After finishing lunch at Pollo Loco on Winchester Blvd., Councilmember Pete Constant took me on a District 1 tour.  District 6 and District 1 share a long border along Winchester. Recently, both of our council offices have been working with the RDA and small businesses to help build a larger business district for Winchester.

We started off on Cadillac and Impala Streets in the Winchester SNI.  As in Hoffman Via Monte in District 10, I saw more “stacking” of the 1970s apartment structures that have “out-of-town owners” who neglect their buildings, negatively affecting the neighborhood. Two homicides occurred in this west side area recently.

Driving down Eden Ave. (which is parallel to Winchester), we looked at some of the traffic calming devices installed by the RDA aimed at slowing cars down on this street. However, one of the roundabouts was removed because local residents did not want it there after it was installed. It is tough to make everyone happy.

We then checked out the community policing station in a converted office building and the Calabazas library that will soon be closing to be remodeled (watch out to not hit your head in the bathroom).

Next, we visited San Jose’s only BMX park, a place where youths can show off their tricks and get some air.  We chatted with some kids who told us of their love of the park.  I’ll bet it looked pretty peculiar to see the two of us chatting it up with “bikers.” I told the kids not to talk to strangers next time.

Then we visited the Starbird Youth Center at Starbird Park, a newly built facility that took “green building” much too literally by not installing air conditioning! On hot days, youths sit outside the NEW facility.  This center is just down the street from Waterbury Ct. and Boynton, where there was another homicide.

Now don’t get me wrong, District 1 is not just apartments and tragic homicides. It is filled with many single family homes, including both starter and expensive houses. It also has a few really big parks, like Rainbow Park, and awesome schools, like Lynbrook High.

The most bizarre thing about District 1 is the border it shares with Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara and Saratoga. As we drove, Constant constantly pointed out, “this side is San Jose and that side is Saratoga” or “Cupertino that side, San Jose this side.” Throughout the tour along the border, I was extremely pleased at the amount of commercial land San Jose was able to maintain on the city’s western edge. This is the reverse of the San Jose-Milpitas border, with Milpitas capturing most of the sales tax of San Jose residents.

However, it is pretty clear that some cities actually “get it” when it comes to signage for retail.  The most obvious example is the Stevens Creek Auto Row. One side is San Jose and the other Santa Clara. Santa Clara has HUGE signs where the car brands are easily visible from a distance, versus the San Jose side, which has Lilliputian signs.  No wonder Constant wanted to include areas other than downtown in the sign ordinance.

We finished our tour with a ribbon cutting in my district for a new furniture store on Bascom Ave., where we shared in a feast of food.

It is the latest City of San Jose acronym. GFSDEPSG stands for the three-year General Fund Structural Deficit Elimination Plan Stakeholder Group. Whew! Try saying that fast even once.

This group is chaired by my colleague Pietro Constantino (Pete Constant in Italian).  The GFSDEPSG includes city workers, unions, various city department directors, nonprofit executives, the Chamber of Commerce and San Jose residents.  I have attended all six meetings the GFSDEPSG has had thus far and have enjoyed the arithmetic.

The group is charged with exploring new ideas and talking about touchy topics to solve the structural budget deficit.  Sometimes their discussions will include “taboo” topics which are not discussed on the dais since these topics are “political dynamite.”  However, this group speaks straight from the hip, which is refreshing.

Last Monday, July 7, the group talked about how the city chooses to pay a “living wage” even though it is not required by state law for contract work.  “Prevailing wage” is required by state law for construction jobs but not for “charter” cities like San Jose.  In 1988, the city voluntarily adopted the state of California prevailing wage law. Then, in 1989, the council increased the scope of the law to include service jobs like street sweeping, parking lot attendants, janitorial, etc., though the state did not require it.

Moving onward and forward, the city adopted a living wage policy in 1999 which included contract work.  Living wage is $12.83 an hour with medical and $14.08 without medical.  It is determined by the Federal poverty threshold for a family of three and then is adjusted each year for inflation.  It has never decreased since 1999, even when there is a recession. The city of San Jose has ten fulltime employees to monitor contracts to make sure that contractors are paying their workers the correct city mandated wage.

Some group members spoke about the importance of a living wage and how it may prevent people from being dependent on state and federal welfare programs.  Others spoke of its elimination, since it increases the cost to the city and, therefore, residents.  The group requested more information in order for this topic to be discussed again at a future meeting.

No one from the public attended the meeting.  By contrast, the General Plan 2040 meeting usually generates about 25 spectators. It is also televised. Unfortunately, the GFSDEPSG is not.

If you are looking for an air conditioned room to escape the heat, then consider attending the seventh meeting of GFSDEPSG on Monday, July 21, 6:00 PM, in the wing rooms at City Hall, 200 S. Santa Clara Street.

For more information, go to:http://www.sanjoseca.gov/stakeholdergroup08.asp

A while ago I wrote that I wanted to tour each council district. Well, I got my wish. I have been touring San Jose over the past few months and last Friday I spent the morning with my colleague, Nancy Pyle, who represents District 10.

I met Ms. Pyle off Blossom Hill Road where we began the tour driving through the Hoffman Via Monte SNI neighborhood, which is right next to Pioneer High School—and, where I believe we made a mistake in planning. This area has about 40-50 apartment buildings that are clustered on three adjoining streets.  This 1970’s planning mistake is replicated all over San Jose.  Perhaps the recent focus of using RDA funds in partnership with the code enforcement will encourage landlords to clean up their properties. Neglect of the property leads to blight which leads to people not caring about their area.  It’s nice to know that the SNI program has brought improvements to the area.  Last year, I attended the grand opening of the new community center which was the number-one priority for the Hoffman Via Monte SNI.

We then went on what I call the “Almaden Valley Home Tour!”

Having grown up in San Jose and having friends that live in Almaden, I thought I had seen every street. However, I soon realized that I had not seen everything D-10 has to offer. There are some incredible streets with vintage ranch houses and houses that I pictured as being like ones in Los Altos, complete with families of deer passing by.  One advantage of having housing stock occupied by upper income families is that some of these individuals start companies that employ people.  If these individuals are living in Almaden, it is less likely for those new companies to be located in Palo Alto and Mountain View. At least that’s the hope.

On the way out to the Almaden Urban Reserve we passed the historic Feed and Fuel. It’s a shame that it is closed; it was like a tavern in the old west.  The Almaden Reserve is HUGE (1000-plus acres) and quite scenic.  This is the area where former Vice Mayor Pat Dando proposed building soccer fields but was met with opposition.  The questions that came to my mind were: Do we plan for the development of this land now?  If we plan, does it lead us to build on it prematurely?  Is there an alternative route other then Almaden Expressway for the future?  Where will the water come from?  If we do “nothing,” there will be one house per 20 acres but no master plan—is this a “bad” thing in an effort to preserve open space?

Our tour also included the location of the tragic accident on Mockingbird Lane where Leland students died in the mid-80s while driving too fast.  In this particular case, the youths came over a steep hill (and got some serious air) and crashed right into a garbage truck.  Three of the four students died—very sad.

We stopped off for a tour of the Almaden Library and Community Center. What a gem! It’s an impressive structure teeming with people of all ages.

We drove the outline of the district and finished at a future VTA development site. There is a VTA station at Capitol and Highway 87 which has a surface parking lot. The VTA would like to build a transit-oriented development at this light rail station.  The biggest questions from the neighborhood are how tall and how many units?  I am glad that I am not the only one with the same issues; even District 10 has to wrestle with the density question.

Last Tuesday, we considered whether to continue preliminary discussions with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and three private property owners regarding San Pedro Square. The issue under consideration was should RDA spend money to do capital improvements like sidewalk widening, streetscapes and loans to rehab older buildings in the area.

Let me first talk about the elephant in the room, former Mayor Tom McEnery. I think it’s pretty well known that his family owns a chunk of the outlying property at San Pedro Square.

I do not carry Tom’s water; nor do I share his puritan views on nightclubs or past fears of Santana Row.  In fact, I support a livelier downtown and frequent Santana Row on a regular basis. However, as someone who has lived in downtown, I do share a vision that it can and will be home to people, businesses and social gathering spots.  I have had this vision since 7th grade, when RDA visited my school and brought in the physical model of our future downtown.

So should the city collaborate with three property owners who are willing to invest approximately $15–21 million of their own money above and beyond RDA’s $6 million?

City governments have complex and confusing pots of money and rules on what the money may actually be spent on.  Some money can be spent on people (police, librarians, code enforcement), and other money can be spent on capital projects (roads, equipment, building construction). Even more confusing, some money may only be spent in certain geographic areas to acquire property or build things, like in “redevelopment” areas or the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) neighborhoods. (SNIs cover 1/3 of the city where we have spent $60 million on capital improvements.)

The question of “Return on Investment” (ROI) came up since the amount is more than $1 million. The idea brought forward would add retail on San Pedro Square and St. John Street by creating an urban market similar to, but not the same as, Pikes Place in Seattle or the Ferry Building in San Francisco.  In addition, we would create a walkable attractive paseo highlighting the historic Peralta Adobe of 1797 and the Fallon House of 1855, which are hidden gems of our downtown.

ROI is a loosely thrown-around term and is always up for scrutiny based on what criteria you choose to measure.  ROI has “hard” measurable aspects like saving dollars, eliminating costs, and new sources of revenue, etc. And, on the other hand, “soft ROI” can be an externality of the main benefit. The investment makes it possible to leverage future dollars from future investors. For example, we do façade grants to make businesses look nice in the downtown and in our neighborhood business districts. Outside of looking nice, there is a hope that because of these façade improvements, more private investment will occur in this area. These façade improvements individually require less than $1 million, but the aggregate costs are well over that amount.

When it comes to ROI, we are sometimes kidding ourselves because we try to stretch it to make us feel good. Unlike the Grand Prix (that came and went, costing the city a loss), we have investments like this one where we actually get to retain physical improvements to the area.  Sometimes we do things without instant ROI

On the one hand, we could continue to do nothing because it’s the McEnery family’s property and let only nightclubs downtown. However, nightclubs do not bring nor create the family friendly downtown that we are looking for, as Councilmember Chu stated at the council meeting. The central question is: Will this investment—regardless of the owner—provide benefit for the downtown core?

To the North of San Pedro Square, the city has planned several residential towers that will help this proposed development succeed by joining newly opened residential towers, Axis and City Heights. This is an exciting opportunity for San Jose and I am confident that all of these components together will bring more life into downtown.

The final proposal will come back to the council around October.

The bigger questions I ask again are: How should we spend our RDA dollars?  Should we spend it only on economic development where there is ROI?  If so, do we stop funding any items that do not generate sales tax, hotel tax or utility tax?

Here are some downtown building and restoration projects that were done because of the RDA:

Adobe Headquarters, Convention Center, Hilton Hotel, Marriott Hotel, Fairmont Hotel, Children’s Discovery Museum, Tech Museum, California Theater, Hyatt Sainte Claire, De Anza Hotel, Jose Theater, San Jose Museum of Art, San Jose Repertory Theater, six office buildings and seven condominium developments.

The city council spent 12 hours on “Budget Tuesday” last week.  Here are three of the topics we covered.

Budget:
It was the end of a long budget process and I lived through it.  We had tough choices to make. San Jose is involved in many things—some questionable and others necessary.  I think we need to consider starting fresh with a clean slate by making “core” city services—sewer, public safety and land use—our first priorities.

We need to fully fund these core services first and then move on from there to roads, libraries, attorneys, and accounting (collect revenues/pay bills), followed by code enforcement, parks and community/senior centers.  Perhaps San Jose should consider dropping things that are not core, such as taxpayer subsidized golf.

I know that folks might think I am “Mr. No Fun” because I am upfront about the fact that there are tradeoffs we have to make. Casual fiscal responsibility, when it’s convenient, does not cut it. We must have a sober discussion on tradeoffs.  Why not have high ratings for our core services rather than being average at many things?

Traffic Calming:
Last year I chaired the traffic calming meetings in an effort to gather community feedback on how best to update San Jose’s policy. We had a meeting in each council district, shared the policy twice at the Transportation and Environment Committee, and held a final community meeting before the council unanimously passed the new policy last Tuesday. Two of the important changes to the policy are partnering with schools and neighborhoods adjacent to schools in an effort to make the streets in these areas safer, and allowing private funding for traffic calming devices.  The entire policy was revamped and I encourage you to check it out.

Inclusionary Housing:
Wordsmithing was at its best when “inclusionary” housing was discussed last week. I was starting to get dizzy with the constant back and forth about literally one word.  I have given this issue considerable thought and, as a result, it is not one I support the way it is presented today.  In the end, I want what is best for San Jose and its residents. I don’t believe building housing on every parcel is in anyone’s best interest, nor do I think raising the prices for first-time home buyers to subsidize others that earn less money is fair either. San Jose has done more then its fair share for both market rate housing and affordable housing. I am not alone. Councilmember Pyle did a good job by offering an alternative. I supported her, along with my colleagues Cortese and Constant.

San Jose’s structural deficit isn’t over yet, so stay tuned as this week’s council meeting should also be a long one.

Last week the city council unanimously approved a concession agreement for the new airport terminal.  Believe it or not, the Chamber of Commerce and the Working Partnerships Labor Union both agreed on the selection. Whew!  If only agreements like this could happen more often.

However, in my opinion, the best part of this selection is that many local small businesses that have made their mark in San Jose by risking their capital years ago will now have the opportunity to be showcased at the airport. These include local favorites like Schurra’s Chocolates on The Alameda, Chiramonte’s Deli on North Thirteenth, Hicklebee’s Children’s Bookstore on Lincoln Ave, Willow Street Pizza, Paolo’s and San Jose Sharks Bar & Grill.  I can’t wait.  Can you just imagine all of these great businesses all in one location?  San Jose here we come!

Last July, during our council break, I co-hosted a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce to raise the awareness that local small businesses should have a fair chance of being selected as tenants at the airport. The attendance was great and I believe that meeting played a part in bringing awareness; thus, we have many San Jose small business tenants moving forward.

City staff and a committee representing labor, the chamber and the convention visitors’ bureau reviewed the proposals that were submitted.  The council was not directly involved, although I did make my support known for local businesses. By awarding these contracts, the city and the airport do not have to manage individual rental agreements with each tenant.  If we did, it could take a lot of staff time and inevitably become political by having individual tenants lobby the council members.

The new concessions will not only change perceptions of our airport, but they are projected to bring in double the sales tax from today’s amount of $280,000 to $564,000. Revenue to the airport via rents will increase from $3.7 million to $8.2 million, and there will be 271 new jobs. Granted, they are service jobs; however, they will be paid living-wage hourly rates.

As much as the airport is criticized, most people still find it valuable for air travel. In fact, a former colleague of mine who happens to live in Menlo Park chooses to drive to San Jose instead of San Francisco Airport (SFO) to fly to Seattle every week. Even though SFO is closer, he finds San Jose’s airport easier to get in and out of.

San Jose will have a new face to show off in 2010 and I hope that you all check it out. Whether you are traveling or not, it will be worth the visit.