Official source link unavailable.
The file was imported, but the current source metadata does not include a public document URL.
Generated summaryAI-assisted
The memorandum from Councilmembers Ortiz, Cohen, Mulcahy, and Casey addresses the exploration of a scaled development fee framework and deferred development impact fees. It recommends that the City Manager evaluate options for a fee framework that aligns with project characteristics and develop programs for deferred fee payments at the Certificate of Occupancy stage. The memorandum also suggests aligning the city's funding availability cycle with the State's Business Cycle to improve project feasibility and support housing production.
Key points
The memorandum is directed to the Rules and Open Government Committee.
It recommends evaluating a scaled development fee framework based on project characteristics.
It suggests developing deferred fee payment programs for certain project-related fees.
It proposes aligning the city's Notice of Funding Availability cycle with the State's Business Cycle.
The memorandum emphasizes the need to address housing affordability and economic competitiveness.
Limitations
The document contains unresolved placeholders such as specific dates and approval details.
The source text indicates a date of January 15th, 2026, but does not clarify if this is a draft or final version.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 2,767 chars
RULES COMMITTEE: ITEM: TO: RULES AND OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE 2/11/26 C.1 FROM: Councilmember Ortiz Councilmember Cohen Councilmember Mulcahy Councilmember Casey SUBJECT: SEE BELOW DATE: January 15th, 2026 Approved: Date 1/15/2026 SUBJECT: Exploration of a Scaled Development Fee Framework and Deferred Development Impact Fees RECOMMENDATION Direct the City Manager to: 1. Evaluate and return to Council with options for a scaled development fee framework that aligns development fees with project characteristics such as size, affordability, public benefit, and location; and 2. Develop a deferred Development Impact Fee (DIF), Public Works Offsite Fee, and other eligible project-related fee payment programs that allow projects to remit these fees at Certificate of Occupancy instead of at earlier entitlement or permitting stages. 3. Explore aligning the cities' Notice of Funding Availability cycle with the State's Business Cycle including but not limited to providing preliminary letters of commitment at time of application for funding that are subject to final Council approval. BACKGROUND San José continues to face challenges related to housing affordability, economic competitiveness,...
Official source link unavailable.
The file was imported, but the current source metadata does not include a public document URL.
Generated summaryAI-assisted
The document titled 'Workload Analysis' discusses the Scaled Development Fee Framework and related recommendations for the City Council. It includes staff evaluations regarding project complexity, resource requirements, and the rationale for advancing the proposal through various workstreams. The analysis outlines the development of a standardized approach to City impact fees and construction tax estimates, as well as the implementation of fee payment timing and alignment with State funding cycles.
Key points
The document addresses the Scaled Development Fee Framework.
Staff recommends advancing the proposal through three workstreams: Development Fee Framework, fee payment timing, and aligning Notice of Funding Availability with State cycles.
The total project complexity score is 8, indicating medium complexity.
The estimated duration for the project is 6 to 9 months.
The document mentions the need for additional internal review and revisions of the Council Policy.
Senate Bill 937 allows deferral of certain local development fees until issuance of occupancy certificates.
Limitations
The document contains placeholders and unresolved sections, such as specific dates and details regarding the Councilmember sponsorship.
Some sections of the text appear to be incomplete or fragmented.
Generated for convenience from extracted text using AI. Review the official source document before relying on this summary.
Extracted text preview · 6,400 chars
ZĞƋƵĞƐƚĨŽƌWŽůŝĐLJŶĂůLJƐŝƐ;ŽƵŶĐŝůZĞĨĞƌƌĂůƐͿ Department Rep. Name/Ext. PBCE Chris Burton Policy/Ordinance Subject Scaled Development Fee Framework and Department Rules Date February 11, 2026 Item C.1 Councilmember Sponsorship Ortiz, Cohen, Mulcahy, Casey Deferred Development Impact Fees Staff Recommendation ܆GREEN Adopt based on tradeoffs ܆YELLOW efer to ĂůĂƚĞƌĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚ ܆RED ✔ ĚĂƚĞŽƌƚŚĞĂŶŶƵĂůƵĚŐĞƚWƌŽĐĞƐƐ outlined on next page Recommend Council not adopt nominated idea Staff Evaluation Is this already underway in a department work plan? Is this time critical or an emergency? ✔ ܆Yes ܆No Will this require substantial resources, staffing, budget, strategic support͕ŽƌƌĞƉƌŝŽƌŝƚŝnjŝŶŐĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐǁŽƌŬƉůĂŶ? ✔ No ܆ ܆Yes ܆NEEDS CLARIFICATION OR MORE TIME TO EVALUATE ܆No ✔ ܆Yes Scoring Criterion Criterion to Determine Scale of Project Complexity Project complexity is determined by scoring the project in each of the 3 criterions below and then summing the score. a. Low Complexity is a sum of 6 or less. b. Medium Complexity is a sum of 7 – 9. Total Score = 8 c. High Complexity is a sum of 10 or greater. Low Complexity Medium Complexity High Complexity...