League News

Foothill-De Anza Community College District April-August 2017

August 7:  The Trustees may poll public support for a possible FHDA new general obligation bond.  They did approve Resolution #2017-19 prohibiting funded travel to states that have discriminatory legislation, but allowing the Chancellor to override the ban in specific cases.

July 3:  The annual Board of Trustees self-evaluation raised concerns about community relations and declining enrollment.  All 5 elected trustees anonymously did the self-evaluation.

   The Trustees rejected all bids to restore the soccer field at De Anza College.

   DA Student Trustee Elias Kamal said a discussion of the Muslim Ramadan was attended by 50 staff, students, and family members.  Board President Laura Casas praised trustee Bruce Swenson for 50 years of service to FHDA and 50 years of marriage.

June 12:  Chancellor Judy Minor welcomed FH student trustee Chinwe Idika to the Board and welcomed DA student trustee Elias Kamal to his second term.  President Casa and trustee Landsberger praised the recent town hall meeting at Foothill College with Anna Eshoo.

   Trustee Landsberger said the FHDA Foundation nominated Dudley Anderson as a new director.  Landsberger also said the Foundation heard from the faculty of the Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies on May 24.  Its building is certified Energy and Environmental Platinum.

   Executive Director Puentes summarized the Third Quarter Report.  She noted a 1,170 decline in FTES, reducing revenue by $6 million next year and reducing the stability fund to $25 million.

Puentes described the 2017-18 Tentative Budget which must be in place by July 1.  It includes increases of $4.2 million in base apportionment and $2.2 million in cost of living.  The structural deficit is $12.3 million, the end balance is $38.8 million, the final stability fund is $13.8 million.  She said FHDA has 3 years to restore enrollment before the base is permanently reset.

May 1:  The trustees heard and approved the student budgets for Foothill and De Anza.

   Adam Colling and James Funk of Bloom Energy conversed with the Board at length about using fuel cells to produce electric power from natural gas without burning the gas (technology from NASA’s Mars Rover).  They claimed a 10-15% cost reduction and said their customers included Caltech, San Diego Univ., Apple, Google, AT&T, city of Santa Clara, and Home Depot.

April 3:  Chancellor Judy Minor liked Senator Jerry Hill’s bill SB769, expanding the community college 4-year degree program.  Foothill now offers a 4-year degree in dental hygiene.

— Terry Terman, Observer

Los Altos City Council Meetings July & August 2017

July 11, 2017

The City Council approved re-consideration of public Parking Plaza 10 as part of private development at 40 Main Street, provided the design complies with the city’s standards for parking space. It is understood that providing a design does not assure final approval of the private development project.

Note that a similar proposal was denied in 2014, but the advantages of reconfiguration for this project allows for additional parking stalls at no cost to the city and facilitates private development that can contribute to the overall vitality of the community. For example, the landowners’ architect, Bill Maston, suggested that more electric-charging stations and bike racks may be added to the space. Also, if City Council does not allow private developers to propose a re-configuration, any project that doesn’t meet permitted city code could result in the city’s loss of positive development applications.

The City Council discussed potential fundraising efforts to support the new Hillview Community Center and the Downtown Vision, including a theater for plays, affordable senior housing and other affordable housing on city-owned land. Also, expand parking at Plaza 7 with underground parking. After pro and con discussion from the public, Council members Lynette Lee Eng and Jean Mordo, the lead on putting forth these ideas, were selected to form a subcommittee to recommend fundraising policies. Staff was directed to look into the cost of expanding Parking Plaza 7 with underground parking. The City Council approved that the Downtown Vision project consultants consider placement of a theater and affordable housing on city property downtown.

August 22, 2017

Los Altos City Council, 4 to 1, authorized Chris Jordan, City Manager, to execute a professional services agreement with Noll & Tam Architects and Planners in an amount not to exceed $2, 804, 597 for design services to begin redevelopment of the Hillview Community Center. Janet Tam, the principal architect for the project, expects to confirm the goals of the center, recommend a space design that meets the budget, and present the plan by the end of the year. There is a concern about space for Children’s Corner. Mr. Jordan said the design project includes space allocation for services for young children, but doesn’t specify who and how the services of a particular organization are to be determined. Agreements would be contracted when the project is completed.

Jon Biggs, Community Development Project Director, urged the City Council and community to look at the Downtown Vision project as a tool to assist the community in the design of a renovated downtown. The City Council heard and provided feedback for three future scenarios designed after surveys and twenty-two community and pop-up meetings provided feedback and information for Debbie Rudd, rrmDesign Group, who presented the scenarios. Additional information came from Bill Lee, economic consultant for the project. The three scenarios show, from least to most change, Green Plazas, connection to the Civic Center, entry elements to downtown, parking structures, live theater, movie theater, and evaluation of residential over commercial and office over commercial development. Also, a public citizen presentation focused on parking problems for every vision and offered possible solutions.

— Claire Noonan, Observer

Listening to Trump’s America: Bridging the Divide

Please plan to attend Supervisor Simitian’s talk on Saturday, September 16 at Palo Alto City Hall, 250 Hamilton Street, Palo Alto, 1:00 to 3:00 pm. http://www.lwvpaloalto.org/Calendar.html

Read Supervisor Joe Simitian’s introduction to his talk:

Here in the Bay Area we live in a bubble, in a bubble, in a bubble.

While 46% of the American electorate voted for President Donald Trump last fall, here at home the numbers were dramatically different.

In California, just 32% of the electorate voted for President Trump. In Santa Clara County that number was just 21%. And in my hometown, Palo Alto, just 12% of the voters cast their ballot for President Donald Trump.

Which led me to think that the rest of the country must see things somewhat differently than folks here in the area where I live and work. In the immediate aftermath of the election, some were inclined to dismiss Trump voters as racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic or xenophobic. But do we really believe that 46% of the American electorate is racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic or xenophobic? I don’t.

Which is what prompted me to ask, what’s going on in the rest of the country? What prompted 46% of the electorate to vote for a candidate I considered wholly unfit for the presidency? The same country that elected Barack Obama not once, but twice?

To get some answers, I traveled to three counties, in three states and had more than 100 conversations in places that had historically voted for Democratic candidates for President (including President Obama), but that “flipped” in 2016, and voted for President Trump. I spent a week in each county. My goal was to listen, learn and understand. And I learned a lot.

I traveled to Robeson County, North Carolina; Cambria County, Pennsylvania; and Macomb County, Michigan.

I talked with cops, teachers, librarians, labor leaders, business people, academics, bankers, journalists, retirees, elected officials and party activists from both parties, a college cross country team, total strangers I met on the street and a host of others.

I ate fried chicken at Candy Sue’s, had a Gob for dessert at Coney Island Lunch, and enjoyed the hummus and tabbouleh at Ike’s.

And along the way I spent time at parades, talent shows, candidate forums, biker bars, local museums and a traveling circus.

Los Altos

Los Altos initiates a Hillview Community Center Project Task Force and a Los Altos Downtown Vision Project.

If you live in Los Altos, you’ll want to follow the community input process for updating the community center and downtown.

Hillview Community Center Project Task Force can be found here:

https://www.losaltosca.gov/publicworks/page/hillview-community-center

Los Altos Downtown Vision can be seen here:

https://www.losaltosca.gov/communitydevelopment/page/downtown-vision

Mountain View: Measure V

Mountain View begins implementation of Measure V

On November 8, 2016, the residents of the City of Mountain View voted to adopt Measure V, also known as the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act, to stabilize rents and provide just-cause eviction protections for certain Rental Units in Mountain View. The League is following the implementation of the program. To see the full text of the Act, go here:
http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/preservation/rentstabilization.asp

Reports by our observer of the meetings can be seen here: https://www.lwvlamv.org/category/observer-reports/rental-housing-committee/

Priming the Democracy Pump: Civil Discourse in Silicon Valley

As one of many outcomes of the January 21st, 2017 Women’s March, a group of Santa Clara County League LWV members met in February to determine what actions they could take. Some in that group showed interest in the topic of civil discourse (CD). As defined by the San Luis Obispo & San Diego Leagues, which have taken a position on this topic, civil discourse is courteous, constructive communication characterized by mutual respect, fairness and attentive listening.

At a minimum, it is mutually respectful, courteous, constructive and orderly communication.

After several sessions to discuss the topic and how to take further action, a mailing list of over 20 people from several Leagues (Cupertino Sunnyvale, Mountain View Los Altos, Palo Alto and Southwest San Jose) and some non-League participants has evolved. A smaller group meeting several times over the past months has determined goals for their initial work:

  • Reduce emotional response to conflicting opinions
  • Learn about LWV
  • Develop an action plan
  • Be more active
  • How to talk with those who disagree with us
  • Ways to reach out to others
  • Develop a curriculum we can share

Several in the group participated in the LWVC Convention Caucus on “Bridging the Divide: Sharing the Work of Local Leagues” which included work on CD in other Leagues. The local group is now actively pursuing several projects: contacting other Leagues to stimulate dialog around their polarization issues, planning to interview local City Council and school Board members, and developing a curriculum for training interested League and community members. They have recently requested status in the Santa Clara County Council as the Santa Clara County Leagues Civil Discourse Committee. The group welcomes members of all Leagues interested in participating. To be included on the CD mailing list, contact Marieann Shovlin at m.shovlin@comcast.net.

Submitted by Marieann Shovlin, June 19, 2017.

   

News from the Mountain View Rental Housing Committee June 2017

Background:

On November 8, 2016, the residents of the City of Mountain View voted to adopt Measure V, also known as the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA), to stabilize rents and to provide just cause eviction protections for certain rental units in Mountain View.

Effective April 5, 2017, rent levels and rent increases for covered rental units, built before February 1, 1995 must comply with the CSFRA. Single family homes, condominiums, and duplexes are not covered by the CSFRA.

For more background go to the Mountain View website:

http://www.mountainview.gov/council/rental_housing_committee/default.asp

Rental Housing Committee Meeting, 6/8/2017

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm

The RHC listened to input from tenants and landlords. Key outcomes from the meeting include:

There will be individual stakeholders meeting for the tenants and landlords next week.  The Rental Housing Committee Staff will attend and will summarize these forums at the June 19th RHC meeting.

RHC Staff will continue to work on the Regulations for the Petition Process for Individual Rent Adjustment.

RHC Staff presented beginning criteria for a Hearing Officer and a Mediation Officer.

The person will be an independent contractor

A third party ‘Project Sentinel will be used to facilitate this process.

Cost of position – Further information from staff to be forthcoming

Meeting adjourned around 11:00pm

Stakeholders Meeting ‘Fair Return Standard’

Meeting for Landlords held 6/12/2017

Meeting for Tenants held 6/14/2017

As established in the RHC Meeting of 6/8/2017 a Stakeholders Meeting for both the tenants and the landlords was to take place separately to create a methodology for determining a ‘Fair Return Standard’ that could be used during the landlord’s petition process for modifying rents upward if necessary.  These meetings took place on 6/12/2017 and 6/13/2017.

This methodology for a ‘Fair Return Standard’ should include the following:

Could be objectively applied

Is understood by both parties so that decisions can be based on predictable outcomes

Is consistent with the current CSFRA established guidelines

Three (3) potential ‘Fair Return Standards’ were offered. See staff report online at:

http://mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=22966

    • Maintenance of Net Operating Income – MNOI – CPI Adjustment – Most commonly used standard in California.  Once establishing the NOI, (Property Income minus the operating expenses for the base year of 2015), this number is then increased by an inflationary index which increases with changes in the Consumer Price Index, CPI, or some portion there of between the base year and the petition year.

Issues

Confirmation of the operating expenses for base and petition years

Landlords may have incomplete records of operating expenses

Operating Expenses do not always vary with inflation indexes.  Example –  a one-time expenditure of a new roof can impact the determination for a rent increase

    • Maintenance of Net Operating Income – MNOI – Ratio Adjustment – Allows for rent increases in proportion to increases in qualified operating expenses. The Base year factor however is different in that it can be any year including the 12 months prior to the petition year.
    • Fixed Return on Investment – This is a variation on the fair return standard that was developed to regulate utilities and later adopted by some mobile home parks. A ‘deliberative body’ identifies a Minimum standard rate of return for the landlord’s investment of between 4-12%.  The chosen number is then multiplied by the value of the property resulting in the Minimum NOI. To determine whether the landlord is receiving a fair return, the Property Expenses are subtracted from the Property Income resulting in Net Operating Income excluding debt service.  If the Minimum Annual NOI is lower than the Net Operating Income the landlord would be entitled to increase the rents.

Issues

Different rates of return lead to disparities in the rents that can be charged

Determining valuation of property could be ‘fair market value’ which would require an appraisal, which would increase administrative cost and subject rent increases to market swings.

Landlords – preferred ‘Fixed Return on Investment’, must have universal definitions, use standard formulas to determine Operating Expenses, provide a list of items with their lifespans

Tenants – preferred ‘MNOI – CPI Adjustment, what process will be used to evaluate property…should it be a standard formula, if a rent increase is required for a one-time expense example new roof once it is paid for should the rent return to its’ previous value?

The Rental Housing Committee staff will summarize these meetings for discussion at the Monday June 19th RHC meeting.

Rental Housing Committee Meeting, 6/19/2017

The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm

The Rental Housing Committee Staff presented a summary of the two separate Stakeholder Meetings, one for the Tenants and one for the Landlords that were held last week.  These meetings were to determine one standard out of a potential of 3 options, to be agreed upon for a ‘Fair Rate of Return’ for the Landlords in accordance with Measure V.  The Tenants chose ‘MNOI – CPI Adjustment’ and the Landlords chose ‘Fixed Return on Investment with modifications.

After reviewing the summary of the meetings the RHC Staff recommended the MNOI – CPI Adjustment standard as it is widely used in nearly all the California rent controlled cities and when a petition is presented, offers the simplest calculations for the hearing officers and the RHC.

The landlords disagreed and felt very strongly about their position and their chosen option in that the MNOI-CPI only allows for a minimal (this year 3.4%) yearly percentage rent increase.  With the roll back of rents to 2015 levels, increasing operating costs, extra repairs or maintenance issues some of the landlords will no longer be turning a profit and then a Fair Rate of Return is no longer applicable.

Most of the RHC members could not all agree after listening to the very passionate discussions on both sides however one member encouraged the committee to adopt the option that the staff had recommended so that this process could continue to move along without further delays.  There is no perfect option but he argued that this is a good choice and changes can and probably will be made as the procedure unfolds.

The vote was taken and by 3-2 the MNOI – CPI Adjustment option was chosen as a standard for the ‘Fair Rate of Return’.  The RHC Staff will draft a full policy of this standard and bring it bring it back to the committee to the next meeting early in July.

For more detailed information on Fair Return Standard from the public:

http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23110

Meeting adjourned around 11:30pm

—Tamara Lewis, Observer

Mountain View City Council Meeting June 2017

The Council met for the final time before the summer recess on June 27th and will resume meeting in September. Here are some of the final actions the Council took in June:

Adoption of Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget and Capital Improvement Projects

After several months of discussion, the Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget on June 20th. The $304,715,136 budget includes a $127,092,614 General Operating Fund, which funds the core city services (Police & Fire, Parks & Recreation, Library, Planning, Public Works, and Administration). Significant discretionary expenditures include payments for city employee pensions and other post-employment benefits (to reduce unfunded liabilities), additional positions across all departments (particularly Planning and Public Works to address the development boom), and 100% renewable energy purchased from the new Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority to power municipal operations.

Additionally, $34,380,690 has been appropriated for Capital Projects. These include the Shoreline Blvd Interim Bus Lane (a reversible bus lane running through the median to improve traffic flow to North Bayshore), improvements for the Center for Performing Arts and Library, and the Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center Replacement.

North Bayshore Precise Plan Land Use and Transportation Discussion

In a lengthy and contentious study session on June 27th, the Council provided input on the North Bayshore Precise Plan for what was intended to be the last time before adoption of the finalized plan in Fall 2017. However, because the Mayor was traveling and unable to participate in the meeting, a divided Council deadlocked 3-3 on a key policy question: how should the new housing be phased in?

All Councilmembers supported allowing a maximum of 9,850 new units, and all supported a policy to monitor the new development and evaluate traffic and other impacts. The Council disagreed on the staff proposal to implement a “Phase I residential growth policy” that would allow 1500-3000 units before Council review and approval of the next phase. The three members who did not support the staff proposal instead advocated for using the existing trip cap report (which imposes a strict cap on all car trips into North Bayshore and allows the Council to regularly monitor trips) and a “Master Planning” process as a way to monitor progress and potential impacts. A “Master Plan” would require the developer to show how their project would “meet the Precise Plan’s vision and intent, complete neighborhood strategy, affordable housing goals, and other standards and guidelines, including any necessary area transportation infrastructure improvements.”

Because no proposal earned the support of a majority, staff will seek Council direction on this question again at a future study session.

Preservation of 938 and 954 Villa Street Historic Buildings

On June 13th, the Council provided early feedback on a proposal to remove two historic buildings in the downtown area and replace them with a new office building and restaurant. 938 Villa Street (the “Weilheimer House,” currently occupied by Chez TJ) and 954 Villa Street (Tied House) are historic resources because they meet at least one of four criteria:

• If it was associated with a person or organization important to the history of the City.

• If it was the site of a significant event in the City’s history.

• If it embodies distinctive architectural characteristics significant to the City’s history.

• Has yielded or may yield information important to the City’s history or prehistory.

938 Villa Street was built around 1894 and first occupied by prominent Mountain View resident Julius Weilheimer, who served on the City Board of Trustees. Not long afterwards, it was the home of Arthur Free, who served as City Attorney and later was elected to Congress (1921 to 1933). 954 Villa Street was built in 1931 and employs notable building design and architecture.

The Council generally preferred to preserve the Weilheimer House at its current location, but a majority was open to exploring the feasibility of relocating the building to allow the new development to proceed. Because the building at 954 Villa Street is much more challenging to relocate, several Councilmembers expressed interest in potentially incorporating its architectural features into the new office building instead.

Council directed staff to explore options for preserving or relocating the structures and to return to the Council in another study session. The office developer, The Minkoff Group, indicated that, even if the historic buildings were relocated, the current restaurants would not be preserved, as both restaurant owners intend to be partners in the new restaurant (which would occupy the ground floor in the new office building).

—Lucas Ramirez & Julie Lovins, Observers

Los Altos City Council Meetings June 2017

June 13, 2017

The city council voted to appropriate $96,619 from the Capital Improvement Program to award Wattis Construction the total $234,216 to complete the University Avenue Crosswalk Improvement Project.

The city council adopted the resolution to support the Association of the Los Altos History Museum’s application for a $95,000 grant to the Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Grant (SCCHHG). If the grant is received by 2018, the restoration of the 100-year-old water tower tank house at the History Museum will begin in summer 2018. The tank house had been moved to the museum from the Spagnoli property and Pilgrim Haven construction site in 1993. In 2015 leaks in the water tower roof prodded the Association to apply for a grant, at the time $35,000. The History Museum also raised donations of $10,000. When costs for restoration were found to be $105,000, the original grant was withdrawn and the new grant was drawn up. From rules by the SCCHHG, support from the “property owner”, in this case Los Altos City, must be assured.

June 27, 2017

Following discussion at the May 9, 2017 council meeting about “accessory dwellings” or “granny units” to address the issue of affordable housing, Jon Biggs, Community Development Director, led further discussion in a study session with city council members at this meeting about “accessory structure” standards. The objective was to decide whether current standards are adequate to turn existing structures into dwelling units. Adjustments to standards may be needed to minimize potential impact on adjoining properties.

Currently, accessory structures over 6 feet high must be 2.5 feet from the nearest property line and no more than 800 square feet. Accessory structures may be up to 12 feet high, but actual plans for construction of these structures is not clear. Revisions in 2008 defined a rear setback for different structure heights from 2.5 to 7.5 feet.

To make the standards clearer, the staff recommends clearance to be 5 feet to the main building structure and 5 feet from the property line. The city council may recommend other amendments to the standards so as not to impact neighbors. For instance, standards might be made for height, building size, and placement of windows and door openings. Also, noise, privacy, and aesthetics were discussed and they might be considered as part of the standards. Direction was given to staff to draft new standards especially for setbacks.

—Claire Noonan, Observer

Mountain View – Los Altos High School District (MVLA) July 2017

June 12 and 19, 2017

The board passed a budget for 2017-18 after holding a public hearing on June 12 which garnered no public comments.  The budget assumes a secured property tax growth of 8% and a donation from the MVLA Foundation of $1.7M.  It includes 4 additional full-time teachers to accommodate the expected increased enrollment. This budget also includes the rise in STRS/PERS (the teachers and public employees retirement systems) contribution rates from 14.43/15.8% in  2017-18 to 18.1/20.8% in 2019-20, as the state requires the districts to pay a larger share of the pension costs.  The district budget for Career Technical Education increases as county funding of Regional Occupation Program, ROP, continues to ramp down.  The state continues to supply an Adult Education Block Grant of $1.3M.

Superintendent Jeff Harding and Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph of the Mountain View Whisman School District presented a report on the impact of the Mountain View North Bayshore Precise Plan on the two school districts.  According to demographic analysis, the 10,000 units of housing planned for the North Bayshore will produce 1100 K-12 students.  Adding in all of the housing projects currently in the pipeline, there will be 5800 additional students by 2023-24, needing 235 classrooms, estimated to cost $440 million, not including the cost of land.  The elementary district would need 3 new elementary schools and 1 new middle school, and the high school district would need a new high school.  The superintendents are planning to make this presentation to the Mountain View City Council.

Bill Pierce reviewed the Alta Vista Opportunity Program, a small program for credit-deficient students with behavior problems.  At the end of the 2015-16 school year the district discontinued its partnership with the county Office of Education to operate the program itself.  Last year’s program was run out of the Adult School, but it turned out that it was too far away from the resources needed by the students so the program will be moved near the District office for next year.  The other discovery from last year was that the range of student capabilities and ages was too broad, so next year the program will serve only 9th and 10th graders without severe special education needs.

The board approved the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) report after a public hearing on 6/12/17 which had no public comments.  The LCAP is a tool for local educational agencies to set goals, plan actions, and leverage resources to meet those goals to improve student outcomes. The report is available on the district website.