Approving financing plan & design-build construction for $281M new jail
On August 11, 2015, the Board of Supervisors considered the Administration’s proposal to construct a new jail facility, including housing, programming, treatment, and the financing necessary to complete this complex project. On December 17, 2015, the County received a letter from the BSCC notifying us that the County had been conditionally awarded $80 million in state lease revenue bond financing to build the requested facility.
In response to a request from the Board, County staff has conducted several community meetings regarding the new facility. Based on community input, County staff has been working to some add in-person non-contact visitation and additional special management beds to the new facility.
Possible action:
- Adopt Resolution authorizing the application for Senate Bill (SB) 863 Jail Construction Financing.
- Approve delegation of authority to Chief Operating Officer….
- Approve modifications to the County’s proposal to allow for six additional months for construction, increased special management step-down beds, medical and dental space, visitation space, and change in construction method to design build.
- Approve plan to finance the County’s New Jail Facility and accept award of $80 million from the State SB 863 Jail Construction Financing.
Where: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
When: Feb. 23, 2016, 9 am
Link to item: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=7186&MediaPosition=&ID=79813&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=7186
Board direction on county-wide policy for Project Labor Agreements / Community Workforce Agreements
The Finance and Government Operations Committee considered this item on January 22, 2016 and directed that the item be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with no recommendation and for discussion only.
Where: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
When: Feb. 23, 2016, 9 am
Link to item: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=7186&MediaPosition=&ID=80059&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=7186
Adopting revised mobilehome park preservation policy & ordinance
Original Item: As recommended by the Planning Commission, Council may adopt a resolution to amend Title 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code to make City Council the decision making body for consideration of all proposed mobilehome park conversions to another use after the Planning Commission considers these proposals for recommendations to Council, and add provisions for making findings of consistency with the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan for Conditional Use Permits.
The General Plan Text Amendment relating to Mobilehome Park Protection strengthens the goals and policies to protect existing mobilehome parks and adding General Plan goals, policies, and actions to preserve mobilehome parks and other housing in each Urban Village until the preservation of affordable housing can be comprehensively addressed by the adoption of an Urban Village Plan specific to that Urban Village.
Council may also adopt a resolution for a new City Council Policy to provide guidance for consideration of mobilehome park conversions to other uses. The Policy is intended to facilitate implementation of the requirements in the SJMC including:
- Clarifying that the intent of Council direction is to encourage the preservation of mobilehomes
- Providing guidelines for good faith negotiations between mobilehome park residents and mobilehome park owners
- Providing guidelines regarding a satisfactory program of relocation and purchase assistance, including but not limited to compensation to residents, purchase price for the existing mobilehomes, relocation impact reports, and relocation benefits
- Providing guidelines and clarification regarding the implementation and interpretation of the existing mobilehome park conversion ordinance in the Zoning Code
Where: San Jose City Council
When: Feb. 23, 2016, 1:00p
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557332
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557437
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557439
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557408
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557335
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557337
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557344
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557346
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557348
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557412
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557357
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557410
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557441
Link to Supplemental Memo 1: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557780
Link to Supplemental Memo 2: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2124&meta_id=557903
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=870261f1-b8f9-4491-8f25-ed3b0ef12f35
Adopting modified version of new State req. to prioritize affordable housing in sale of surplus public lands
The Surplus Property item that was deferred on Feb. 2, 2016 will be brought back to Council for consideration.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: March 1, 2016, 1:30p
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2125&meta_id=558343
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2125&meta_id=558345
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2125&meta_id=558369
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=cc5bfe4f-0caf-4f27-b6db-4926dd99ea4e
Rocha referral for fiscal impact analysis of changing jobs/employed residents ratio in General Plan Review
Memo from Council Member Rocha recommends commissioning an analysis that estimates the net fiscal impact of several job and housing growth scenarios as part of the General Plan Review. The intent of the analysis would be to provide context as to the fiscal benefit that the City could expect to derive from an increased ratio of jobs to employed residents. CM Rocha calls for staff to consider analyzing the following scenarios:
- The job and housing growth included in the 2040 General Plan as it currently stands, which would result in a 1.3 jobs/employed residents ratio
- The growth scenario recommended by staff at the January 28, 2016 General Plan Task Force Meeting, which would result in a 1.1 jobs/employed residents ratio
- The Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 growth scenarios included in the September 2015 demographic projection conducted by the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy as part of the General Plan Major Review. Alternative 2 would result in a 0.86 jobs/employed residents ratio, and Alternative 3 would result in a 0.9 ratio
Where: San Jose Rules Committee
When: Feb. 24, 2016, 2:00p
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=558609
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=558607
Link to agenda: http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/54186
Decreasing prevailing wage enforcement for late payroll submissions on housing projects to $250/day retroactive to Jan. 1 2013
Council will adopt a resolution amending the current prevailing wage enforcement mechanism for late submission of certified payroll records on the City’s Housing projects to assess liquidated damages in the amount of $250 per day provided that the liquidated damages assessed do not exceed the total contract amount of the developer’s, general contractor’s, or subcontractor’s contract who failed to submit timely certified payroll records, and provided further that there was no actual wage violation discovered in the late records and the late records were submitted to the City within one year from when they were due.
This amendment would impact all Housing project contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, and would refund, subject to the appropriation of funds, the difference in the amount of liquidated damages between the prior enforcement mechanism without a cap and the amended enforcement mechanism with a cap for all of the City’s Housing project contracts entered into in the same timeframe where full payment of liquidated damages was made to the City within one year from when they were due.
Staff recommends this option because it would eliminate the presumption of unintentional oversight if wage violation is found, and the liquidated damage assessment would remain at $250 per day until the records are received, with no cap. Additionally, if the OEA finds a wage violation, liquidated damages in the amount of 3 times the difference between the actual amount of wages paid and the prevailing wage would still be assessed consistent with current policy.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: March 1, 2016, 1:30p
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2125&meta_id=558625
http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2125&meta_id=558367
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=cc5bfe4f-0caf-4f27-b6db-4926dd99ea4e
Developing RFP process for a San Jose-only Community Choice Aggregation program
Item recommended by the Transportation and Environment Committee on Feb. 1, 2016. Recommendation to develop an RFP for an entity to develop, finance, launch, and operate a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program in San Jose, with recommended agencies to be presented to Council in the fall of 2016.
There are currently three basic frameworks for how a local government can choose to form and operate a CCA:
- Establish a multi-jurisdictional joint powers authority
- Establish a single jurisdiction governance authority
- Contract with a private company to provide “turnkey” services for the start-up and administration of the CCA
The draft estimated start-up cost for the Silicon Valley CCA program is approx. $29M. Part of the overall costs of the CCA program would be to provide PG&E with an exit fee, which is meant to insure that costs do not shift to customers who remain with the utility when a CCA program is established by helping the existing utility pay for energy it contracted for when it had more customers.
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to issue an RFP for an entity to provide comprehensive CC development, launch, and operational services for San Jose with no upfront costs.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: March 1, 2016, 1:30p
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2125&meta_id=558354
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=cc5bfe4f-0caf-4f27-b6db-4926dd99ea4e
City of Santa Clara
City Council Seat 6 declared vacant; must appoint new Council Member or hold special election
On Feb. 17, City Council appointed Lisa Gillmor as Mayor of Santa Clara, which leaves a vacancy on the Council with a partial term ending Dec. 2016. The Council may, per the City Charter, fill the vacancy through one of three options:
- Appoint a new Councilmember at the Feb. 23 meeting, which allows the vacancy to be filled in the timeliness manner.
- Accept applications for candidates interested in the seat and hold interviews at the March 8 or 22 meetings or at a special meeting.
- If the Council has not made an appointment by March 24, it must call an election to fill the vacancy within a reasonable time thereafter; and the special election must be held on an established election date.
Where: Santa Clara City Council
When: Feb. 23, 2016, 7:00p
Link to item: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=743856
Link to agenda: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1728&doctype=AGENDA
City of Gilroy
Appointing a new City Administrator
Appointing a new City Administrator (Chief Executive for the City).
Where: Gilroy City Council
When: Feb 22, 2016, 6pm
Link to packet: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1649?fileID=2628
Link to agenda: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1646?fileID=2624
Joining Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority; contributing $150K & appointing a Director to Authority’s Board
Council will approve the formation of and the City of Gilroy’s membership in the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority and:
- Approve Ordinance to authorize the implementation of a Community Choice Aggregation program and find that the project is exempt from CEQA
- Adopt Resolution to approve the JPA Agreement establishing and authorizing participation in the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority and find that the project is exempt from CEQA
- Approve a Budget Amendment in the amount of $150,000 from the General Fund to support funding the initial costs of the Authority
- Authorize the City Administrator to execute all documents related to the formation and membership in the JPA and remit up $150,000 to the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority to support the initials costs of the Authority
- Appoint a regular Director (among the City Council) and an alternate Director (which need not be from among the City Council) to the Authority’s Board of Directors.
The Cities of Cupertino, Mountain View and the County of Santa Clara joined Sunnyvale in a partnership (Partnership) to assess and potentially form a multi-jurisdictional CCE program.
Where: Gilroy City Council
When: Feb 22, 2016, 6pm
Link to packet: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1649?fileID=2628
Link to agenda: http://www.cityofgilroy.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/1646?fileID=2624
Approving $5M loan and a joint application for AHSC Grant to fund 66-unit low-income housing development
Edwina Benner Plaza is a new development for low-income families proposed to be built on a parcel of 1.32 acres at 460 Persian Drive in Sunnyvale. MidPen Housing acquired the project site and the property is owned by MP Edwina Benner Associates L.P. The project’s 66 units would include 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units, all to be affordable to households with incomes between 30-60 AMI. The project would serve families and all-age households. The project is within a ¼ mile of a shopping center and the Fair Oaks VTA light rail station. In 2015, the City of Sunnyvale made a conditional commitment to provide a $5 million bridge loan to pay for the project’s land acquisition. The Housing Authority of Santa Clara County has also conditionally committed 33 project-based Section 8 vouchers to support households at risk of homelessness to rent units in the project. Construction is scheduled to begin in March 2017.
Council will be approving the $5M bridge loan and adopting a resolution to approve a joint application for Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Grant for the project.
Where: Sunnyvale City Council
When: Feb 23, 2016, 7pm
Link to item: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2573767&GUID=13E27DF3-3D24-44CA-9106-A323DAECDCB1
Link to agenda: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=372671&GUID=CD9D02FF-B203-4823-B71A-832B0FF06780
City of Mountain View
Considering a North Bayshore Development Impact Fee based on three fee scenarios
Council will consider adopting a North Bayshore Development Impact Fee. The North Bayshore Precise Plan EIR analyzed the potential impacts of approximately 3.4 million square feet of net new development. To accommodate this growth, the North Bayshore Precise Plan identified approximately $225 million in necessary improvement (about $194M for transportation and $31M for water and sewer utility improvements). The Precise Plan includes a Funding Strategy which includes completion of a nexus study to support a new development impact fee to help fund these improvements.
Council will consider the following questions:
- Does Council support the Baseline Scenario which assess a transportation impact fee across all North Bayshore commercial land uses, Alternative #1 which does not assess a transportation impact fee to retail and hotel uses, or Alternative #2 which assess a 50% transportation impact fee from the Baseline Scenario?
- What North Bayshore development impact fee amount does Council support?
- Does Council support funding the remaining cost of North Bayshore infrastructure improvements with Shoreline Community funds, possibly by issuing bonds?
If adopted, the impact fee would go into effect April 23, 2016.
Where: Mountain View City Council
When: Feb 23, 2016, 6:30pm
Link to item: https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2574155&GUID=1C03D453-0014-4EBC-8CCE-65D4EC2A6C6F
Link to agenda: https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=452501&GUID=04EBB615-5651-43F0-85CE-02C4534744D4
El Camino BRT Advisory Board recommends restricted mixed-use “Right Lane” instead of dedicated lanes for BRT
In their role as an advisory body to the Board of Directors, the El Camino Real Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board (PAB) has made the following recommendations to the Board of Directors:
1) Begin environmental analysis of a new Right Lane street configuration that would designate the right through-lane on each side of El Camino Real as a restricted use lane where transit, high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs), right-turning single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs) and electric and hybrid vehicles with valid carpool stickers are allowed. HOVs are vehicles consisting of two or more passengers.
2) Implement a pilot project of the Right Lane street configuration that consists of pavement markings or paint, signage and enforcement, but no station improvements. The PAB indicated a preference that all cities along the corridor would participate, but that the pilot project would not be dependent upon 100 percent participation. Cities will be asked to take a council action on whether to participate prior to implementation. The pilot project is intended to provide real-life data for a decision about whether to enter environmental analysis.
Where: El Camino Real Rapid Transit Policy Advisory Board
When: Feb. 24, 2016, 3 pm, VTA Conference Room B-104, 3331 North First Street, San Jose
Link to agenda packet: http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/ecrrt_022416_packet.pdf
Franklin McKinley School District
Putting $67M school bond on June ballot
The Resolution before the Board calls an election within the District for the purpose of approving school bonds, to request the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters to conduct the elections on behalf of the District, and to authorize the preparation of election materials, including ballot arguments and tax rate statement, to be included in the ballot pamphlet.
The District is seeking voter approval to issue $67,400,000 in bonds to construct classrooms, provide student access to modern technology, replace leaky roofs, old portable classrooms, outdated electrical/plumbing systems, improve disability access, and acquire, construction, repair classrooms, sites & facilities/equipment.
Where: Franklin McKinley School District Board of Trustees
When: Feb. 23, 2016, 7:00p
Link to item: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/fmsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=A6ZRVR6EE7C6
Link to agenda: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/fmsd/Board.nsf/vpublic?open#
Public Hearing on Rocketship Mosaic Charter School renewal petition
This is a public hearing regarding the renewal of Rocketship Mosaic Elementary School, an independent charter school that has served the Franklin-McKinley School District (FMSD) community since August 2011. Rocketship Mosaic serves FMSD students in Grades K-5. The purpose of the public hearing is to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed Rocketship Mosaic Elementary School charter petition renewal, and for the Board of Education to reflect on any comments, concerns, or questions that are voiced during the public hearing. The Rocketship Mosaic charter petition has been reviewed by FMSD personnel for compliance, content, and completeness of the proposed charter petition.
Where: Franklin McKinley School District Board of Trustees
When: Feb. 23, 2016, 7:00p
Link to item: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/fmsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=A6ZQBJ680E9B
Link to agenda: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/fmsd/Board.nsf/vpublic?open#
Santa Clara Unified School District
Poll results re: potential parcel tax
Timothy McLarney of True North Research Inc. and Tom Clifford of Clifford Moss will present information to the Board concerning the results of the recent voter survey, concerning a potential Parcel Tax extension and related information.
Where: Santa Clara Unified School District Board of Trustees
When: Feb. 25, 2016, 5:30p
Link to item: N/A
Link to agenda: https://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting.aspx?AgencyID=209&MeetingID=26916&AgencyTypeID=1&IsArchived=False
Resolution to create Board policies to address Wage Theft
Santa Clara County has adopted a policy that requires businesses with unsatisfied wage theft judgments to disclose these judgments when they bid on contracts throughout the term of the contract that gives the County the authority to revoke contracts if the judgments are not satisfied.
Attached is Resolution #16-20, which will direct staff to develop revised Board policies and Administrative Regulations to address the issue of wage theft. After Board approval of any revised Board policies, staff can work with legal counsel to develop language and protocols to be included in all District construction contracts requiring potential contractors to disclose any wage theft judgements issued against them and to provide documentation that the wage left judgement has been satisfied.
Requested Motion: Staff recommends approval of Board Resolution #16-20.
Where: Santa Clara Unified School District Board of Trustees
When: Feb. 25, 2016, 5:30p
Link to item: https://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=306778&IsArchive=0
Link to agenda: https://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting.aspx?AgencyID=209&MeetingID=26916&AgencyTypeID=1&IsArchived=False
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments