There are some topics that are difficult to talk candidly about, let along think about, among our family and friends. One of them is discussing our eventual death and the specifics that accompany end of life. Issues like a will, trust, medical power of attorney and funeral preparations are sensitive things to prepare for but prudent to do while we are still of sound mind and body.

The above discussion relates to the new General Plan adopted by the City Council last week. Beyond being a document that celebrates New Urbanism, the plan also has strict regulations on hillside development outside the urban growth boundary. Since these regulations were not an absolute abolition of changing the landscape, this led some to believe it was an opening to develop in the hills. This notion is incorrect.

Some of the regulations include: only large parcels over 200-plus acres can apply; no more than 2 percent of the land can have a structure and no more than 10 percent of the land (which includes the 2 percent of structures) can have non-permeable materials (walkway, driveway, parking); no irrigation systems are allowed; and only native vegetation is allowed. This leaves 90 percent of the land as open space for animals to roam and for nature to remain in charge.

These restrictions really only allow for one viable option and that is the potential for a future cemetery. Cemetery? We certainly do not vote on these often at the City Council. In fact, this makes sense since cemeteries in San Jose were established well over 100 years ago. Oak Hill cemetery on the west side was established in 1800, and Calvary on the east side was established in the same century. Both of these facilities are 90-95 percent full and will soon run out of space.

Thousands of San Jose residents pass on each year in the cycle of life, and even more will as the baby boomer generation ages. It is a very personal choice to be buried and for some it is dictated by their religion. Most of the families in Santa Clara County and the United States choose in-ground burials versus cremation.

Although the majority of the members of the General Plan Task Force may agree that burial is a personal choice, some felt that burial is “old fashioned” and people should be cremated. I do not believe the city is the appropriate level of government to dictate that all people should be cremated by not allowing for the land use opportunity of a new cemetery. Mandatory cremation attacks individual rights about a very personal choice that a family may make. We should plan now, so that as Oak HIll and Calvary cemeteries reach 100 percent capacity there is another option to service families of the locally deceased.

One may argue to let family members be buried elsewhere, having them send their deceased family members to lower cost areas, where there is more land. But that seems odd. Locating a new cemetery within the boundary of an existing city is not an easy task. For one thing, it would bring out the “anywhere but here” crowd. Many people would not want a new cemetery near their home, just as much as they might not want a group home. Also, when looking for cemetery location, you have to make sure the water table is low enough to avoid the New Orleans issue of floating caskets. I would estimate a new cemetery would open just as the other cemeteries reach capacity.

A tombstone, cross or Star of David is the marker for the love left behind. As awkward as the conversation may be, we should value that love and plan for it. Cemeteries are sacred and a place for living to go to pay respect for their loved ones.

Tomorrow, the City Council will adopt the 2040 General Plan (GP2040), which charts the growth of San Jose for the next 30 years. The Task Force, of which I am a member, met for over four years and held over 60 public meetings. In hindsight, the GP2040 could have been done sooner, however, the scope was too broad at the start and it should have been focused solely on land use.

The GP2040 had several decisive moments where the task force voted to give direction. My preference was more emphasis on land for jobs and slower population growth with higher density. I was the minority on that vote, but I stayed on to be a part of the final product. There has been no challenge to the massive environmental impact report and the GP2040 was approved unanimously by the planning commission in September.

There will be less suburban sprawl with GP2040. Coyote Valley, Almaden Reserve and Evergreen are off the table for more housing. Growing the footprint of San Jose with housing, especially single family homes, only increases the cost to maintain the city for existing residents. However, growth within the existing city infrastructure of sewers and streets is best. Market rate housing at a higher density is best for cities financially due to the aggregated property tax and utility tax. In addition, development within existing neighborhoods will be reduced like subdividing lots, which tend to be the most contentious for residents.

Growth in the plan is focused in the downtown, along transit corridors and the concept of villages. A village may be a “class B” strip mall that you drive by every day. The future is to allow the parcel to be scraped and instead build housing on top of retail and office to create unique areas that are more urban in nature. The village will be granted higher density but must contain jobs.

San Jose residents enjoy experiencing density on their travels and all of the positive attributes it brings, like people walking, biking, pedestrian retail and active open public space. In the past, density was not done well. Much of it was affordable housing that is exempt from taxes and fees or the density was reduced so low there was no critical mass to support retail.

Another feature of the plan is to have four-year horizons to make sure other development is occurring like office, R&D, industrial uses, etc.—and not just housing.

Less will change in the short run for San Jose as new housing may remain slow for years, which is fine by me. At some point, when we reach scarcity in housing, we will really get the financially beneficial housing we want. Building single family home subdivisions or wood townhouses is a net loss for our city, and it uses up too much land. We should maximize each parcel, allowing us more opportunity in the future with the remaining undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels.
The GP2040 is not perfect, but it does put us in the right direction of planning for walking and biking rather than cars. Some may think it is pie in the sky. However, I can say that my own life has shot by rather quickly. Before you know it, 2040 will be here, so it is best to have a plan in place. But don’t you worry, it only takes six votes any given Tuesday to change it.

I have enjoyed serving on the committee these past fou years and would be interested in serving on the same task force in 10 years. But next time I’d prefer to do it as a private citizen.

At 6:30pm next Monday, Nov. 7, a film and discussion about the GP2040 will take place. The event will include the director of planning and the director of economic development. RSVP to anne.walker@sanjoseca.gov.

At the corner of San Fernando and Almaden Blvd., you will notice a monolithic building with no windows that is being used as a canvas for public projection art. From 8pm to midnight, the “Portal”  transforms into different planets, time devices and different eyes that are recognizable like Van Gogh and DaVinci. This was funded through the city of San Jose for $4,000. Thanks go to the artist, JD Beltran, and Lisa Ellsworth, curator of the Children’s Discovery Museum.

Also, special thanks to Lt. Ta, Sgt. Moody, and Officers Bachman, Ordaz and Roland Ramirez for donating their time on Saturday for a high school homecoming event.

Here is a prior blog on GP2040, two years ago.

The 2006 San Jose City Council unanimously approved a $2 million loan to the San Jose Repertory Theater, fondly known as The Rep. On Tuesday, the 2011 City Council will consider modifying this loan.

The Rep has made progress in getting out of the red and into the black by reducing staff, designing less expensive sets, shorter show runs and using San Jose State University (SJSU) students in the most recent play to reduce costs. In addition, The Rep welcomed independent traveling shows for short runs that are quite popular, as well as renting out the venue for private events. These cost reductions have allowed The Rep to make all of the interest payments totaling over $200,000. However, like some homeowners, The Rep was only paying interest and nothing on principal.

As a result of the The Rep not being able to keep its 2006 financial commitment, the council will consider modifying the terms of the loan to collect the debt over 25 years. The Rep knows there is no additional money available from the city. It also realize that it needs to make do with what it has while simultaneously making progress on the debt.

The Rep has been a trailblazer for San Jose’s downtown. The Rep is responsible for bringing people to downtown to enjoy theater. As a consequence, a portion of The Rep’s 75,000 attendees spend money before and after shows downtown. This activity has a $9.1 million dollar economic benefit, according to an independent economic impact assessment by Delloite. The Rep is a piece of the jigsaw puzzle that makes downtown similar to how ACT makes the theater district in San Francisco.

This summer I attended a fundraiser for The Rep, where I spoke with people from Hillsborough and Atherton. These affluent peninsula folks would not visit San Jose had it not been for The Rep, and they would possibly not be donating five-figure amounts to another San Jose organization. (By the way, your San Jose Museum of Art, Children’s Discovery Museum and Tech Museum also leverage donations from many people who reside outside of San Jose. These museums’ current buildings and The Rep were built with RDA funds.)

However, let’s look at this from a different perspective. Let’s say you were sick and tired of funding the arts and just wanted to call in the loan. Well, for starters, you may only be able to get $100,000 out of the $2 million that is owed, as The Rep would file for bankruptcy. You then might be able to liquidate some set props and some costumes for pennies on the dollar. You could not rip out the seats and sell them since the city already owns the physical seats. Oh, okay, perhaps you could roll up the curtain and sell that along with the golf nets purchased for $2.26 million.

What you would be left with is an empty Phil and Susan Hammer Theater without the theater company providing programming. Many of the attendees that came to shows and spent money downtown would be gone, and that piece of the downtown jigsaw puzzle would be missing. In addition, the city of San Jose would then have to pay to maintain the building but with no benefit of theater patrons and commerce Downtown.

So will it be the final curtain?

Finally, if you look at your recent property tax bill, you will notice your PERS levy tax or county pension tax. This tax has been collected since 1945 and goes towards paying a portion of the pensions for County employees. Santa Clara County is the only County in California that has this tax. In fiscal year 2010-2011, this tax raised $109 million for pensions alone.

I was recently approached in my district by a married couple who told me that they hold “very liberal” perspectives on political matters, with the exception of pensions. When it comes to that topic, they said, they are in line with Rush Limbaugh.

It is evident to me that whatever degree of pension reform is put on the ballot—and, yes, pension reform for current employees must go to the ballot since it would require a change to the city charter—will pass. This afternoon we are having a study session on a proposal from five out of the 11 unions that offered a concession on current employee pensions moving forward. Included in the proposal is retaining the pension system for future city employees, although at a lower rate. I signed on to a memo requesting that this discussion be conducted as a public meeting. For those keeping track, I believe all union negotiations should be public.

Whatever does go on the ballot will offer some measure of savings to seal the hole in the budget deficit. And it could possibly return diminished city services to residents over time. I say possibly because the existing unfunded pension liability could increase more than forecast due to risk and uncertainty. The unfunded pension liability does not vanish if the retirement board transfers assets into CalPERS, as the liability will always be allocated to the city of San Jose and inevitably with San Jose residents.

However, whatever savings can be achieved from pension reform will not net out as forecast. For example, we know that reducing the 3 percent compounding automatic escalators (COLA) will achieve “X” amount of savings. In my view it will be necessary to reallocate a portion of the savings to increase salaries.

The one-size-fits-all concept of compensation for job roles in government is antiquated. Not every job is equal and not every job has the same amount of qualified applicants. Moving past pension reform, I believe the city of San Jose should allocate more dollars towards higher salaries for certain positions. Compensation going forward needs to be based more on salary than a retirement benefit, because a retirement system can put shackles on the younger generation.

Some city positions have thousands of applicants while others have single digits. Therefore, after pension reform is achieved, it is imperative that salaries are priced so the city can retain and recruit key positions. Ideally, increased salaries are based on performance and not just the position, but in no way should increased salaries be given to entire bargaining units that overlap different city departments.

What are those key positions? We may not know for certain until we get there, however, here are some that I think should be considered:

Police — The only enforcement of the Social Contract, enough said.

Police Dispatcher — 911 calls require a unique person to disseminate and relay accurate data to the field.

Other key positions might be a city planner with a unique skill set, a chemist for the water pollution control plant, an attorney with litigation experience, an award-winning auditor, an information technology person who can move organizations off of legacy systems and into the cloud, so residents can access information 24/7, etc …

Regarding retention, it might require pulling back the 10 percent ongoing pay decrease, but only for certain positions where retention may become an issue. For example, I would consider rolling back half the 10 percent pay cut for police and use the other half to hire additional officers. Going forward, surplus dollar amounts above a baseline budget should go as a package to police and let the membership vote up or down whether the money should be allocated to salary increases or hiring officers.

Salaries allow for greater flexibility during revenue downturns, but ratcheting down a pension benefit is herculean and, as we have seen, can take years to consider. With a higher salary, the individual can choose to save or spend. It is his or her choice.

The city will still have to make structural changes so it can afford to allocate a portion of pension savings to salaries of key positions. We may achieve further savings through consolidation of departments and outsourcing non-key personnel while still delivering that same service to residents for less. It’s not realistic for anyone to think we can do everything after pension reform is done. However, the impending pension reform simply allows for the proper allocation of dollars to what is most important.

At the Rules Committee last week, we voted 4-0 not to pursue an audit of the incubator program that was started in 1994. Instead, we decided to stay with the current work plan that includes an audit of the Environmental Services Department.

Incubators are located all over the country. They are backed by cities, universities, foundations and venture capitalists. Cities have been involved in incubators since residents pushed them to do so. As national and international economies ebb and flow, residents ask cities, “What are you going to do about creating high-tech jobs?”

Therefore, in wanting to try and please everyone, city government—instead of pointing out that the private sector creates high-tech jobs—funded incubators with a hope and a prayer. This same conversation could take place in any city that assists incubators. The fact is there was a shared belief by the entire San Jose City Council past and present, up until recently, that this was a worthwhile investment.

One example that I am personally familiar with is Agile Software. I worked for Agile Software, which came out of the incubator program started during Mayor Susan Hammer’s tenure. (Unfortunately for me, I joined after the company’s successful IPO.) Agile Software grew in downtown San Jose, with approximately 900 employees worldwide and 450 employees in San Jose. Many of the company’s employees lived and spent their paychecks in San Jose.  As a company, Agile also spent money in San Jose.

For example, Agile from time to time paid for the catering of lunches and dinners for employees. Agile also hosted events that resulted in over 1,000 downtown hotel rooms a night being used for its conference. In addition, the company had partners and customers flying into San Jose to visit corporate headquarters and booking hotel rooms. Agile also generated sales tax on the sale of their software, which was prior to the now-common customer request to download software electronically to avoid paying sales tax.

Agile stayed in downtown from 1995 to 2003. In 2003, Agile ran out of space in the downtown area. As a result, the company moved to Edenvale and stayed there from 2003 to 2008, before being moved out of San Jose by Oracle, which bought Agile in 2006.

This is an example of one company starting in a San Jose incubator and remaining in San Jose since many employees, including Agile’s CEO, lived in San Jose. Other companies, like Datasweep and Sierra Atlantic, wanted to be close to Agile so they also located Downtown.

Agile’s CEO, Bryan Stolle, was loyal to the city of San Jose and generous to local charities. However, part of the evolution of business includes growing, possibly to an IPO, being bought by another company or, as is the case with most high tech start-up companies, ceasing operations and laying off all the employees. There is no guarantee of success.

No city incubator can control:
_ the success or failure of the start-up company.
_ the relationship between the founder and venture capitalists.
_ the relationship between executive management and commercial real estate brokers.
_ the specific cost of real estate in neighboring cities or from building to building.
_ whether or not the company has new management that lives up the peninsula and wants to move offices to another city closer to their own home or employee base.
_ merger and acquisitions
_ intellectual property that is spun off and sold to someone else who carries on in another geography.

Essentially no city incubator can control free market decisions. However, we do need to credit the time a company is in San Jose, as well as other attributes the incubator program has brought to the city.

There are many decisions that the council has made without audits. For example, did we get all the jobs for the thousands of affordable housing units we built? What was the retrurn on investment from spending $835 million of RDA money on affordable housing? What are the ramifications to our city by exempting affordable housing from paying over $100 million in fees and taxes when these developments require more city services?

I have asked for an audit of the housing department and the impacts of exemptions on taxes and fees. But, I also understand that there may no longer be a Housing Department after Jan. 15, 2012. Perhaps we should do an audit often requested by city employees, which is a performance audit of management positions.

When we invest in Intellectual Property or essentially “people,” there is no guarantee that individuals/companies will stay in San Jose. The council voted in June 2011 that it no longer wants to fund the leases for incubators going forward. Moving forward, the city should focus on established companies like Polycom, Microchip and Maxim, which are all looking for larger space rather than early-stage companies.

Rails to Trails is a term for the conversion of obsolete rail lines into recreational trails. This has been done all over the United States. Railroad lines provide unique and scenic routes through cities. These trails lend themselves to both recreation and transportation that is not dependent on gas.

Railroad lines are abandoned for a variety of reasons, like major factories closing or fixed-point railroad lines losing out to the flexible trucking industry. We may find that in the future that the closing of railroad lines is shortsighted because it may limit future industrial growth, and/or we may have reached “Peak Oil.” Peak Oil may actually force us as a society to return to the railroad. However, that is a larger discussion and only time will tell.

Last week, the Council authorized the City Manager to purchase property from Union Pacific railroad for $6 million. It was a long process in dealing with the railroad as they originally were not a willing seller. This property was historically zoned for housing and Union Pacific had the right to build housing without going to the Planning Commission or City Council for approval, according to the Planning Dept. Unfortunately, cities are not allowed to re-zone railroad property to lower the value prior to purchase and thus must pay the highest and best use for the land. The use of eminent domain is not viable since the railroads have been notorious for suing cities against having their land taken away. Railroads have protection under federal law. Inverse condemnation lawsuits end up costing cities more since the railroad usually receives the highest and best use of the land value plus penalties for the intentional action by the public agency.

The true testament in moving forward was the desire to purchase the property and a more open communication with the railroad company coming together. In addition, the housing bubble/recession thwarted housing construction on this property in the interim. The desire of the City Council was unanimous to pursue this property with approval of my memo in 2007 and the support of trail advocates, which helped garner grant money from several sources to cover the purchase price.

Due to fuel uses and brake pads, the land underneath the railroad tracks is typically contaminated. In this case, Union Pacific has paid to remove contaminated soil and replace it with clean soil and seed it for native grasses. I am happy that the city was able to secure the clean land. However, the city does not have the money to pave an asphalt trail at this time. The organization, Save our Trails, is in the process of signing a formal agreement to adopt the trail and will pick up litter and cut down weeds.

This parcel also includes a beautiful trestle bridge that goes over a creek. Making the bridge safe for pedestrians and bicycles is the first priority, and grant money has been obtained to start the process.

This trail connection, known as the Three Creeks Trail, has a goal of connecting the Los Gatos Creek Trail, Guadalupe Creek Trail and Coyote Creek Trail with a unique east-west alignment, as opposed to most trails in San Jose that run north-south.

Grants can be a painful process as many cities apply but only a certain percentage are actually awarded. In this case, San Jose obtained grants from the County of Santa Clara park trust fund, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Open Space Authority and a state of California grant to come soon. In the interim, some funds from the Construction and Conveyance tax are covering the purchase price and will be replenished once the state funds are received.

I am very thankful for all the people who worked on this project, including elected officials, staff and trail advocates. However, I have a question. Should cities rely on grants to fund projects?

The good news is we have no mortgage payment on this property and the maintenance will be adopted by volunteers. But it seems like local government is always begging for money from larger government, even though larger government takes money from local government frequently.

Our own city policy of exempting affordable housing developers from paying park fees created a lost opportunity of approximately $90 million dollars, which could have been used for parks and trails. That left San Jose needing to apply for state grants that if we are lucky may add up to $10 million, rather than the $90 million that was left on the table. It would seem simpler for local governments to fund their own projects rather than having to anticipate the different and changing priorities of state and federal office holders.