The question of raising taxes came up for discussion during a special study session regarding deferred maintenance and infrastructure backlog within the city of San Jose.  The city needs at least $915 million in one-time funding and an additional $45 million for ongoing funding needs if we want to catch up with our projects.

You may be asking yourself how the city came to these numbers and why the city allowed our backlog to become so poor and what exactly is the best method to pay for so many projects?

One-time funding examples would be opening the Ryland Pool again, completely rebuilding streets like Newhall and Mackey, replacing 40-year-old equipment at the water pollution control plant, replacing and moving the old IT infrastructure from the old to the new City Hall so we could move forward in selling old City Hall.

Ongoing funding would include basic street paving, replacing city vehicles with clean-fuel vehicles, park maintenance, etc.  Some say if we don’t act now, we face the possibility of the these costs increasing in the future, which will only mean that the taxpayers of San Jose will be paying more. For example, we need $600,000 to replace roofing components on city buildings. If you don’t fix a leaky roof then you have water damage which would cost more to fix.

Here are some numbers for you about San Jose Infrastructure:

517 miles of roads in poor condition;
681 miles of roads overdue for maintenance;
110 miles of damaged curbs and gutters;
$5.8 million annually to fully fund sidewalk repairs.

The city council may be looking to ask the voters if they are willing to pay more with the options including a parcel tax, sales tax, or raising construction and conveyance taxes. The most likely would be a parcel tax for property owners.

I am not sure that voters support tax increases without trusting that government will use the money as it was intended, so I am curious to know what your thoughts are.

Are you willing to pay more in taxes?

How much more would you be willing to pay per year?

Would you be more inclined to pay if the benefits were promised to be delivered in a specific area or district surrounding your home?

If not, what would you do differently than the city does today?

Early Saturday morning, October 6, I hosted a community meeting titled “Preserving Our Historic Neighborhoods: How to make your Neighborhood a Conservation Area.”

Many residents have been vocal about preserving not just their individual homes, but their entire neighborhoods as historic structures and/or areas.  Therefore, the purpose of the forum was to empower and inform residents by giving them options for maintaining their neighborhoods’ character and ambiance.

Approximately 30 people attended my historic forum from nine different District 6 neighborhoods: Buena Vista, College Park, Garden Alameda, Palm Haven, Rose Garden, North Willow Glen, Shasta-Hanchett, Sherman Oaks and Willow Glen.  I was impressed with the turnout. In addition, I received many e-mails and phone calls from residents who could not attend but were in support of preserving historic neighborhoods.

Sally Zarnowitz, Senior Planner and San Jose’s Historic Preservation Officer, attended to explain the process for making a neighborhood a conservation area. In addition, she discussed the process which allows an individual homeowner to have their home listed as a historic house. These processes can be cumbersome and very costly; however, the City of San Jose does have success stories where residents and the city worked together to create historic areas so that the homes in the neighborhoods stay intact.

Much effort must be applied to have a neighborhood approved as a historic district or a conservation area.  Residents must be dedicated because the work will take a lot of time and money.

The process first includes determining what area will be historic; this could be one street or several streets, etc. The historic area is determined by the residents. From there, each resident within the defined proposed historic area must have a historic survey done which includes architecture, when the home was built, by whom and other various factors. The survey is not short; it usually looks like a booklet with several pages that can be confusing to some. Currently the work that goes into the survey must be completed by a state licensed historical consultant.

At this point in time, the city relies on consultants to do historic research. However, I would like to see the City of San Jose hire someone in-house so that we could save money on survey work. Currently, historical surveys are funded by the residents themselves, government grants or the city through Redevelopment Agency (RDA). Many of the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) areas have listed historic preservation as one of their top ten goals, therefore receiving funding through RDA to have the survey work completed.  Two examples of these are Martha Gardens and the Lake House District that started the process a few years ago under former Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez’s leadership.
However, SNIs only cover a small portion of San Jose.  Therefore, where does this leave the rest of the neighborhoods in San Jose that want historic districts but are not privy to the RDA dollars?

It appears under San Jose’s current policy, residents in many neighborhoods—such as an Eichler community in Cambrian or Sherman Oaks, Victorians in Northside, Mission and Colonial Revival in North Willow Glen or classic bungalow and Craftsman housing in Shasta-Hanchett and Willow Glen—do not have the resources to make their neighborhoods “distinctive” unless they can come up with thousands of dollars for consultant work.

These unique areas, among others, should have protection if the home owners wish to apply a historic area or district designation to them. Too many times we lose unique architecture to a major rebuild or a teardown.  I appreciate and support private property rights; however, I think we need to do a better job allowing those who currently own their homes and want to make their homes historic to do so.

In an effort to describe the neighborhoods that I mentioned above, I have come up with the term “Neighborhoods of Distinction.”  I would like to apply this title to a possibly new policy that would add, yes, another layer of bureaucratic review (but, in my opinion, worth it) to these areas—whether it is a single street or larger area—that would not allow for major remodels or teardowns to a home arbitrarily.

As I mentioned above, I support property rights. However, property rights include being a responsible home owner. If someone chooses to buy a home on University Avenue in the Rose Garden or Donner Drive in Cambrian, they must respect the existing community of homes.  I am not quite sure why someone buys a home in a neighborhood that is already established with specific architecture, etc., only to tear down the 60-year-old home to build a new home, thus losing all the history of what the original home brought to the neighborhood. Most areas of San Jose allow a teardown or remodel to build bigger homes, like in Almaden Valley, Silver Creek, etc.  I would say that most of the time this new construction does not match the street it sits on and starts to change the character of these neighborhoods that have older housing stock.

Many people choose to live in an older distinctive neighborhood because they appreciate the ambiance and history. These current home owners should have the right to have their homes placed in a historic registry if they choose. Now, one might say that by having a home and/or neighborhood called a historic area or district would limit who would buy your home at a later date. However, it could and most probably would have the opposite effect too: that is, by making a home or neighborhood historic, you will attract buyers—ones who might pay more—because of an established historic district.

In an effort to organize, mobilize and empower residents with the tools necessary to preserve historic homes and neighborhoods, I have formed a District 6 Historical Committee. The committee will be chaired by me and everyone is invited and included.  The purpose of the committee is to have a gathering place for like minds—those who want to preserve history starting with their homes and neighborhoods.

At the August 28 city council evening meeting, the council spent over two hours deliberating on where to put the park that is part of the Irvine Development in North San Jose. This item was continued from the August 14 meeting where the council discussed it at length until 1 a.m.

There were two possible park locations discussed. One option was to locate the five acre turnkey park at a central location so that future residents could enjoy the park. The other option was to move the park to the eastern side of the parcel. This location would not suit the majority of residents and the future communities that will eventually live there.

The residents currently living in the existing high-density development want the park to be at the eastern side so it will serve as a buffer to the new development. That may make one pause and think about this option, however. There are a few problems that I found against having the park on the eastern side. One is that the city and community would lose 50 parking spaces resulting in more on-street parking, which I know would lead to problems down the road. Also, a five acre park is for everyone to enjoy, not just those who live adjacent to the park.

Another problem with the eastern side is that this location would not be able to accommodate as many organized playing fields for children or adults. Not allowing room for children to play team sports is not a good use of a five acre park. Again, we must make sure that San Jose’s larger parks are utilized to their fullest potential.

I voted to keep the park in the location that the developer and planning/park staff recommended: the central location. One reason I support this recommendation is that this location would allow for residents to view the park at all times, thus allowing for the potential to prevent vandalism or other suspicious activity at the park.

Keeping the park at its current location also allows the Guadalupe Creek Trail and the Los Gatos Creek Trail to link together there. In addition, at the central location, this five acre park has the potential to be a seven acre park, which will allow all residents of San Jose to utilize it, much like the historic Rose Garden Municipal Park and Alum Rock Park. Moving the park would cap it at five acres.

I find it disingenuous that residents who are living in a high-density development are against others having the opportunity to live in a high-density development.  As a resident and an elected official, I want housing to be available for all people, and the amenities that accompany housing to be available to all as well.

As I continue to mention (whenever I get the chance), I support smart urban development and growth within San Jose’s boundaries, not more sprawl. North San Jose is and can continue to be a very thoughtful, well-planned community with large parks, light rail, commercial, industrial, housing and jobs. This type of development is what San Jose needs. In addition, it is important to remember that this specific development will not be occupied until spring/summer 2011.

On Thursday, August 23, 2007, the elected officials of the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County met to talk about five top priorities that affect the city and county. City and county staff attended, including San Jose City Manager Debra Figone and County Executive Pete Kutras.

It’s no secret that the relationship between the county and the city has been less than stellar. For example, a few years ago San Jose sued the county over the county’s attempt to build a concert hall at the fairgrounds. The city sued because they wanted to build a concert hall downtown.  Guess what? Both entities lost and the talk of a concert hall has been put to rest for now.

Residents of District 6 have shared that the sparring between the two governments is foolish.  Suing someone only to lose over $20 million like the city did to the county is not in the best interests of the community.  So, in an attempt to move beyond the courtroom, both entities have moved to City Hall and County Chambers to begin the process of rebuilding their relationship—a relationship that is more open, harmonious and collaborative for the sake of our future.

The city and county both have elected officials that genuinely care about their constituencies; however, both are suffering from structural deficits, pension liabilities and a growing need of services from their respective populations. Both know that they will not be able to deliver the same services in the same way for much longer. Therefore, they both understand the need to find commonalities on issues that we share a mutual interest in so that we can best serve the residents.

Below are the five priorities that were discussed at the meeting and one other important issue.

Former City Hall
The county is interested in purchasing old City Hall. The city is interested in getting the most monetary or other type of value from City Hall. Some feel that City Hall is an historic building and should not be knocked down, but preserved.

Fairgrounds
A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been circulated for the possible development of the 136 acre site. Some of the other options that have been discussed include commercial, parkland dedication, a possible new site for the fire training center and organized play for soccer, softball, etc. and an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Coyote EIR
The county (and I share the view) has concerns with the traffic impact, limited parks and development next to creeks known as the Riparian Corridor. I have recommended and will continue to recommend that we stop “planning” for Coyote Valley and thus not develop. I agree with the county that the impact to our current infrastructure will be detrimental. In addition, the City of San Jose has had some of its best planners working on Coyote Valley instead of on other land use issues that are important to the city.

Annexation
There is agreement between the county, city and state at this time to move forward in trying to annex various pockets of property that are currently surrounded by the city.  Many District 6 residents, as well as others throughout the city, support annexation.

Pandemic Flu/Emergencies
Discussion also included the need for collaboration between the city and county regarding emergency preparedness. This will most likely be an ongoing issue with updates, etc.

Willow Glen Spur Trail
Although the Willow Glen Spur Trail was not included as one of the top priorities, it is an important subject. The Willow Glen Spur Trail is a former rail line owned by Union Pacific Railroad which runs through Districts 3, 6, and 7. The development of this trail will connect the Los Gatos Creek Trail to the Coyote Creek Trail. The railroad company is not in the business of creating walkable, livable communities like the city and county are; therefore, it has been difficult to acquire land for this trail in a timely manner. However, from my conversations with my colleagues, there is support to keep this future trail alive and to move forward with its completion.  I can speak for myself when I say that I will not support any zoning change to the former rail property that would block the future trail.

I am optimistic that the city and county can maximize their assets for a win-win situation that benefits both governments and, most importantly, its residents.

What do you think the city should do with old City Hall?  What do you think the county should do with the fairgrounds?

I was invited to attend the musical “Leader of the Pack” performed by the local Children’s Musical Theater (CMT) in the San Jose Civic Auditorium. Over the past year, I have attended a few of CMT’s productions. What specifically caught my eye during “Leader of the Pack” was a young girl who performed in a wheelchair. At first I thought the wheelchair might be part of the story, but I soon realized that she was a cast member who was disabled. She still participated with limited body movement and singing.

I was intrigued with her performance. She wore different costumes, depending on the scene, like the other actors in the play. I was thinking to myself about how gracious CMT was by giving this girl the opportunity to be included with the rest of the cast. I later found out that CMT actually casts every single child who auditions, regardless of level of talent or ability to pay.

CMT is the nation’s largest musical theater. It is fiscally sound and produces outstanding performances. In a year where many nonprofits are struggling or have used funds illegally, CMT sets a positive example for others to follow. CMT gives youth an opportunity to channel their artistic energy, which contributes to raising children’s self esteem. The children in CMT are ethnically and socio-economically diverse. CMT allows artistic talent to blossom and many of CMT’s alumni go on to perform at college and even start theatrical careers in New York and Chicago and in film.
In addition, many of the children who perform for CMT are from San Jose’s neighboring cities like Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga. Since CMT shows are held in the heart of San Jose, they bring families and suburbanites downtown, providing economic benefits to restaurants.

I usually attend performances at the Rep, San Jose Stage and City Lights—not children’s theaters.  However, since taking office, I have attended children’s theater at Willow Glen Children’s Theater (at Willow Glen Middle School) and San Jose Children’s Musical Theater (at Kirk Community Center) in addition to the CMT. The performances are fun and, more importantly, they give youth an opportunity to color their pallet.

One issue that everyone who is paying attention to San Jose politics agrees with is that the City of San Jose’s General Plan is outdated and is in need of revamping.

At the August 7 city council meeting, all of Mayor Reed’s recommendations for the General Plan Update Task Force (which included Councilmembers Liccardo and Chirco and me) were supported by the council. The task force is a diverse group of people representing environmentalists, developers, unions and community members, among others.

The General Plan will take time. It is not a process that can be rushed (finishing early does not count here). I will take the time necessary to read the information that is brought forth and ask questions and challenge the status quo. I will also listen to all members of the community regarding their thoughts, ideas and recommendations for the future of land use in San Jose.

Two of the members on the General Plan Task Force were my recommendations to the mayor.

I chose Nancy Ianni, a former council member who served District 6 from 1981-1993, and Harvey Darnell, the current President of North Willow Glen Neighborhood Association. Both Nancy and Harvey are neighborhood advocates who will serve the task force well.

Nancy’s history in San Jose planning dates back over 40 years. In fact, she was one of the founders of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association back in the mid-seventies when Norm Mineta was mayor. As a council member, Nancy was well liked and respected by the neighborhoods.  She led and funded the Mid-town Specific Plan and was part of a community group that stopped the City of San Jose from expanding Willow St., Pine Ave. and Cherry Ave. into four lanes. In addition, she made sure that the Shasta Hanchett neighborhood did not suffer from Arena traffic. Nancy is sharp, witty and fair. Her roots are in the neighborhoods and we are fortunate to have her.

Harvey Darnell was the chairman of Counter to Council and very active in CalSJ, which is a group that protects the riparian corridor (waterways) and advocates for parks.  Harvey is not afraid to speak up for what he believes in and has challenged developers and fought for increased park fees. He is genuine and has the ability to see the whole picture, not just what is right in front of him. The task force needs community members with this skill.

The questions that we all should be asking are: How do we want our city to grow? How do we want to define net loss? Is it time to perform an audit of historic buildings?

The General Plan meetings are not set yet, but I encourage all of you to attend and speak when the time comes.