2019.
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The
Grand Jury Report discussion of this recommendation refers to major Tech companies in cities
like Mountain View and Cupertino, where such fees either already exist or are being considered.
Such companies have generated thousands of employees and generated significant housing
demand, as noted in Finding 2a. Cities like Gilroy with slightly lower cost housing, are housing
many of these workers. At the same time there are no such Tech employers in Gilroy. The
imposition of such impact fees would be detrimental to Gilroy’s economic development efforts
to both retain existing employers and recruit new ones.
Recommendation 2b: Every city in the County should enact housing impact fees for employers
to create a fund that subsidizes BMR housing by June 30, 2020.
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. See
response to Recommendation 2a.
Finding 3a: RHNA sub-regions formed by several San Francisco Bay Area counties enable their
cities to develop promising means to meet their collective BMR requirements. Such sub -regions
can serve as instructive examples for cities in the County.
Response: Agree. The Cities Association of Santa Clara County has proposed formation of a
county-wide RHNA Sub-region and has asked all cities in the county to support implementation
of the sub-region by October 2018.
6.B.b
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Responses to Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis:
4
Finding 3c: More BMR units could be developed if cities with lower housing costs form RHNA
sub-regions with adjacent cities with higher housing costs.
Response: Disagree. On the surface, a simple low-housing cost city/high housing cost city
RHNA formula would not be viable. The methodology for sharing/ transferring RHNA
allocations between jurisdictions is more complex and must include a variety of relevant factors,
in addition to the cost of housing, including the full range of services costs to support such
housing. In addition, the Plan Bay Area, which the RHNA implements, calls for a minimum of
70% of new housing to be built in Preferred Development Areas (PDA) and other transit-rich
areas. In Gilroy, the Downtown Specific Plan area is the only PDA. There are already 441 units
of BMR housing under construction and planned for this area. Focusing significant additional
BMR housing in the Downtown area may be inappropriate due to the potential affects from over
concentration. The creation of a robust downtown requires a mix of affordable and market -rate
housing. Finally, such an approach would be difficult, if not impossible for governing bodies of
lower-cost housing cities to accept and promote to their constituents.
Finding 3d: High-cost/low-cost RHNA sub-regions would be attractive to low-cost cities if they
are compensated by high-cost cities for improving streets, schools, safety, public transportation
and other services.
Response: Disagree. See response to Finding 3c.
Recommendation 3a: Every city in the County should identify at least one potential RHNA sub -
region they would be willing to help form and join, and report how the sub -region(s) will
increase BMR housing, by the end of 2019.
Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. Gilroy agrees that there is merit in
pursuing formation of a county-wide RHNA Sub-region. The Gilroy City Council will consider
supporting the proposed sub-region at its September 10, 2018 meeting. The direction to report
upon how the countywide sub-region will increase BMR supply by the end of 2019 is unrealistic.
Recommendation 3b: A RHNA sub-region should be formed including one or more low-cost
cities with one or more high-cost cities, by the end of 2021.
Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. As noted in the response to Finding
3c, we do not agree that a low housing cost city/high housing cost city sub -region approach is
viable. Gilroy agrees that there is merit in pursuing formation of a county -wide RHNA Sub-
region. The Gilroy City Council will consider supporting the proposed sub-region at its September
10, 2018 meeting. Regarding the recommended inclusion of low-cost and high-cost cities, see
response to Finding 3c.
Finding 5a: Uneven BMR achievements among cities are caused in part by varying inclusionary
BMR unit percentage requirements.
Response: Agree. The Gilroy Zoning Ordinance includes a requirement for 15% of new dwelling
units in the Neighborhood District zoning district to be affordable to very low, low and moderate
income residents. However, the inclusionary requirement does not apply to other residential
zoning districts in the city.
6.B.b
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Responses to Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis:
5
Recommendation 5: Inclusionary BMR percentage requirements should be increased to at least
15% in Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Gilroy, Palo Alto, by the end of 2019.
Response: This recommendation requires further analysis. The Grand Jury recommendation
would require the City to adopt a citywide Inclusionary Housing ordinance. Prior to December
21, 2018, the Gilroy City Council will review and consider creation of a citywide Inclusionary
Housing ordinance requiring a minimum of 15% of new dwelling units to be affordable to very
low, low, and moderate income families.
Finding 7: NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition adversely affects the supply of BMR Housing
units.
Response: Agree.
Recommendation 7: A task force to communicate the value and importance of each city
meeting its RHNA objectives for BMR housing should be created and funded by the County and
all 15 cities, by June 30, 2019.
Response: Agree. Consideration should be given to incorporating this recommendation with
the Cities Association of Santa Clara County effort to establish a RHNA sub -region.
Finding 8: It is unnecessarily difficult to confirm how many BMR units are constructed in a
particular year or RHNA cycle because cities and the County only report permitted units.
Response: Disagree. It is not clear to us why this problem exists. In Gilroy, once building
permits are issued, construction is commenced and completed. It is rare, if at all, that a permit is
issued and then not constructed.
Recommendation 8: All 15 cities and the county should annually publish the number of
constructed BMR units.
Response: This recommendation has been implemented. Gilroy prepares a General Plan and
Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR), which documents the City’s progress toward
achieving its RHNA. The report is accepted by the City Council, submitted to the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) and posted on the City’s Housing and Community Development Division
website.
This concludes the City of Gilroy’s responses to specific findings and recommendations.
6.B.b
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Responses to Civil Grand Jury Report (1778 : Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Affordable Housing Crisis:
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of the 2019 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: City Clerk
Submitted By: Shawna Freels
Prepared By: Shawna Freels
Mayor Roland Velasco
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the 2019 schedule of regular City Council meetings.
BACKGROUND
City Charter Section 408 requires regular meetings of the City Council to be set
by ordinance, with no less than one regular meeting held per month.
Gilroy City Code Section 2.13 establishes regular meetings of the City Council on
the first and third Mondays of each month at 6:00 p.m. If the day fixed for a
regular meeting of the Council falls on a day designated as a legal or national
holiday, the meeting shall then be held at the same hour on the next Monday. If
said Monday is also a legal or national holiday, the Council meeting shall be held
on the next weekday not a holiday following said Monday.
The single exception to this is the month of July as only one regular meeting is to
be calendared for the month of July, to be held on the first day of the month that
6.C
Packet Pg. 72
is not a holiday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Included is a proposed calendar of
2019 regular City Council meetings following these guidelines.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the schedule of 2019 regular meetings.
Attachments:
1. 2019 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule_draft
6.C
Packet Pg. 73
2019 GILROY CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE
Gilroy City Council Chambers
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA
6:00 p.m.
Monday, January 7, 2019
Monday, January 21, 2019 (City Holiday, MOVED to January 28, 2019)*
Monday, January 28, 2019*
Monday, February 4, 2019
Monday, February 18, 2019 (City Holiday, MOVED to February 25, 2019)*
Monday, February 25, 2019*
Monday, March 4, 2019
Monday, March 18, 2019
Monday, April 1, 2019
Monday, April 15, 2019
Monday, May 6, 2019
Monday, May 20, 2019
Monday, June 3, 2019
Monday, June 17, 2019
Monday, July 1, 2019
Monday, August 5, 2019
Monday, August 19, 2019
Monday, September 2, 2019 (City Holiday, MOVED to September 9, 2019)*
Monday, September 9, 2019*
Monday, September 16, 2019
Monday, October 7, 2019
Monday, October 21, 2019
Monday, November 4, 2019
Monday, November 18, 2019
Monday, December 2, 2019
* If a regular meeting falls on a holiday, it is rescheduled to the following Monday, with the exception of the single
regular meeting in July, which will fall on the first day of the month not a holiday or a Friday, Saturday or Sunday
Draft for approval 9/10/2018
6.C.a
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 2019 City Council Regular Meeting Schedule_draft (1797 : 2019 Council Meeting Schedule)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Update to the Gilroy Conflict of Interest Code During Biennial
Review
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: City Clerk
Submitted By: Shawna Freels
Prepared By: Shawna Freels
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy in review of the Gilroy
Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to its biennial review.
BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy has adopted the terms of California Code of Regulations, Regulation
18730 and amendments, as the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Gilroy pursuant
to the California Political Reform Act. The Political Reform Act requires each agency to
update its Conflict of Interest Code biennially, each even year, if necessary, to ensure
that the local code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the
making of governmental decisions, and that the disclosure categories assigned to those
positions accurately obligates the filer to disclose all investments, business positions,
interests in real property, and sources of income that may foreseeably be affected
materially by the decisions they make in their position.
Seven new position titles have been developed or modified during the past two years
creating positions with responsibilities which require them to be added to the Gilroy
6.D
Packet Pg. 75
Conflict of Interest Code due to the nature of the work performed and level of
governmental decision making. As such, staff recommends that these positions be
included as designated positions within the City’s Conflict of Interest Code, requiring the
employees in these positions to disclose economic interests.
ANALYSIS
If a position requires an employee to: manage public investments; negotiate, without
significant substantive review, with a governmental entity or private person regarding a
governmental decision; approve a rate, rule or regulation; issue, deny, suspend or
revoke a permit, license, or similar authorization or entitlement; or advise or make
recommendations to the decision maker either directly or without significant intervening
substantive review, by: (1) conducting research or making any investigation which
requires the exercise of judgment on the part of the official and the purpose of which is
to influence a governmental decision; or (2) preparing or presenting any report,
analysis, or opinion, orally, or in writing, which requires the exercise of judgment on the
part of the official and the purpose of which is to influence a governmental decision
referenced in Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18701(a)(2)(A), then the
position shall be included as a designated position in the agency’s conflict of interest
code.
Staff has evaluated all new and amended positions during the last two years and has
identified seven positions to add to the City’s Code: City Engineer/Transportation
Engineer, Deputy City Clerk, Deputy Director of Community Development, Deputy
Director of Public Works – Operations, Deputy Fire Marshal, Public Works Director and
Senior Management Analyst.
Based on the level of responsibilities and nature of the work performed, the
recommended disclosure categories for these positions are as follows:
Position:
City Engineer/Transportation Engineer 1
Deputy City Clerk 3
Deputy Director of Community Development 1
Deputy Director of Public Works – Operations 1
Deputy Fire Marshal 4
Public Works Director 1
Senior Management Analyst 2
6.D
Packet Pg. 76
Disclosure Category Description:
Category 1:
All designated employees in this category shall disclose all sources of income, all
interests in real property in the City of Gilroy, all investments and all business positions
in business entities in which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee or employee
or holds any position of management.
Category 2:
All designated employees in this category shall disclose inve stments, business positions
and sources of income from business entities which provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery or equipment of the type utilized by the City of Gilroy.
Category 3:
All designated employees in this category shall disclose investments, business positions
and sources of income from business entities which provide services, supplies,
materials, machinery or equipment of the type utilized by the designated employee’s
department or division.
Category 4:
All designated employees in this category shall disclose all investments, business
positions and sources of income from business entities which engage in land
development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property, and all interests in
real property in the City of Gilroy.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Council adopt the update to the City conflict of interest code to
incorporate these seven additional positions.
Attachments:
1. Resolution Conflict of Interest Code City 2018_v1
6.D
Packet Pg. 77
1
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY IN REVIEW OF THE CITY OF GILROY
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE PURSUANT TO ITS
BIENNIAL REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act (“Act”), Government Code Section 81000
et seq., requires state and local agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest
codes, and the City of Gilroy (“City”) is an agency subject to this statute; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy has reviewed the included
2014 Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the Act as required biennially, and has found
the need to amend the Code as attached in “Exhibit A”, adding seven new position titles
to the Conflict of Interest Code: City Engineer/Transportation Engineer, Deputy City
Clerk, Deputy Director of Community Development, Deputy Director of Public Works –
Operations, Deputy Fire Marshal, Public Works Director and Senior Management
Analyst.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Gilroy does hereby approve the attached City of Gilroy Conflict of Interest Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting duly held on the 10th day of September, 2018 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Resolution Conflict of Interest Code City 2018_v1 (1800 : COI Update 2018)
2
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
EXHIBIT A
POSITIONS DESIGNATED BY STATUTE (87200)
POSITION DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
City Council Member 1
Planning Commission Member 1
City Administrator (Manager) 1
City Attorney 1
City Treasurer 1
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Assistant City Administrator 1
Assistant Finance Director 1
Assistant City Attorney 1
Budget Analyst 1
Building Board of Appeals Members 1
Building Field Services Manager 4
Building Official 4
Building Plan Check Engineer 4
Chief of Police 1
City Clerk 1
City Engineer/Transportation Engineer 1
Community Development Director 1
Consultants* 1
Development Center Manager 1
Deputy City Clerk 2
Deputy Director of Community Development 1
Deputy Director of Public Works – Operations 1
Deputy Fire Marshal 4
Environmental Programs Manager 2
Facilities and Parks Development Manager 4
Facilities Superintendent 3
Finance Director 1
Financial Analyst 2
Fire Division Chief 3
Fire Chief 1
Fire/EMS Analyst 3
Fire Marshal 1
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Resolution Conflict of Interest Code City 2018_v1 (1800 : COI Update 2018)
3
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
DESIGNATED POSITIONS DISCLOSURE CATEGORY
Fleet Superintendent 3
Historic Heritage Committee Members 1
Housing and Community Development Coordinator 1
Human Resources Director 1
Information Technology Director 2
Information Technology Manager 3
Management Analyst 2
Network Administrator 3
Operations Services Manager 2
Operations Services Supervisor 3
Parks and Recreation Commission Members 1
Physically Challenged Board of Appeals Members 1
Planning Division Manager 1
Police Captain 2
Public Works Director 1
Purchasing Coordinator 2
Recreation Director 1
Recreation Manager 2
Revenue Officer 1
Senior Civil Engineer 4
Senior Management Analyst 2
*Consultants shall be designated on a case-by-case basis, depending upon the nature of
their services. Consultants are included in the list of designated employees and shall
disclose pursuant to the broadest disclosure category in the code subject to the following
limitation: The City Administrator may determine in writing that a particular consultant,
although a “designated position,” is hired to perform a range of duties that is limited in
scope and thus is not required to fully comply with the disclosure requirements described
in this section. Such written determination shall include a description of the consultant’s
duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure
requirements. The City Administrator’s determination is a public record and shall be
retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this conflict of interest
code. All agreements with a consultant, whether or not such consultant is required to file
a disclosure statement in accordance with this resolution, shall contain a certification by
the consultant that no conflict of interest exists in connection with the contract being
entered into between the consultant and the City.
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Resolution Conflict of Interest Code City 2018_v1 (1800 : COI Update 2018)
4
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
CITY OF GILROY
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Category 1:
All designated employees in this category shall disclose all sources of income, all
interests in real property in the City of Gilroy, all investments and all business positions
in business entities in which he or she is a director, officer, partner, trustee or employee
or holds any position of management.
Category 2:
All designated employees in this category shall disclose investments, business positions
and sources of income from business entities which provide services, supplies, materials,
machinery or equipment of the type utilized by the City of Gilroy.
Category 3:
All designated employees in this category shall disclose investments, business positions
and sources of income from business entities which provide services, supplies, materials,
machinery or equipment of the type utilized by the designated employee’s department or
division.
Category 4:
All designated employees in this category shall disclose all investments, business
positions and sources of income from business entities which engage in land
development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property, and all interests in
real property in the City of Gilroy.
6.D.a
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Resolution Conflict of Interest Code City 2018_v1 (1800 : COI Update 2018)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Adoption of the City's Debt Policy for Community Facilities District
152
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Strategic Plan Goals
Fiscal Stability
Downtown
Revitalization ☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of a debt policy for Community Facilities District 152 in accordance with
Government Code Section 8855(I).
BACKGROUND
At the July 2nd, 2018 City Council meeting, a resolution was passed to approve the
Refinancing of the 2002 and 2006 Special Tax Bonds. As part of the resolution and in
accordance with California Government Code 8855(i) the Council approved item seven
(7) which identified the Debt Policy; however the actual Debt Policy was omitted from
the Agenda Packet.
The adoption of this policy in no way impacts the completed refinancing; however to
ensure full compliance with the Government Code, Council is requested to re -adopt the
attached Debt Policy.
Attachments:
6.E
Packet Pg. 82
1. Debt Management Policy 091018
6.E
Packet Pg. 83
DEBT MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Findings
These Debt Management Policies are intended to comply with Government Code Section
8855(i), and shall govern all debt undertaken by the City.
The City hereby recognizes that a fiscally prudent debt policy is required to:
Maintain the City’s sound financial position.
Ensure the City has the flexibility to respond to changes in future service priorities, revenue
levels, and operating expenses.
Protect the City’s credit-worthiness.
Ensure that all debt is structured to protect both current and future taxpayers, ratepayers
and constituents of the City.
Ensure that the City’s debt is consistent with the City’s planning goals and objectives and
capital improvement program or budget, as applicable.
Policies
Purposes For Which Debt May Be Issued
Long-Term Debt. Long-term debt may be issued to finance the construction, acquisition,
and rehabilitation of capital improvements and facilities, equipment and land to be owned
and operated by the City.
(a) Long-term debt financings are appropriate when the following conditions exist:
o When the project to be financed is necessary to provide basic services.
o When the project to be financed will provide benefit to constituents over multiple
years.
o When total debt does not constitute an unreasonable burden to the City and its
taxpayers and ratepayers.
o When the debt is used to refinance outstanding debt to produce debt service
savings or to realize the benefits of a debt restructuring.
(b) Long-term debt financings are not appropriate for current operating expenses and
routine maintenance expenses.
(c) The City may use long-term debt financings subject to the following conditions:
o The project to be financed must be approved by the City Council.
o The weighted average maturity of the debt (or the portion of the debt allocated to
the project) will not exceed the average useful life of the project.
o The City estimates that sufficient revenues will be available to service the debt
through its maturity.
o The City determines that the issuance of the debt will comply with the applicable
state and federal law.
Short-term debt. Short-term debt may be issued to provide financing for the City’s
operational cash flows to maintain a steady and even cash flow balance. Short-term debt
may also be used to finance short-lived capital projects; for example, the City may
6.E.a
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Debt Management Policy 091018 (1806 : CIty of Gilroy Debt Policy for CFD 152)
undertake lease-purchase financing for equipment.
Financings on Behalf of Other Entities. The City may also find it beneficial to issue debt on
behalf of other governmental agencies or private third parties to further the public purposes
of the City. In such cases, the City shall take reasonable steps to confirm the financial
feasibility of the project to be financed and the financial solvency of any borrower and that
the issuance of such debt is consistent with the policies set forth herein.
Types of Debt
The following types of debt are allowable under these Debt Management Policies
general obligation bonds
bond or grant anticipation notes
tax and revenue anticipation notes
lease revenue bonds, certificates of participation and lease-purchase transactions
other revenue bonds (including sales tax revenue bonds) and certificates of
participation
pension obligation bonds
land-secured financings, such as special tax revenue bonds issued under the Mello-
Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, and limited obligation bonds
issued under applicable assessment statutes
tax increment financing to the extent permitted under state law
conduit financings, such as financings for affordable rental housing and qualified
501c3 organizations
The City may from time to time find that other forms of debt would be beneficial to further its
public purposes and the City Council may approve such debt without an amendment of these
Debt Management Policies.
Debt shall be issued as fixed rate debt unless the City makes a specific determination as to why a
variable rate issue would be beneficial to the City in a specific circumstance.
Relationship of Debt to Capital Improvement Program and Budget
New debt issues, and refinancing of existing debt, must be analyzed for compatibility within the
City’s Ten-Year Capital Improvement Plan.
The City shall strive to fund the upkeep and maintenance of its infrastructure and facilities due
to normal wear and tear through the expenditure of available operating revenues. The City shall
seek to avoid the use of debt to fund infrastructure and facilities improvements that are the
result of normal wear and tear.
The City shall seek to issue debt in a timely manner to avoid having to make unplanned
expenditures for capital improvements or equipment from its general fund.
Policy Goals Related to Planning Goals and Objectives
The City is committed to long-term financial planning, maintaining appropriate reserves levels
and employing prudent practices in governance, management and budget administration. The
City intends to issue debt for the purposes stated in these Debt Management Policies and to
6.E.a
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Debt Management Policy 091018 (1806 : CIty of Gilroy Debt Policy for CFD 152)
implement policy decisions incorporated in the City’s Five-Year Financial Plan and its annual
operating budget.
It is a policy goal of the City to protect taxpayers, ratepayers and constituents by utilizing
conservative financing methods and techniques to obtain the highest practical credit ratings (if
applicable) and the lowest practical borrowing costs.
The City will comply with applicable state and federal law as it pertains to the maximum term of
debt and the procedures for levying and imposing any related taxes, assessments, rates and
charges.
When refinancing debt, it shall be the policy goal of the City to realize, whenever possible, and
subject to any overriding non-financial policy considerations, (i) minimum net present value
debt service savings equal to or greater than 3.0% of the refunded principal amount, and (ii)
present value debt service savings equal to or greater than 100% of any escrow fund negative
arbitrage.
Internal Control Procedures
When issuing debt, in addition to complying with the terms of these Debt Management Policies,
the City shall comply with any other applicable policies regarding initial bond disclosure,
continuing disclosure, post-issuance compliance, and investment of bond proceeds.
The City will periodically review the requirements of and will remain in compliance with the
following:
the City’s Disclosure Policies and Procedures,
any federal tax compliance requirements, including without limitation arbitrage and rebate
compliance, related to any prior bond issues, and
the City’s investment policies as they relate to the investment of bond proceeds.
Whenever reasonably possible, and for the purpose of ensuring that proceeds of debt will be
used for their intended purpose, proceeds of debt will be held by a third-party trustee and the
City will submit written requisitions for such proceeds. The City will submit a requisition signed
by the Finance Director only after obtaining the signature of the City Manager.
Debt Limits
The outstanding principal amount of debt described in Section B will not exceed two percent
(2%) of the total assessed value of property in the City, and debt service and lease payments
incurred for financing purposes that are payable from the City’s general fund will not exceed 5%
of operational appropriations.
6.E.a
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Debt Management Policy 091018 (1806 : CIty of Gilroy Debt Policy for CFD 152)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Creating an Expedited and Streamlined Permitting Process for
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, In Compliance with Assembly
Bill 1236 (introduced 8/20/18 with a 7-0 vote)
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Shawna Freels
Rob Allen
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy which sets forth an
expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At a meeting on August 20, 2018, the City Council introduced an ordinance to set forth
an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. This
ordinance was supported unanimously by City Council and complies with requirements
of State legislation.
The City Council is requested to adopt the attached ordinance. If adopted, the
ordinance will be in effect thirty (30) days from Council’s action.
6.F
Packet Pg. 87
Attachments:
1. Recommended Ordinance, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
2. Expedited Review EV Charging Stations Staff Report-1824-1003 Attachment #1
6.F
Packet Pg. 88
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY ADDING A NEW SECTION 6.58 TO
CHAPTER VI OF THE GILROY CITY CODE SETTING
FORTH PROCEDURES FOR EXPEDITING PERMITTING
PROCESSING FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
STATIONS
WHEREAS, the State of California and the City of Gilroy have consistently promoted
and encouraged the use of fuel-efficient electric vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the State of California recent adopted Assembly Bill 1236, Codified as
California Government Code Section 65850.7, which requires local agencies to adopt an
ordinance that creates an expedited and streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle
charging stations; and
WHEREAS, creation of an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle
charging stations will facilitate convenient charging of electric vehicles and help reduce the
City’s reliance on environmentally damaging fossil fuels; and
WHEREAS, the terms, phrases, and words used in this Ordinance shall be construed in
compliance with the definitions set forth by Government Code Section 65850.7.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
This Ordinance hereby amends Chapter 6 of the Gilroy City Code to add a new Section
6.58 entitled “Electric Vehicle Charging Station Expedited Permitting” to read as follows:
Section 6.58. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Expedited Permitting
(a) Definitions
(1) An “electric vehicle charging station” means any level of electric vehicle supply
equipment station that is designed and built in compliance with Article 625 of the California
Electrical Code and delivers electricity from a source outside an electric vehicle into a plug-in
electric vehicle.
(2) “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable
impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(3) “Electronic submittal” means the utilization of one or more of the following:
a. Electronic mail or email.
b. The internet.
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Recommended Ordinance, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (1816 : Electric vehicle charging stations expedited review)
-2-
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
c. Facsimile.
(4) An “association” means a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created
for the purpose of managing a common interest development.
(5) A “common interest development” means any of the following:
a. A community apartment project.
b. A condominium project.
c. A planned development.
d. A stock cooperative.
(b) Purpose
The purpose of the Ordinance is to adopt an expedited, electric vehicle charging station
permitting process that complies with Government Code Section 65850.7. Electric Vehicle
Charging Stations which qualify for expedited permit processing, pursuant to Government Code
Section 65850.7, shall be subject to the administrative permitting procedures set forth in this
Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permit Expediting Ordinance. The Ordinance allows the City
to expedite processing for electric vehicle charging stations while protecting the public health
and safety.
(c) Applicability
This Ordinance applies to the permitting of all electric vehicle charging stations located
within the city limits.
(d) Electric Vehicle Charging Station Requirements
(1) All electric vehicle charging stations shall meet the applicable health and safety standards
and requirements imposed by the state and the City.
(2) Electric vehicle charging stations and associated equipment shall meet all applicable
safety and performance standards established by the California Electrical Code, the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and all accredited testing laboratories
such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities
Commission, regarding safety and reliability.
(e) Duties of Building and Safety Division and Building Official
(1) All documents required for the submission of an expedited electric vehicle charging
station application shall be made available on the publicly available City website.
(2) Electronic submittal of the required permit application, checklist, and documents by
email, the Internet, or facsimile shall be made available to all electric vehicle charging
station permit applicants.
(3) An applicant’s electronic signature shall be accepted on all forms, applications, and other
documents in lieu of a wet signature.
(4) The City’s Building and Safety Division shall adopt a standard plan and checklist of all
requirements with which electric vehicle charging stations shall comply to be eligible for
expedited review.
(5) The electric vehicle charging station permit process, standard plan(s), and checklist(s)
shall substantially conform to recommendations for expedited permitting, including the
checklist and standard plans contained in the most current version of the California
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Recommended Ordinance, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (1816 : Electric vehicle charging stations expedited review)
-3-
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
electronic vehicle charging station permitting Guidebook adopted by the Governor’s
office of Planning and Research.
(f) Permit Review and Inspection Requirements:
(1) Expedited Review Process
Consistent with Government Code Section 65850.7, the Building Official shall implement an
expedited administrative permit review process for electric vehicle charging stations, and adopt a
checklist of all requirements with which electric vehicle charging stations shall comply with in
order to be eligible for expedited review. The expedited administrative permit review process
and checklist may refer to the recommendations in the checklist prescribed by th e most current
version of the “Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Permitting Checklist” of the “Zero-
Emission Vehicles in California: Community Readiness Guidebook” published by the
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The City’s adopted checklist shall be published on
the City’s website.
(2) Electronic Submittals
Consistent with Government Code Section 65850.7, the Building Official shall allow for
electronic submittal of permit applications covered by this Ordinance and associated supporting
documentation. In accepting such permit applications, the Building Official shall also accept
electronic signatures on all forms, applications, and other documentation in lieu of a wet
signature by any applicant.
(3) Association Approval
Consistent with Government Code Section 65850.7, the Building Official shall not condition the
approval for any electric vehicle charging station permit on the approval of such a system by an
association, as that term is defined herein.
(4) Permit Application Processing
A permit application that satisfies the information requirements in the City’s adopted checklist
shall be deemed complete and be promptly processed. Upon confirmation by the Building
Official that the permit application and supporting documents meets the requirements of the City
adopted checklist, and is consistent with all applicable laws, the Building Official shall,
consistent with Government Code Section 65850.7, approve the application and issue all
necessary permits. Such approval does not authorize an applicant to energize or utilize the
electric vehicle charging station until approval is granted by the City. If the Building Official
determines that the permit application is incomplete, he or she shall issue a written correction
notice to the applicant, detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information
required to be eligible for expedited permit issuance.
(5) Technical Review
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Recommended Ordinance, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (1816 : Electric vehicle charging stations expedited review)
-4-
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
It is the intent of this Ordinance to encourage the installation of electric vehicle charging stations
by removing obstacles to permitting for charging stations so long as the action does not
supersede the Building Official’s authority to address higher priority life-safety situations. If the
Building Official makes a finding based on substantial evidence that the electric vehicle charging
station could have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, as defined in
Government Code Section 65850.7, the Building Official may require the applicant to apply for a
conditional use permit.
SECTION II
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to
whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The
City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance, or a summary thereof to be published once in the official
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption.
SECTION III
Pursuant to section 608 of the Charter of the City of Gilroy, this Ordinance shall be in full
force and effect thirty days following the date of its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _____________, 2018 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.F.a
Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Recommended Ordinance, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (1816 : Electric vehicle charging stations expedited review)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Creating an Expedited and Streamlined Permitting Process for
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, In Compliance with Assembly
Bill 1236
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: City Clerk
Submitted By: Shawna Freels
Prepared By: Shawna Freels
Kristi Abrams
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
a) Motion to read the ordinance by title only, and
b) Motion to introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy which
sets forth an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle
charging stations.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2015, the State of California adopted Assembly Bill 1236 which requires local
jurisdictions with a population less than 200,000 residents to adopt an ordinance to
create an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging
stations on or before September 30, 2017. The legislation also requires the City to have
a checklist containing objective requirements for the installation of electric vehicle
charging stations.
6.F.b
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Expedited Review EV Charging Stations Staff Report-1824-1003 Attachment #1 (1816 : Electric vehicle charging stations expedited
BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 1236, which amended Government Code Section 65850.7, requires
jurisdictions with a population less than 200,000 residents to establish procedures for
expedited, streamlined processes for permitting of electric vehicle charging stations.
The amendments to Section 65850.7 include the requirement for a jurisdiction to adopt
an ordinance for the expedited, streamlined process on or before September 30, 2017 .
The requirement was not immediately known by the Building Official and there is no
penalty for late adoption.
ANALYSIS
AB 1236 requires the establishment of expedited plan review and a checklist containing
objective requirements for the installation of an electric ve hicle charging stations. The
content of the checklist requires the permit applicant to check the features of the
existing electrical service such as rating in amperes, system voltage, connected or
calculated load, spare capacity in amperes, voltage and am pere rating of the electric
vehicle supply equipment, circuit rating of the electric vehicle supply equipment, location
of the electric vehicle supply equipment, if ventilation is/or is not required, and
clearances of the charging equipment to comply with all applicable building and fire
safety laws. The checklist also assists the applicant in confirming that the location of
the electric vehicle supply equipment will comply with parking requirements in the City’s
Zoning Ordinance.
Assembly Bill 1236 also clarifies that a jurisdiction shall not condition approval of a
permit for an electric vehicle charging station based on the approval of an association
as defined in California Civil Code, Section 4080. An “Association” means a nonprofit
corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a
common interest development such as a home owners association. AB 1236 prohibits
the requirements for persons to obtain membership in any club, association, or
organization as a condition of using these charging stations.
Assembly Bill 1236 was designed to provide the following benefits:
Implement State wide standards to achieve timely cost effective installation of
electronic vehicle charging stations.
Eliminate unreasonable barriers and restrictions for the installation of EV
charging stations at the local level.
To promote and encourage the installation and use of EV charging stations.
To ensure that these charging stations are designed to meet all health and safety
requirements while keeping costs to a minimum.
6.F.b
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Expedited Review EV Charging Stations Staff Report-1824-1003 Attachment #1 (1816 : Electric vehicle charging stations expedited
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no fiscal impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended
action.
NEXT STEPS
Concurrent with City Council’s adoption of the ordinance, staff is taking the measures to
meet all requirements of Assembly Bill 1236. This includes finalizing the application
checklist in conjunction with the “Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Permitting
Checklist” of the “Zero-Emission Vehicles in California: Community Readiness
Guidebook”, measures for electrical compliance, and standard items for fire prevention
safety. Building staff is also developing procedures for expedient and thorough
inspection of the electric vehicle charging stations.
6.F.b
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Expedited Review EV Charging Stations Staff Report-1824-1003 Attachment #1 (1816 : Electric vehicle charging stations expedited
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Claim of Vanessa Hernandez (The City Administrator recommends
a “yes” vote under the Consent Calendar shall constitute the denial
of the claim)
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Human Resources Department
Submitted By: LeeAnn McPhillips
Prepared By: LeeAnn McPhillips
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Denial of the claim of Vanessa Hernandez.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on the recommendation from Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) and/or legal
counsel, the following claim is submitted to the City Council for rejection at the
September 10, 2018 meeting:
Claim of Vanessa Hernandez
Attachments:
1. Claim of Vanessa Hernandez
6.G
Packet Pg. 96
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Claim of Vanessa Hernandez (1826 : Claim of Vanessa Hernandez)
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Claim of Vanessa Hernandez (1826 : Claim of Vanessa Hernandez)
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Claim of Vanessa Hernandez (1826 : Claim of Vanessa Hernandez)
6.G.a
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Claim of Vanessa Hernandez (1826 : Claim of Vanessa Hernandez)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Rescinding
Resolution 2016-57, and Authorizing Officers Who May Conduct
Financial Transactions on Behalf of the City of Gilroy
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy rescinding Resolution
2016-57 and authorizing City Officers who may conduct financial transactions and
investments on behalf of the City of Gilroy.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of these resolutions is to designate individuals, with their respective job
titles, who are authorized to conduct financial transactions on behalf of the City. Due to
department changes, the title of Assistant Finance Director no longer exists and thus
the prior resolution requires updating.
Council consent is required to establish appropriate designations of the individuals and/
or position titles who may perform financial transactions and investing activities on
behalf of the City of Gilroy. The position titles with such authority include the City
Administrator, Finance Director, and the Finance Manager (Accounting Division). The
new resolutions will also provide for the successor of any of the specified positions to
6.H
Packet Pg. 101
retain the established authority going forward since the resolution mentions the
individual by position title.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
None.
Attachments:
1. Resolution LAIF Investment Officers 2018
6.H
Packet Pg. 102
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2016-57 AND AUTHORIZING OFFICERS
WHO MAY CONDUCT FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF GILROY
WHEREAS, the City of Gilroy wishes to name officers who may conduct financial
transactions on behalf of the City of Gilroy.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Gilroy that
the following officers of the City of Gilroy holding the titles specified herein below, or their
successors in office, are each hereby authorized to conduct financial transactions on behalf of the
City of Gilroy.
Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Jimmy Forbis, Finance Director
Rosemary Guerrero, Finance Manager (Accounting Division)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 2018 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.H.a
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Resolution LAIF Investment Officers 2018 [Revision 3] (1829 : Resolution for City Financial Transactions)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy Rescinding
Resolution 2016-58 and Re-Authorizing the Investment of Monies
in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and Designating
Officers Authorized to Conduct LAIF Transactions on the City's
Behalf
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Strategic Plan Goals
Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy rescinding Resolution
No. 2016-58 and re-authorizing the investment of monies in the Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF) and designating personnel to conduct LAIF transactions on the
City's behalf.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this action is to rescind the previous resolution that authorized the use
of the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and designated individuals, with their
respective job titles, who are authorized to conduct financial transactions in
administering the City’s investments in LAIF. In order to adjust the names and/or titles
of authorized individuals, the City Council must rescind the previous resolution in its
entirety.
ANALYSIS
6.I
Packet Pg. 104
Due to changes in the Finance Department over the last few years, the title of Assistant
Finance Director no longer exists and thus the prior resolution requires updating to
reflect the current organization.
The position titles with such authority will now include the City Administrator, Finance
Director, and the Finance Manager (Accounting Division). The new resolutions will also
provide for the successor of any of the specified positions to retain the established
authority going forward since the resolution mentions the individual by position title.
Adoption of the revised resolution would also continue the City’s long standing practice
of utilizing LAIF – an investment vehicle that adheres to the City’s Investment Policy and
is utilized by most California municipalities.
ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide to not approve the revised resolution, however this is not
recommended as it would leave an individual that is no longer employed with the City as
an authorized signatory.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
None.
Attachments:
1. Reso LAIF City 2018
6.I
Packet Pg. 105
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY
RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2016-58 AND AUTHORIZING THE
INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT
FUND
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Investment Fund is established in the State Treasury
under Government Code Section 16429.1 et seq. for the deposit of money of a local agency for
purposes of investment by the State Treasurer; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby finds that the deposit and
withdrawal of money in the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with Government
Code Section 16429.1 et seq. for the purpose of investment as provided therein is in the best
interests of the City of Gilroy.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes the
deposit and withdrawal of Gilroy monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State
Treasury in accordance with Government Code Section 16429.1 et seq. for the purpose of
investment as provided therein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, as follows:
Section 1. The following Gilroy officers holding the titles specified herein below, or
their successors in office, are each hereby authorized to order the deposit or withdrawal of
monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and may execute and deliver any and all
documents necessary or advisable in order to effectuate the purposes of this resolution and the
transactions contemplated hereby:
Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator Jimmy Forbis, Finance Director
_____________________________ _____________________________
Signature Signature
Rosemary Guerrero, Finance Manager (Accounting Division)
_____________________________
Signature
6.I.a
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Reso LAIF City 2018 [Revision 1] (1832 : LAIF City Resolution)
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-XX
Section 2. This resolution shall remain in full force and effect until rescinded by the
City Council by resolution and a copy of the resolution rescinding this resolution is filed with the
State Treasurer’s Office.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September, 2018 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
_____________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
6.I.a
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Reso LAIF City 2018 [Revision 1] (1832 : LAIF City Resolution)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Contract Amendment with Precision Grade, Inc. in an Amount Not
to Exceed of $9,680 for the Construction of the Las Animas Park
Trail Rehabilitation Project No. 18-PW -247 and Approval of Fiscal
Year 18-19 Budget Amendment
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Public Works Department
Submitted By: Girum Awoke
Prepared By: Girum Awoke
Gary Heap
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
a) Approval of an amendment to the contract with Precision Grade, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $9,680 for the Las Animas park trail rehabilitation project
No. 18-PW -247, and authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement
and related documents; and
b) Appropriate the $9,680 to Parks in the Facilities Fund.
BACKGROUND
On January 22, 2018, Council approved a construction contract for Precision Grade,
Inc. for trail and pedestrian facility improvements in the Las Animas Veterans Memorial
Park. The project is largely funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds. This contract amendment will provide a budget to pay for changes and
modifications that were not included in the original contract documents.
6.J
Packet Pg. 108
ANALYSIS
This project consisted of upgrading of pathways to provide Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) compliant accessibility, as well as improvements to irrigation, re-sodding
grass areas and other site work.
Construction started in April, 2018 and due to unforeseen difficulties encountered in the
field, multiple and necessary field directives were approved and implemented. There
were a total of five (5) field directives that included:
1. Storm Drain Crossing – Adjustment to the storm drain outlet with an additional
18” storm drain pipe.
2. Construct Concrete Parking Area – Provide additional 15-foot wide x 22-foot
long driveway.
3. Electrical/Irrigation Conduit Placements – Provide additional landscape and
electrical conduit crossings.
4. Soft Subgrade Rehabilitation – Provide repair(s) to unsuitable (soft) subgrade
material.
5. Split Railing/Block Wall Adjacent Ball Field – Provide 5’” wooden split-railing
fencing along recently constructed pathway for a distance of 65’. Construct a
2-course block wall (Keystone or approved equivalent) for a distance of 65’.
Unfortunately, after reviewing force accounts (time and material) it was discovered that
the work performed exceeded the allocated project budget, as well as expending CDBG
funding. A budget amendment will be required for the cost of the contract amendment,
to be paid out of the Facilities Fund parks line item. The amount is provided in the Fiscal
Impact section below.
This contract amendment includes additional funding for Precision Grade, Inc. to pay for
the five (5) field directives.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
The total project cost will be as follows:
Item Amount Percent
Change
Appropriation for Contract Amount 325,158$
Contingency Amount (10%)32,516$
Subtotal: Appropriation for Construction 357,674$
Construction Contract (325,158)$
Change Order #1 Cost (46,889)$ 14.4%
Deductions (Unused Pay Items)4,693$ -1.4%
Subtotal: Revised Contract Cost (367,354)$
Funding Surplus/(Need)(9,680)$ 3.0%
6.J
Packet Pg. 109
The CDBG grant funds programmed for this project have been expended. However,
several of the additional improvements were made to directly benefit the park. There are
insufficient appropriations in the Park Facilities Fund 651-0400-1595-4231 to pay for
this contract amendment. Staff is requesting Council to make a budget amendment to
increase the appropriations by $9,680 in this line item to pay for this contract
amendment.
Attachments:
1. Precision Grade, Inc. – Change Order No. 1
Attachments:
1. Precision Grade - Las Animas trails project CCO 1 signed 8-2-18
6.J
Packet Pg. 110
6.J.a
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Precision Grade - Las Animas trails project CCO 1 signed 8-2-18 (1780 : Construction Contract Amendment for the Las
6.J.a
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Precision Grade - Las Animas trails project CCO 1 signed 8-2-18 (1780 : Construction Contract Amendment for the Las
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Establishment of an Attendance Policy for City Boards,
Commissions and Committees
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: City Clerk
Submitted By: Shawna Freels
Prepared By: Shawna Freels
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Gilroy adopting and
establishing an attendance policy for City Boards, Commissions and Committees.
BACKGROUND
The City has 15 standing Boards, Commissions and Committees with member
appointments made by the City Council. Several of these bodies have instituted
attendance guidelines within their bylaws or standing rules, while others simply follow
Article 9, section 900 of the City Charter, which describes that if a member absents
themself from three consecutive regular meetings without permission of such board or
commission expressed in its official minutes, their office shall become vacant.
At the April 2, 2018 meeting the Council reviewed a variety of additional attendance
standards options. This discussion stemmed from concerns about excessive abse nces,
and meeting cancellations of several of our Boards, Commissions and Committees. The
Council chose to move forward with the creation of a uniform attendance policy to
institute for all Boards, Commissions and Committees in addition to the City Charter
provision that a vacancy is created by missing three consecutive regular meetings
9.A
Packet Pg. 113
without permission of such board or commission.
Elements of the Policy
Excused Absences
This policy provides each Board, Commission and Committee member with two
excused absences from regular meetings per year. These absences are to be reported
to the respective staff member liaison within 72 hours of a regular meeting.
Emergency Absences
One issue that was not determined is the issue of distinguishing emergency absenc es
that cannot be reported 72 hours before a regular meeting. Emergency absences could
be the illness, hospitalization or accident of the member, their parent, spouse or
domestic partner or dependent, which prohibited the member from reporting the
absence within the 72 hour time frame.
Staff recommends that Council consider allowing one emergency absence per calendar
year in addition to the two excused absences in the policy. An emergency absence
would be deemed excused if reported to the staff member lia ison as an emergency.
Unexcused Absences
Any absence from a regular meeting in excess of the two excused absences and one
emergency absence in a calendar year shall be deemed unexcused. A member with an
unexcused absence may be removed from their seat at the discretion of the City
Council.
Unreported Absences
Any absence from a regular meeting that is not reported as identified above will be
considered as one of the two allowable excused absences per year. Any unreported
absence in excess of the two allowable absences shall be deemed unexcused.
Referral to Council
If a member exceeds the attendance standards and absents themselves from more
than three regular meetings as described above, or absents themself from three
consecutive regular meetings without permission of such body, it will the role of the staff
liaison of the body to report the excessive absences to the City Clerk for referral to the
City Council. It is solely at the discretion of the City Council to remove the member.
ALTERNATIVES TO CONSIDER
Staff has additional alternatives for Council consideration related to Board, Commission,
and Committee meetings. One of the drivers for providing these alternatives is the
number of cancelled meetings. Also, further assessment of the absences revealed that
many of our volunteers serving on Boards, Commissions, and Committees are retired
members of the community and schedule travel throughout the year resulting in periodic
9.A
Packet Pg. 114
absences. Rather than making it harder to obtain volunteers to serve and/or
discouraging retirees from serving, some alternative scheduling models may create a
win-win situation.
Meeting Cancellations
Commissions currently have the option to cancel meetings if there is not any business
to conduct. Staff confirms with the Chairperson prior to cancelling any meeting due to
lack of business. This allows the Commission, Board, or Committee to be efficient in
the use of time. As an example, the Personnel Commission will cancel a meeting if
there are not any official business items to discuss or review. In addition, the Youth
Commission does not meet in the summer months when school is out of session,
therefore, the June-September Youth Commission meetings are cancelled. Some
Boards, Commissions, and Committees are not using this option and meet even when
there are no formal business items to discuss/review. Lastly, some meetings are
cancelled due to a known lack of a quorum for an upcoming meeting.
Quarterly or Bi-Monthly Meetings
Consideration should be given to shifting some Commissions, Boards, and Committees
to quarterly or bi-monthly meetings rather than monthly meetings. Given the number of
Boards, Commissions, and Committees and the staff support required for each meeting,
some Boards, Commissions, and Committees may be more efficiently scheduled
quarterly or bi-monthly and still be able to effectively accomplish their designated
business purpose. The Open Government Commission has been effective mee ting
quarterly. The Building Board of Appeals meets on an “as needed” basis. Not only
might these changes help to reduce the number of cancelled meetings, but may also
result in additional volunteers stepping forward to serve. A bimonthly or quarterly
schedule may be attractive to those who cannot commit to a monthly meeting sc hedule.
Gilroy Charter Section 904
Gilroy Charter Section 904 provides direction on the scheduling of Board and
Commission meetings. Section 904 states in part “Each board or commission shall
hold regular meetings at least once each month and such special meetings as such
board or commission may require.” The City Attorney’s Office has confirmed that some
of the monthly meetings can be canceled or pre-canceled. In addition, pre-canceled
meetings can be “uncanceled” if needed.
CONCLUSION
The included attendance policy allows for two excused absences and one emergency
absence per year, and creates specific steps in reporting absences, both emergency
and otherwise. This policy will be implemented uniformly for all Boards, Commissions
and Committees of the City and will assist in maintaining a quorum at our meetings.
Staff is of the opinion that the attendance policy coupled with the scheduling alternatives
noted above will be effective in ensuring quorums for scheduled meetings , a reduction
in cancelled meetings, and possibly additional volunteers willing to serve. Staff will
present this alternative to each Board, Commission and Committee for their
9.A
Packet Pg. 115
consideration. Staff will report back to Council as to the outcome of this proposed
alternative.
NEXT STEPS
Following the adoption of this policy, each of the Boards, Commissions and Committees
with bylaws or standing rules that are in conflict with this policy will need to amend their
rules to reflect these attendance standards.
Given Charter Section 904, each Board and Commission should annually adopt a
schedule of monthly meetings, but advise that they are subject to cancellation. Also,
some meetings can be cancelled in advance, with the statement on the schedule that
the meetings could be “uncanceled” if needed. For example, the Open Government
Commission normally meets quarterly; therefore, it “pre-cancels” the other eight
meetings of the year.
Attachments:
1. Resolution BC&C Attendance Policy_ 2018_v1
9.A
Packet Pg. 116
1
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY ADOPTING A POLICY GOVERNING
BOARD, COMMISSION AND COMMITTEE
ATTENDANCE
WHEREAS, the City’s Boards, Commissions and Committees are established in
order to provide advice and recommendations to the City Council and City Administrator
and play an important role of providing broad representation of ideas into the processes
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy wishes to establish attendance
standards for these Boards, Commissions and Committees and to create a systematic
procedure for reporting absences which applies to all members who are appointed by the
City Council or City Administrator.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Gilroy does hereby approve the attached policy governing Board, Commission and
Committee attendance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular
meeting duly held on the 10th day of September, 2018 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
________________________
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Resolution BC&C Attendance Policy_ 2018_v1 (1639 : Establishment of an Attendance Policy for City Boards, Commissions and
2
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
City of Gilroy
Policy Governing Board, Commission and Committee Attendance
BACKGROUND
The City of Gilroy’s Boards, Commissions and Committees are established in
order to provide advice and recommendations to the City Council and City
Administrator, or in the context of quasi-judicial Boards and Commissions such
as the Planning Commission and Building Board of Appeals, to make
independent decisions and take administrative actions. The Boards,
Commissions and Committees of the City play an important role of providing
broad representation of ideas into the processes of the City.
The City Charter provides that, in additional to those Boards and Commissions
established by the City Charter, the Council may create by ordinance such
advisory boards or commissions as in its judgment are required, and may grant
them such powers and duties as are consistent with the provisions of the City
Charter. The City Charter describes that if a member absents themself from three
consecutive regular meetings without permission of such board or commission
expressed in its official minutes, their office shall become vacant.
PURPOSE AND APPLICATION
This policy establishes attendance standards for these Boards, Commissions
and Committees for regular meetings and creates a systematic procedure for
reporting absences which applies to all Boards, Commissions and Committees of
the City whose members are appointed by the City Council or City Administrator.
SECTIONS
I. Definitions
II. Absences
III. Reporting Absences
IV. Referral to Council
SECTION I. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Policy, the following definitions are in effect throughout:
Body – City Boards, Commissions and Committees and City-created task forces.
Member – An individual who has been appointed by the City Council or City
Administrator to a Body.
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Resolution BC&C Attendance Policy_ 2018_v1 (1639 : Establishment of an Attendance Policy for City Boards, Commissions and
3
RESOLUTION 2018-XX
Excused Absences: An absence that is reported to the staff liaison of the Body
no less than 72 hours before the regular meeting. Any other absence shall not be
deemed an excused absence.
Emergency Absences: An absence caused by a sudden emergency, including,
but not limited to, the illness, hospitalization or accident of the member, the
member’s parent, spouse or domestic partner, or dependent.
Regular meetings – A routine scheduled meeting of the body.
Staff liaison – The City staff member responsible for the coordination of meetings
of the Body and facilitation of communications with the members.
SECTION II. ABSENCES
Allowed Absences
Each member of a Body shall be allowed two excused absences and one
emergency absence from regular meetings per calendar year.
Unexcused Absences
Any absence from a regular meeting in excess of the two excused absences and
one emergency absence in a calendar year shall be deemed unexcused. A
member with an unexcused absence may be removed from their seat at the
discretion of the City Council.
Unreported Absences
Any absence from a regular meeting that is not reported will be considered as
one of the two allowable excused absences in a calendar year. Any unreported
absence in excess of the two allowable absences in a calendar year shall be
deemed unexcused.
SECTION III. REPORTING ABSENCES
Absences are to be reported through the staff liaison to the body. Such reporting
shall be made by email, in person, or by phone, and shall be made no less than
72 hours before a regular meeting for an excused absence. Emergency
absences shall be reported to the staff liaison as soon as practicable.
IV. REFERRAL TO COUNCIL
If a member exceeds the number of allowed absences described in this policy,
the staff liaison of the Body shall report that fact to the City Clerk for
consideration by the City Council. At its sole discretion, the City Council may
elect to remove the member from the Body, take no action, or impose conditions
on the member’s continuing membership on the body.
9.A.a
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Resolution BC&C Attendance Policy_ 2018_v1 (1639 : Establishment of an Attendance Policy for City Boards, Commissions and
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of the Introduction of an Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Gilroy Amending Gilroy City Code Section
16.6-1 to Allow No Limit Antes, Wagers, or Bets
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Police Department
Submitted By: Scot Smithee
Prepared By: Scot Smithee
Jason Smith
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
Downtown
Revitalization ☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
a) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading; and
b) Motion to introduce an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
amending Gilroy City Code Section 16.6-1 of Chapter 16 entitled “Offenses -
Miscellaneous” pertaining to permitted games and cardroom wagers.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A recent review of our City code by the Bureau of Gambling Control discovered
conflicting language in regard to wager limits. In one section, the City code states there
shall be no limits on any single ante, wager, or bet. The code later states that n o person
is permitted to make a single ante, wager or bet in excess of two hundred dollars
($200.00). The Bureau of Gambling Control found this langu age to be contradictory and
recommended the City code be updated to reflect the correct wagering allowance.
10.A
Packet Pg. 120
BACKGROUND
In 2006, the passage of SB 1198 allowed local jurisdictions that permit legalized
gambling in cardrooms to authorize "no limit" wagers in their local gambling ordinances.
Specifically, the bill removed wagering limits from the definition of "expansion of
gambling" in the Gambling Control Act and exempted wagering limits from the
moratorium on gambling expansion. The bill also removed the requirement that
increases in wagering limits be approved by local voters. This bill became effective on
January 1, 2007. Most of the local jurisdictions in this area have followed suit allowing
removal of a set limit and authorizing the betting limit to be that allowed under State law,
which is unlimited. Cardrooms shall establish wagering limits in accordance with such
limitations.
On March 4, 2013, the Gilroy Council passed and adopted Ordinance No. 2013 -05
amending Chapter 16.6-1 pertaining to cardrooms. The amendment was in response to
a request from the Garlic City Cardroom to amend the chapter to establish new
unlimited wagering in accordance with that set by the State of California. The betting
limit at the time was $200 per bet.
Council approved a one year trial period for unlimited betting, commencing April 3,
2013. The amendment to section 16.6-1 (s) (1) of the Gilroy City Code reads as follows:
(s) Wagers. There shall be no limits on any person playing within the cardroom
premises to make a single ante, wager or bet.
(1) There shall be a trial period of one (1) year commencing on April 3, 2013. The chief
of police will monitor the cardrooms for any adverse impacts during the trial period, and
report back to the city council no later than the end of the trial period. After
consideration of the recommendation and findings of the chief of police, the city council
may accept the report, resulting in the no limit on single antes, wagers or bets to
continue, and the one (1) year trial period to be no longer in effect.
The ordinance also defines wagering limits in Section 16.6 -1 (x) (3) as follows:
(3) No person playing a game upon the cardroom premises is permitted to make a
single ante, wager or bet in excess of two hundred dollars ($200.00);
In a subsequent staff report related to a request to increase the table limit, dated May 2,
2016, it re-addresses the issue of no limit wagers. The staff report states, “Council also
approved the designation of the Chief of Police as the City Official to approve games
and the elimination of unlimited wagering with a sunset of one year from the adoption of
the ordinance.” The staff report continued, “The Chief of Police reported no adverse
impacts to the City as a result of Councils’ approval of unlimited wagering.”
ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment to Gilroy City Code Section 16.6-1 were sent to the Bureau
of Gambling Control on May 29, 2018 for review prior to the submission of this staff
report.
10.A
Packet Pg. 121
On July 3, 2018, the City received a letter from the Bureau of Gambling Control stating
that it did not object to unlimited wagering limits or the play of all games permitted by
local, state, and federal law, at the Garlic City Cardroom.
During the trial period, there were no adverse effects from unlimited wagering. The
general consensus is that a no limit game not only provides for a greater opportunity for
strategic play, but allows the participants to win larger sums of money and conversely
could result in larger losses. A majority of cardrooms in California allow no limit games.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve Ordinance 16.6-1 allowing for no limit wagers. After a trial period there
were no negative affects reported by the Police Department. This action is in
compliance with State law and acceptable to the State Bureau of Gambling
Control. (Staff Recommends)
2. Re-write the proposed Ordinance to limit wagers to a maximum of $200 and
remove language describing the trial period of no limit wagering. This action
would revert the Ordinance back to its original form prior to the no limit wager trial
period. (Staff Does Not Recommend)
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
None.
NEXT STEPS
The proposed amendment to Chapter 16 of the Gilroy City Code is presented to the City
Council for introduction at this meeting. Should the City Counc il accept the
recommended amendment language, the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at
the next regular meeting on September 17, 2018 and will be effective 30 days
thereafter.
Attachments:
1. July 3 2018 BGC Response to May 9th 2018 Request
2. Ordinance Amending 16.6-1 Cardroom Wagers
10.A
Packet Pg. 122
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: July 3 2018 BGC Response to May 9th 2018 Request (1808 : Cardroom Amendment)
10.A.a
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: July 3 2018 BGC Response to May 9th 2018 Request (1808 : Cardroom Amendment)
JH\04706083
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF GILROY AMENDING GILROY CITY CODE
SECTION 16.6-1 OF CHAPTER 16, ENTITLED
"OFFENSES – MISCELLANEOUS" PERTAINING TO
PERMITTED GAMES AND CARDROOM WAGERS
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution article XI, section 7, and the City
Charter, section 600, the City Council has the authority to enact ordinances which promote the
public health, safet y and general welfare of its residents; and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013-05, which:
(1) allowed for unlimited wagering within cardroom premises and for the playing of an y game
within the City of Gilroy, as approved b y the State of California, for a one-year trial period; (2)
designated the Chief of Police to monitor and report back to the City Council any adverse
impacts during the trial period; and (3) permitted City Council to approve the continuation of
unlimited wagering and all permitted games, after consideration and approval of the
recommendation and findings of the Chief of Police; and
WHEREAS the Chief of Police reported to City Council that unlimited wagering and the
play of permitted games in the Garlic City Cardroom have not had an y adverse impacts on the
City of Gilroy; and
WHEREAS on May 29, 2018, the City submitted a draft Ordinance amending the
City Code to be consistent regarding wagering restrictions, to the Bureau of Gambling
Control for their review; and
WHEREAS, on Jul y 3, 2018, the City received a letter from the Bureau of Gambling
Control stating that it did not object to unlimited wagering limits or the play of all games
permitted by local, state, and federal law, at the Garlic City Cardroom; and
WHEREAS, the Cit y has determined that the review and approval of the provision
contained in this ordinance is exempt from environmental review under the California
Environmental Qualit y Act ("CEQA") pursuant to the provisions of Section 15061(b) (3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project is exempt from CEQA when “[t]he activity is covered
by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a
significant impact to the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibilit y that the activit y in question ma y have a significant effect on the environment, the
activit y is not subject to CEQA”.
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Ordinance Amending 16.6-1 Cardroom Wagers (1808 : Cardroom Amendment)
4850-0472-5612v1
JH\04706083 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I
Gilroy City Code, Chapter 16, entitled “Offenses-Miscellaneous”, Sections 16.6-1 (q), (s)
and (x) is hereb y amended to read as follows
“16.6-1 Cardrooms.
(q) Permitted Games. The games permitted within the cit y boundaries are those permitted by
local, state, and federal law, and shall also be pla yed pursuant to the rules of play approved b y
the chief of police. It shal l be unlawful for an y cardroom permittee, or its agent or employee, to
allow the playing of an y games not permitted b y the provisions of this section or state law, or to
allow the playing of an y permitted game in a manner other than in strict conformance with the
rules of play approved b y the chief of police.
(s) Wagers. There shall be no limits on any person playing within the cardroom premises to
make a single ante, wager or bet.
(x) Posted Rules of Play. It shall be the responsibility of each and ever y cardroom permittee to
post the rules and regulations relating to cardrooms and permitted card games in a conspicuous
and easil y available locat ion within the cardroom premises. Permittees, owners and managers
shall be responsible to ensure that all cardroom employees have read and understood the posted
rules. The posted rules shall include at least one (1) set of the rules of pla y for each permitted
games as approved b y the chief of police. These posted rules shall either be posted on a wall or
other conspicuous place visible from any cardroom table, or printed and made available upon
request to each and ever y person playing an y game upon the cardroom premises, so long as a
notice of the availabilit y of said rules of pla y is conspicuously posted and visible from an y
cardroom table. The posted rules shall also include at least one (1) set of the following rules and
regulations posted in a conspicuous and easil y available location within the cardroom premises:
(1) No person under the age of twent y-one (21) is permitted to play an y game upon the
cardroom premises or to be or remain in or upon the cardroom premises;
(2) No person who is obviously under the influence of an intoxicating beverage, narcotic
or drug is permitted to play an y game upon the cardroom premises or to be or remain in
or upon the cardroom premises;
(3) Disorderl y conduct or any other conduct that constitutes a breach of the peace or that
is otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, is prohibited on or around
the cardroom premises;
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Ordinance Amending 16.6-1 Cardroom Wagers (1808 : Cardroom Amendment)
4850-0472-5612v1
JH\04706083 3
(4) It is unlawful for an y permittee, owner, manager, employee or other agent of
permittee, or person having a financial interest in the cardroom to engage in the
lending of money, chips, tokens, or other things of value, either real or promised,
to any customer, pla yer or other person on or about the cardroom premises for the
purpose of allowing that person to play cards upon the cardroom premises;
(5) It is unlawful for an y permittee, owner, manager or emplo yee or other agent of
permittee to cash or otherwise accept second part y checks, or allow second party
checks to be cashed or otherwise accepted, on or about the cardroom premises;
(6) It is unlawful for an y owner, operator, shareholder, manager, emplo yee or any
other person employed by or having a financial interest in the cardroom to be
physicall y present upon the cardroom premises without having prominentl y
displayed in plain view their own personal identification card;
(7) It is unlawful for an y permittee, owner, manager or employee of an y cardroom to
play cards upon the cardroom premises in which they have an interest unless he or
she wears their identification card in plain view to all persons with whom they are
playing cards. Managers or emplo yees of an y cardroom ma y only pla y cards upon
the cardroom premises with their own, personal mone y
SECTION II
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Gilroy hereb y
declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance, and each section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION IX
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage and
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Roland Velasco, Ma yor
ATTEST:
Shawna Freels, Cit y Clerk
10.A.b
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Ordinance Amending 16.6-1 Cardroom Wagers (1808 : Cardroom Amendment)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
Housing Needs Allocation Sub-Region
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Community Development Department
Submitted By: Kristi Abrams
Prepared By: Sue O'Strander
Stan Ketchum
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Receive report and direct staff to prepare a letter to the Cities Association of Santa
Clara County conveying the intention to participate in the Santa Clara County Sub-
Regional RHNA process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As allowed by State law, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County has considered
the potential formation of a sub-region comprising some or all of the 15 cities and the
County for the next Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) cycle (2023 – 2031).
Each City and the County are requested to provide feedback on the merits of the sub-
region concept and provide comments and direction to the Cities Association Board of
Directors by September 28, 2018.
BACKGROUND
10.B
Packet Pg. 128
As part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, state law allows
local jurisdictions within a county to form a sub-region to conduct an allocation process
that parallels, but is separate from, the regional process conducted by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The sub-region process is established in
Government Code Section 65584.03. As an effort to improve the process of creating
more housing, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County has evaluated the potential
to form such a sub-region comprising some or all of the 15 cities and the County for the
next RHNA cycle (2023 – 2031).
A RHNA sub-region would allow the participating jurisdictions to prepare a sub -regional
housing needs allocation for the geographic area of Santa Clara County. The sub -
region would be assigned the combined total RHNA allocation of all participating
jurisdictions. The methodology for the distribution of the amount of housing in each
income level to each jurisdiction would be established by a policy committee consisting
of one member of each participating jurisdiction. The final approval of the sub-region
allocations to each participating jurisdiction would require approval of the majority of
participants, and the approval of each jurisdiction that is allocated a greater share of
housing than the initial ABAG allocation for that jurisdiction.
Government Code Section 65584.03 states as follows:
“A sub-region formed pursuant to this section may include a single county and each
of the cities in that county or any other combination of geographically contiguous
local governments and shall be approved by the adoption of a resolution by each of
the local governments in the sub-region as well as by the council of governments.”
Gilroy, while not contiguous to any other city in Santa Clara County, is contiguous with
the unincorporated area of the county and, as such, qualifies to participate in the
proposed sub region.
The Cities Association Board of Directors has requested that each City Council and the
Board of Supervisors hold a discussion on the merits of the sub -region concept and
provide comments and direction to the Board of Directors by September 28, 2018. The
Cities Association is scheduled to vote on the proposal at its October 11, 2018 meeting.
ANALYSIS
In June 2018, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County in a report to its Board of
Directors, described the sub-region concept (see Attachment 1). In addition, the report
provides an overview of the pros and cons of such formation, the guiding principles and
by-laws for the proposed Santa Clara County Sub-regional RHNA process. A template
resolution for use by jurisdictions choosing to participate in the sub-region, is also
included.
An overriding objective of the proposed RHNA sub-region is improved implementation
of housing across Santa Clara County by providing the cities and the county more
flexibility to ensure that the state-mandated housing allocations make sense at the local
10.B
Packet Pg. 129
level. The sub-region is required to meet the statutory requirements of the regional
allocation process, conducted by ABAG. Several steps delegated to the sub-region
include the opportunity to develop its own housing distribution methodology, issue draft
allocations to member jurisdictions, conduct revision and appeals processes and issue
final allocations.
The following is a summary of pros and cons regarding possible city participation in the
proposed RHNA sub-region:
Pros
1. Provides opportunity to bring control of the RHNA distribution process into more
local control vs. being required to accept the determination of the regional
government through the ABAG process.
2. Provides flexibility for cities to trade units between their respective allocations, if
both cities are amenable (example: city A anticipates building more than their
allocated number of low income units, and projects a shortfall of moderate
income units; city B has the reverse problem).
3. Allows better alignment of local planning for new housing with regional plans,
e.g., Plan Bay Area, to locate housing along transit corridors and near
employment centers.
4. Creates a forum for innovative solutions, e.g., adjoining cities jointly planning a
project and collaborating on transportation and other required infrastructure.
5. Successful collaboration through the Sub-region process could lead to enhanced
collaboration in other technical areas, e.g., transportation, legislative advocacy.
6. All cities must continue to accept RHNA allocations in all income levels.
7. Adoption of the Cities Association Sub-region allocation to jurisdictions requires:
Consent of a majority of participating cities and the County, and
Consent of each jurisdiction allocated a greater share of housing than the
ABAG default allocation
Cons
1. The substantial variation in the characteristics of the 15 cities, including
geographic and population size, property values, level of economic development
and employment, and transit capacity, among others, may hinder successful
establishment of a mutually agreed-upon sub-region distribution.
2. Commitment of extensive time, effort and resources may still result in little or no
variation from the allocated ABAG allocation.
10.B
Packet Pg. 130
3. Lack of trust for a fair and equitable allocation process – some cities may resist
accepting responsibility to provide a share of housing.
4. Lack of clarity of the benefits to accepting a greater share of housing allocation.
Cities worried about being forced to receive a greater allocation.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Based on City Council direction, staff will prepare a letter to the Cities
Association of Santa Clara County, to be signed by the Mayor, conveying the
City of Gilroy’s intention to participate in the proposed Santa Clara County Sub-
Regional RHNA Process. This action is recommended.
2. Should the City Council elect not to participate in the proposed Santa Clara
County Sub-Regional RHNA Process, staff will prepare a letter to the Cities
Association of Santa Clara County, to be signed by the Mayor, conveying the
City of Gilroy’s intention to not participate in the proposed Santa Clara County
Sub-Regional RHNA Process. If the city does not participate in the proposed
RHNA Sub-region, the city is required to accept the RHNA allocation assigned by
ABAG. This action is not recommended.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Staff support for the proposed Santa Clara County Sub-Regional RHNA Process would
be provided by the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, and would include
administering and documenting the sub-region meetings and decisions, conducting
required outreach, communicating with ABAG/MTC as needed, and publishing required
notices.
Participating jurisdictions would be expected to share the costs for these activities.
Additional cost could be incurred if the Sub-region Committee requires outside
consultant support to develop the allocation methodology. There is no present estimate
of the costs to support the operation of the sub-region.
CONCLUSION
The various opportunities described above demonstrate that there is potential value to
the city in participating in the proposed Sub-region and that doing so may provide
benefits not available through the traditional ABAG RHNA allocation process. Gilroy has
and continues to produce affordable housing for our community. The most critical factor
in the development of the sub-region allocation methodology is that it is equitable, and
does not result in Gilroy, or any other city, being asked to accept a greater share of
affordable housing than other jurisdictions. As noted above, the proposed Cities
Association Sub-region By-laws include a provision to prevent this. As noted
previously, if the city does not participate in the proposed RHNA Sub-region, the city is
10.B
Packet Pg. 131
required to accept the RHNA allocation assigned by ABAG, subject to certain appeal
rights.
NEXT STEPS
1. Based on City Council direction, staff will prepare a letter to the Cities Association of
Santa Clara County, to be signed by the Mayor, conveying the City of Gilroy’s
intention to participate in the proposed Santa Clara County Sub -Regional RHNA
Process.
2. At a future date, staff will bring to the City Council a resolution similar to that
included in Attachment 1, for City Council approval, formally agreeing to participate
in the proposed sub-region.
3. Staff will continue to represent Gilroy in any discussions regarding the formation of
the Santa Clara County Sub-Regional RHNA Process.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
On August, 8, 2018, Planning Staff met with the Gilroy Housing Advisory Committee to
review the proposed Santa Clara County Sub-Regional RHNA Process. There were no
specific comments regarding the sub-region proposal.
Attachments:
1. Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal
10.B
Packet Pg. 132
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
10.B.a
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Cities Association of SCC RHNA Sub-Region Proposal (1779 : Proposed Cities Association of Santa Clara County Regional
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Consideration of Proposed Finance, Fire and Recreation
Departmental Position Adjustments
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Finance Department
Submitted By: Jimmy Forbis
Prepared By: Jimmy Forbis
Maria De Leon
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
Downtown
Revitalization ☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of position adjustments in the following Departments:
1. Finance –
a. delete Supervising Accounting Technician and Purchasing Coordinator;
b. add Accounting Assistant I/II and Accounting Technician I/II;
c. retitle Accountant II to Accountant.
2. Recreation Department – delete Office Assistant I; add Management Assistant.
3. Fire – retitle Fire Administration Technician to a Management Assistant.
BACKGROUND
Finance - In March 2017 the Finance Department concluded a successful recruitment
for a vacant Accounting Assistant position. This recruitment provided several quality
candidates and at the time, the Department had a vacant Accounting Technician
position. Not wanting to lose out on a quality candidate, the decision was made to
under fill the Accounting Technician position with an ad ditional Accounting Assistant.
10.C
Packet Pg. 146
In July 2017 the Purchasing Coordinator position became vacant and also a former
employee, previously employed by City, requested to return to their Accounting
Technician position. At this point the decision was made to h ave the Supervising
Accounting Technician fill the vacant Purchasing Coordinator position and allow the
former employee to return to their Accounting Technician position. At this point in time,
the Department was fully staffed.
In July, 2018 the Supervising Accounting Technician position was vacated and provided
the opportunity to align Department staffing with appropriate position titles to meet the
current and future needs of the department.
Fire – the Fire Department is changing the Fire Administrative Technician position to a
Management Assistant position in order to align with recent personnel actions that
established the same position in Public Works, Community Services and the Police
Departments.
Recreation – The Recreation Department is tasked with meeting the recreation needs
of Gilroy’s growing population. Since 2008, there has been a 12% population increase
(from 49,611 to 55,615). Some of the more popular programs such as Youth Soccer
are reaching record registration levels. A total of 551 children are enrolled in the 2018
Fall Youth Soccer League, compared to 273 (102% increase), who participated in the
2008 Fall Youth Soccer League.
At the June 18, 2018 City Council meeting, the Recreation Department requested
Council consider the conversion of two part-time Recreation Specialist positions to full-
time benefited. At the time, only the Youth Services Recreation Specialist was
approved. The Senior Center Recreation Specialist, which would have impacted the
General Fund by an additional $77,453, was not approved. Since the need for the
Recreation Department Senior Center still remained, staff re -evaluated the department
staffing levels and operations to determine an alternate solution to address this staffing
gap.
The recent Management Assistant positions created in the Police, Fire, Public Works
and Community Development Departments have resulted in the promotion of the
Recreation Department’s full time Office Assistant to a Management Assistant. As a
result, the Recreation Department will need to recruit and train new talent.
ANALYSIS
Finance - the purchasing function will become the responsibility of the Finance
Manager with administrative assistance from an Accounting Assistant I/II thus the
following is recommended:
1. The Purchasing Coordinator position (which is currently under filled by an
Accounting Assistant from the March 2017 recruitment) will be eliminated and
replaced on a permanent basis with an Accounting Assistant I/II.
10.C
Packet Pg. 147
2. Create the position of Accounting Technician II (with a maximum salary of
$88,860) which is similar to the Accounting Assistant I/I series in that it provides
the opportunity for the employee in the Accounting Technician I position to move
up to the Accounting Technician II level if they meet minimum service and
professional development standards.
3. The Supervising Accounting Technician will be reduced to an Accounting
Technician I/II for Accounting with supervisory responsibility assumed by the
Finance Manager. This provides two distinct benefits: provides redundancy in
the department for payroll accounting which currently does not exist as the
Department only has one Accountant on staff. Second, it provides a promotional
opportunity as many of our current Accounting Assistants meet the minimal
educational requirements for high-level accounting positions but lack the hands
on experience to fill an Accountant I/II position.
4. A separate administrative action is to eliminate the Accountant I classification as
the Department does not have any personnel in that position. The Accountant II
would be renamed Accountant which would be the terminal point in the
accounting series.
Fire - the position will assist the Fire command staff with statistical data collection and
analysis, research, contract administration, and project management. Additionally, the
Management Assistant will prepare correspondence, maintain files according to record
retention guidelines, and staff the public counter at Fire Administration. This position
will also provide clerical support for the maintenance of the city’s Emergency Operations
Plan and Standard Operating Procedures.
Recreation - due to the Office Assistant vacancy, along with the upcoming retirements
of two high profile department positons, one Recreation Supervisor and a Recre ation
Coordinator, the Recreation Department has reevaluated existing staffing levels for
efficiency, succession planning, staff retention and professional development. Rather
than hire another Office Assistant to replace the current vacancy, the Recreation
Department is proposing to convert this vacant position to a Management Assistant
position.
Apart from conducting the standard front counter support such as facilitating program
registrations, processing park and facility reservations, troubleshooting street, sewer,
trees, and water issues, providing commission support, and act as Public Work’s
Backflow Program Administration, the Management Assistant will take on the lead role
at the front counter, overseeing staff schedules, training new staff in registration
software and front office policies and procedures for customer service.
10.C
Packet Pg. 148
Management Support - the Management Assistant would take on higher level day-to-
day administrative tasks and responsibilities which are currently being conducted by the
Management Analyst. Examples of this include the absorption of credit card
reconciliations and departmental payroll processing. This will allow the Management
Analyst to conduct executive management level tasks such as the development,
implementation and tracking of Performance Measures, conduct program and cost
benefit statistical analysis for updated fees and charges that would help increase cost
recovery efforts for the department. The proposed Management Assistant will also be
providing much needed higher level administrative support not only to the department
management, but also to Recreation Coordinators and Supervisors.
Senior Center Support - by shifting some of the more complex functions to the
Management Assistant, this would allow one of the other two Office Assistants to
provide some administrative support at the Senior Center when the coverage is needed.
This Senior Center Recreation Coordinator will now have time to seek collaborative
opportunities and expand on the recreational programming to increase the number of
Senior Center participants.
Seasonal Activity Guide Support - the Recreation Department publishes a Seasonal
Activity Guide with over 270 programs, three times per year. This is a comprehensive
year-round effort for all of the Recreation Supervisors and Coordinators to input the
upcoming guide’s programs, dates, instructors, and other details into the Registration
Software. Having the Management Assistant absorb this task will alleviate some of the
Recreation Supervisors and Coordinators work load, allowing them to focus on program
development, procurement of contractors, recruitment effort, adequate training and
certification of staff. Additionally, the Management Assistant would provide
proofreading and translation of all promotional materials, a service that has been
outsourced in previous years.
Statistical Analysis Support - the Management Assistant would be trained to be the
expert in the registration software, mine the data and work closely with the Management
Analyst to create reports that would provide valuable statistics to the management
team. This would allow for informed decisions to take place when planning and
evaluating programming and program fees.
Succession Planning - a Management Assistant position in Recreation will mirror the
positions created in five other City Departments and build more capacity within the
Recreation Department to cope with the increasing population and meeting the
community’s recreation needs. This new position will enhance a career path and
succession plan for the department where staff can potentially have growth
opportunities by going from an Office Assistant, to a Management Assistant, Recreation
10.C
Packet Pg. 149
Supervisor, Management Analyst or Recreation Manager, and potentially a Department
Director.
Organizational chart changes are provided for both departments.
ALTERNATIVES
Finance – Council could maintain the status quo in the department, however this is not
recommended as the Department has evolved and it is necessary to align to positions
and titles with current operations and organizational structure.
Fire – Council could maintain the Fire Administration Technician position, however the
City’s goal has been to have consistent titles for similar duties regardless of where in
the organization the position exists.
Recreation - replacing the vacant full-time Office Assistant position with another Office
Assistant position is an alternative, although department staff does not recommend this
option as it is counter to the efficiency and succession planning of the department and
the direction the City has recently been going in creating Management Assistant
positions in other departments.
FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
Finance – the total cost savings for the position adjustments is approximately $17,000
which will be split between the general fund ($8,500) and the City’s enterprise funds
($8,500).
Fire – currently the existing Fire Administration Technician budgeted at top step with
benefits at $115,936. The new Management Assistant (which has the same salary
range as the Fire Administration Technician) will be placed at the bottom of the salary
range, thus with benefits a total FY 19 cost of $89,349 which will provide an initial
annual savings of $26,587.
Recreation Department - currently has a budget of $89,701 for a fully benefited Office
Assistant II position. In addition, staff has identified $5,000 in part-time salary savings
that can be used to off-set the cost of this position. The Management Assistant top
salary with benefits costs would be $115,033. If approved, the difference in cost (salary
+ benefits) of $20,332 would be funded by the general fund.
Net General Fund impact of all actions would be a FY 19 savings of approximately
$15,000 as shown below.
10.C
Packet Pg. 150
Finance
Current Salary Benefits Total
Supervising Accounting Technician 89,329$ 35,731$ 125,060$
Purchasing Coordinator 83,319 33,328 116,647
Total 241,707
Revised
Accounting Technician II 88,860 35,544 124,404
Accounting Assistant II 71,766 28,706 100,472
Total 224,876
Total Savings 16,831
General Fund Impact Savings 8,416$
Fire
Current Salary Benefits Total
Fire Admin Technician 79,956$ 35,980$ 115,936$
Revised
Management Assistant 61,620 27,729 89,349
General Fund Impact Savings 26,587$
Recreation
Current Salary Benefits Total
Office Assistant II 61,816$ 27,885$ 89,701$
Revised
Management Assistant 79,273 35,760 115,033
Part-time Salary Savings 5,000
General Fund Impact Cost 20,332$
Net FY 19 General Fund Impact Savings 14,671$
Ongoing Budget Impacts
Finance - savings for the Finance Department will be ongoing as deleted positions were
budgeted (and forecasted in the 10-year financial plan) at higher costs and are now
replaced with lower cost positions.
Fire – savings in the Fire Department will be realized for approximately five years as
that is that amount of time it will take an entry-level employee to progress through the
10-step salary scale.
Recreation – the ongoing General Fund impact for this position adjustment will be
approximately $20,000 in FY 19, however costs in the out years will be similar to the
current position (Office Assistant) as assumptions for employee cost growth are already
included in the 10-year forecast. The only notable benefit cost increase will be due to
retirement (CalPERS) contributions which with a higher salary (approximately $17,000
10.C
Packet Pg. 151
annually) will produce an additional $1,500 to $2,000 in ongoing costs for a total
($20,000 salary + $2,000 benefits) General Fund impact of approximately $22,000
annually for the period covered by the City’s 10-year forecast.
Attachments:
1. Finance Org Chart Current
2. Finance Org Chart Recommended
3. Rec Org Chart Current
4. Rec Org Chart Recommended
5. Fire - Current
6. Fire - Proposed
10.C
Packet Pg. 152
Finance Department Current
Accounting Tech (1)
UB/Bus License
Accounting Assistant (4)*
PT Accounting Assist (2)
Revenue Officer (1)
Budget/UB (1)
Finance Manager
Accounting Tech (1)
Payroll
Accounting Assist (1)
Accounts Payable
Supervising Accounting Technician (1)
Interim Purchasing Coordinator*
Accountant II (1)
Accounting/Payroll/AP (1)
Finance Manager
Finance Director (1)
* Vacant Purchasing Coordinator is being utilized to add
a 4th Accounting Assistant.
10.C.a
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Finance Org Chart Current (1794 : Finance/Fire/Recreation Staff Position Adjustments)
Finance Department - RecommendedAccounting Tech (1)UB/Bus LicAccounting Assist I/II UB/BL (3)Add Accouting Assist I/II (1)*PT Accounting Assist UB/BL (2)Revenue Officer (1)Revenue/UBBudget/UB/Purchasing (1)Finance ManagerAccountant II (1)Accounting/AuditingAdd Accounting Tech* (1)Accounting/PayrollAccounting Tech (1)PayrollAccounting Assist I (1)A/PAccounting/Payroll/AP (1)Finance ManagerFinance Director (1)* Purchasing Coordinator and Supervising Accountant Techician Eliminated. Add Accounting Assistant and Accounting Technician.10.C.bPacket Pg. 154Attachment: Finance Org Chart Recommended (1794 : Finance/Fire/Recreation Staff Position
Recreation Director Recreation Manager (1 FTE)Recreation Supervisor (2 FTE) Community Coordinator (1 FTE) Recreation Coordinator (4 FTE)Recreation Specialist (1 FTE) FUNCTIONSAquaticsAdult & Youth Sport LeaguesAt-risk Youth Services Cultural Arts Children’s TheaterCity Commission Staff SupportIndependent Instructor ContractorsAdaptive (special needs) After school program Senior Center Special Events Summer CampsFacility & Park Rentals Management Analyst (1 FTE)Office Assistant (2.5 FTE)FUNCTIONS Program Registration Park and Facility Reservation Youth Scholarship AdministrationBackflow Program SupportCity Commission SupportInformation and Referral Recreation Department Organization Chart – Current10.C.cPacket Pg. 155Attachment: Rec Org Chart Current (1794 : Finance/Fire/Recreation Staff Position Adjustments)
Recreation Director Recreation Manager (1 FTE)Recreation Supervisor (2 FTE) Community Coordinator (1 FTE) Recreation Coordinator (4 FTE) Recreation Specialist (1FTE) FUNCTIONSAquaticsAdult & Youth Sport LeaguesAt-risk Youth Services Cultural Arts Children’s TheaterCity Commission Staff SupportIndependent Instructor ContractorsAdaptive (special needs) After school program Senior Center Special Events Summer CampsFacility & Park Rentals Management Analyst (1 FTE)FUNCTIONSDepartmental Budget Development and TrackingProgram Statistical AnalysisDevelop, Implement and Track Performance MeasuresConduct Cost Benefit Analysis for Fees and ChargesContract AdministrationDepartmental Human Resource FunctionsEvaluate Organizational Procedures Assist Department Director with Analysis for Policy-Making DecisionsCity Commission SupportManagement Assistant (1 FTE)FUNCTIONS Activity Guide SupportPromotional Material Translation801 Funds ManagementCredit Card ReconciliationsDepartmental Payroll ProcessingStatistical Analysis SupportConduct and Analyze Customer SurveysOffice Assistant (1.5 FTE)FUNCTIONS Program Registration Park and Facility ReservationYouth Scholarship AdministrationBackflow Program SupportCity Commission SupportInformation and ReferralSenior Center SupportRecreation Department Organization Chart – Proposed10.C.dPacket Pg. 156Attachment: Rec Org Chart Recommended (1794 : Finance/Fire/Recreation Staff Position Adjustments)
G:\cityinfo\Org Charts Updated: 9/2018 FIRE CHIEF Alan Anderson FIRE DEPARTMENT - Current A-SHIFT FIELD OPS & OPERATIONS DIVISION Division Chief Mary Gutierrez ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT MANAGEMENT ANALYST Jennifer Fortino Fire Administration Technician Vacant B-SHIFT FIELD OPS & EMS DIVISION Division Chief Jim Wyatt C-SHIFT FIELD OPS & TRAINING DIVISION Division Chief Chris Weber ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Fire Captain Randy Decker CHESTNUT STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC RELIEF FIREFIGHTER LAS ANIMAS STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC SUNRISE STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC CHESTNUT STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC LAS ANIMAS STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC SUNRISE STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC RELIEF FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC CHESTNUT STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC RELIEF FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC LAS ANIMAS STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC RELIEF FIREFIGHTER/EMT SUNRISE STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC 10.C.ePacket Pg. 157Attachment: Fire - Current (1794 : Finance/Fire/Recreation Staff Position Adjustments)
G:\cityinfo\Org Charts Updated: 9/2018 FIRE CHIEF Alan Anderson FIRE DEPARTMENT - Proposed A-SHIFT FIELD OPS & OPERATIONS DIVISION Division Chief Mary Gutierrez ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT MANAGEMENT ANALYST Jennifer Fortino MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT Vacant B-SHIFT FIELD OPS & EMS DIVISION Division Chief Jim Wyatt C-SHIFT FIELD OPS & TRAINING DIVISION Division Chief Chris Weber ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Fire Captain Randy Decker CHESTNUT STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC RELIEF FIREFIGHTER LAS ANIMAS STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC SUNRISE STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC CHESTNUT STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC LAS ANIMAS STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC SUNRISE STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC RELIEF FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC CHESTNUT STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC RELIEF FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC LAS ANIMAS STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC RELIEF FIREFIGHTER/EMT SUNRISE STATION FIRE CAPTAIN FIRE ENGINEER FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC 10.C.fPacket Pg. 158Attachment: Fire - Proposed (1794 : Finance/Fire/Recreation Staff Position Adjustments)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Use of Council Chambers for Local Public Election Candidate
Forums
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted By: Gabriel Gonzalez
Prepared By: Gabriel Gonzalez
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the use of Council chambers for local public election candidate forums.
BACKGROUND
At the August 6, 2018 Council meeting Council Member Bracco requested that the
Council consider allowing the use of the Council chambers by groups wishing to hold
open public candidate forums. A recent request has been made by the Gilroy Branch of
American Association of University Woman (AAUW ) to use Council chambers in late
September or early October for a local candidate forum open to the general public.
ANALYSIS
Use of Council chambers by outside agencies and groups during non-business hours
requires the payment of a reservation custodian to open, maintain and close the
building at a fee of $24 per hour. Agencies such as the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, Pajaro Valley Water Shed, and VTA reserve chambers at various times
throughout the year for their Board and Committee meetings.
10.D
Packet Pg. 159
During the last three elections the League of Women Voters and AAUW have
conducted local candidate forums at the Gilroy library, which have been very well
received by the community, but were restricted in room capacity.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could consider charging for the use of the room at the $24 per hour
reservation fee. Not Recommended.
2. The holding of a local candidate forum open to the general public is not offered at
any other venue in the City, staff recommends that the Council consider offering
use Council chambers free of charge to non-partisan, not for profit entities, such
as the AAUW, to hold a local election candidate forum. Recommended.
Since the forums will be open to the general public, the use of the Council
chambers free of charge would not be considered a gift of public funds as the
nature of the forum is an opportunity for all residents to participate in the event.
If the groups holding candidate’s forums wish to have their events filmed and
web-streamed, staff will facilitate the request through our local public television
station CMAP to film the event for free, and host the video on their website as
they have done previously for the League of Women Voters.
10.D
Packet Pg. 160
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: An Emergency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Amending Section 30.37.20(d)(13) of Article 37 of Chapter 30 of the
Gilroy City Code Pertaining to "Sign Regulations"
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: City Attorney
Submitted By: City Attorney Andy Faber
Prepared By: City Attorney Andy Faber
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
a) Motion to read the ordinance by title only and waive further reading; and
b) Motion to adopt an Emergency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Gilroy
Amending Section 30.37.20(d)(13) of Article 37 of Chapter 30 of the Gilroy City
Code Pertaining to "Sign Regulations"
BACKGROUND
Recently it has come to the City’s attention that its sign regulations pertaining to
“political signs” may have First Amendment issues as a result of recen t interpretations
of sign ordinances by the U.S. Supreme Court. Accordingly, we are recommending that
Chapter 30, Section 30.37.20(d)(13) of the Gilroy City Code (“GCC”) be modified as set
forth in the attached Emergency Ordinance. We believe that the amendment to GCC
Section 30.37.20 (d)(13) will remove these First Amendment concerns.
The Courts make a distinction between “commercial messages” (i.e., advertising for
goods and services) and “noncommercial messages” (i.e., religion, politics, and the
marketplace of ideas). Noncommercial messages have a higher level of First
10.E
Packet Pg. 161
Amendment protections, which require that all varieties of noncommercial speech
should be treated the same way. The proposed Emergency Ordinance will treat all
temporary signs, whether they are political or election-oriented signs, the same, and not
be based on content.
This Emergency Ordinance only amends GCC Section 30.37.20 (d)(13). Because of the
pending elections, the ordinance will go into effect immediately upon adoption (which,
per Section 602 of the Charter, requires an affirmative vote of five Councilmembers).
The City staff intends to undertake an inclusive sign ordinance review. Potential future
amendments to the GCC regarding sign regulations will first go the City Planning
Commission for recommendation and ultimately to the City Council for final review and
adoption.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance GilroyPolticalSigns v1
10.E
Packet Pg. 162
1 4839-2825-2273v1
JH\04706083
ORDINANCE NO. 2018-XX
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF GILROY AMENDING SECTION 30.37.20(d)(13) OF ARTICLE
XXXVII OF CHAPTER 30 OF THE GILROY CITY CODE PERTAINING
TO “SIGN REGULATIONS”
WHEREAS, by adopting this Ordinance, the City Council intends to balance the right of
free speech by sign display against the community interests in limiting the impacts of excessive
and/or inappropriate signs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further intends by this Ordinance to regulate signs in a
manner which is consistent with the Constitutions and laws of the State of California and the
United States; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance amendments set forth below have been reviewed and
considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (“CEQA”), and the guidelines promulgat ed
thereunder and, further, the Council finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that said amendments may have a significant effect on the environment and said
amendments are therefore exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to the provisions
of Section 15061(b)(3) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
The City Council of the City of Gilroy does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION I
Chapter 30.37 of the Gilroy City Code entitled “SIGN REGULATIONS” Section
30.37.20(d)(13) is hereby amended to read as follows:
“(13) Political signs or placards which are erected less than ninety (90) days before and removed
less than ten (10) days after the election for which they are posted. Temporary signs, which for
purposes of this subsection mean signs which, by virtue of their physical nature, are not suitable
for long-term display. Such signs are typically made of lightweight or flimsy materials, and are
installed by hand or using ordinary hand tools. Temporary Political signs shall not be placed on
any portion of a street, sidewalk, or public right-of-way.”
SECTION II
This Ordinance, pursuant to Gilroy City Charter, Article VI, Section 602, is hereby
declared by the City Council to be necessary as an emergency measure and for the preservation
10.E.a
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Ordinance GilroyPolticalSigns v1 (1820 : Emergency Ordinance Political Signs)
2 4839-2825-2273v1
JH\04706083
of the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City, and as such shall take effect
immediately and be in full force and effect after its adoption after publication at least once in an
official newspaper of the City for the following reasons:
The City Council finds that this Ordinance must be adopted as an emergency ordinance
and is necessary: (1) to correct any conflicts between existing City policies and this Ordinance;
(2) to avoid confusion and to assure the public what rules, regulations and procedures will apply
to temporary signs; and (3) to eliminate rules which treat political or election-oriented signs as a
separate and discrete class of sign.
In order to accomplish these goals, the Gilroy City Code Section 30.37(d)(13), as
amended, must be adopted by means of an emergency Ordinance.
SECTION III
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Gilroy hereby declares that it would
have passed and adopted this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of September, 2018, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED
Roland Velasco, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shawna Freels, City Clerk
10.E.a
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Ordinance GilroyPolticalSigns v1 (1820 : Emergency Ordinance Political Signs)
City of Gilroy
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of a 4% Salary Increase for City Administrator Gabriel
Gonzalez Effective Retro-Active to March 1, 2018
Meeting Date: September 10, 2018
From: Gabriel Gonzalez, City Administrator
Department: City Council
Submitted By: Mayor Roland Velasco
Prepared By: Mayor Roland Velasco
Strategic Plan Goals
☐ Fiscal Stability
☐ Downtown
Revitalization
☐ Economic
Development
☐ Customer Service ☐ Enhanced Public
Safety
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of a 4% salary increase for City Administrator Gabriel Gonzalez effective retro-
active to March 1, 2018.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mayor is recommending to the full Council that a salary increase of four percent
(4%) be provided to the City Administrator effective retroactively to March 1, 2018. The
four percent increase includes a three percent (3%) cost of living (COLA) increase and
a one percent (1%) market equity adjustment. The one percent (1%) market equity
adjustment is in recognition that the Gilroy City Administrator salary is behind market
when compared to other comparable sized agencies in the region that the City has used
for comparisons during labor negotiations. The compensation change being
recommended is as follows:
10.F
Packet Pg. 165
Current annual City Administrator salary 218,400$
4% Annual increase, effective March 1, 2018 8,736$
Annual salary 2018 227,136$
Also, in support of the professional development of our City Administrator, it is
recommended that the Council support the City Administrator’s attendance at the
Harvard Kennedy School Executive Management Program for State & Local
Government. This is an excellent training program geared for local government
executives focusing on strategic management and leadership. Curriculum areas
include: leadership, negotiations, public/private partnerships, cooperative governance
(developing new operational methods to increase capacity and reduce cost), behavioral
decision making, and more. The tuition cost is $16,500 and covers program expenses
(tuition, class materials, lodging and some meals) for the three week training period.
Attendance at the training program could occur in June or July, 2019 depending on
class availability and acceptance to the program.
FISSCAL IMPACT
The salary cost associated with this increase is $8,736 annually. The total annual cost
(including salary and salary-related benefits) is approximately $11,794. This salary
increase is allocated to the General Fund and funds are available in the FY 19 budget to
cover this cost.
10.F
Packet Pg. 166