Approving an additional $1.9 M for outside staffing in Planning Dept. plus 5 one-year options
In February 2012, the City Council approved hiring private contractors to address
temporary or “peak staffing” requirements in City departments including building inspection, plan review, planning services, and fire inspection services. A total of $5 million has been approved to outside staffing. However, as of July 2016, the aggregate expenditure for staffing services stood at $4.7 million. Additionally, the Code Enforcement Division anticipates a new requirement for code enforcement inspection services by December 2016.
They are therefore requesting an additional $1.9 million for outside staffing though July 31, 2017 as well as the authority to extend the Agreements for up to five additional one-year options through July 31, 2022.
Significant peak staffing resources were used in 2015-2016 in part because of a 12.4% vacancy rate based on 25 vacancies out of 201 authorized Development Services positions in PBCE.
Recommended actions: Negotiate and execute amendments to the Master Agreements with the following vendors to provide temporary staffing to perform building inspection, plan review, and related services, to increase maximum compensation by $1,900,000 for a revised not to exceed maximum compensation amount of $6,900,000, for the term ending July 31, 2017 for each agreement:
4Leaf, Inc.
Bureau Veritas North America Inc.
California Code Check Inc.
CSG Consultants Inc.
Interwest Consulting Group Inc.
Metropolitan Planning Group
Pacific Municipal Consultants
Shums Coda Associates
TRB and Associates Inc.
West Coast Code Consultants Willdan Engineering
Amendments to add up to five additional one-year options to extend the term through July 31, 2022, subject to appropriation of funds; and to make minor modifications to the scope of services and compensation schedule for each agreement as required, subject to the appropriation of funds.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: September 27, 2016, 1:30PM
Link to memo: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2155&meta_id=592535
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=8a7b6bab-83ea-4b0a-98a2-69389d5f2114
Selling naming rights for Sharks Ice to Dean Peterson Roofing; remaining the center “Solar4America Ice”
Approving the sale by Sharks Ice of the naming rights of the Ice Centre of San Jose to sponsor, Petersen Dean Roofing & Solar for a term of five years; Consenting to the official renaming of the Ice Centre from “Sharks Ice at San Jose” to “Solar4America Ice at San Jose” and to the use of the shorter version of the name “Solar4America Ice” when use of the full official name is not reasonably practical; and approve exterior signage to portray new name and logo.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: September 27, 2016, 1:30PM
Link to memo: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2155&meta_id=592470
Link to reso: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2155&meta_id=592443
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=8a7b6bab-83ea-4b0a-98a2-69389d5f2114
Approving tax break for 1M-square-foot Trammell Crow development
Approve an ordinance suspending the collection of the Building and Structure Construction Tax and the Commercial Residential Mobile Home Park Construction Tax/Excise Tax for the first commercial, non-hotel, high rise development project that secures its first building permit prior to March 31, 2017; and adopt a resolution to negotiate and execute a Project Completion Agreement with Trammell Crow Company in which the City will suspend the collection of the Construction Excise Tax for the construction of 1 million square feet of office/retail development in Downtown San José subject to Trammell Crow Company being eligible for the tax suspension.
Memo not yet published.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: September 27, 2016, 1:30PM
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=8a7b6bab-83ea-4b0a-98a2-69389d5f2114
Extending Interim Apartment Rent Ordinance and modifications to landlord petition process
The Council will consider extending the termination date of the Interim ARO Ordinance to the earlier of June 30, 2017 or sixty days after the effective date of Modified Apartment Rent Ordinance. The Housing Department has requested additional outreach and input opportunities as the City moves forward with this process. In addition, the lead staff person managing the Modified Apartment Rent Ordinance process recently separated from the City. This has caused a delay in key tasks such as executing the agreement with the consultant assisting with the implementation.
The Council will also consider amending and restating Chapter 9 of the regulations for the operation and administration of the San Jose Rental Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Ordinance, Chapter
17.23 of Title 17 of the Apartment Rent Ordinance and superseding Resolution No.77922. These modifications provide greater clarity regarding noticing, supporting documents and reasonable expenses and add an opportunity for a tenant to respond to a fair return petition. They have also been updated to include a provision regarding translation and reasonable accommodation for speaker presentations, and modify requirements regarding originals and withdrawn petitions.
Background: At the May 10, 2016 City Council meeting, the Interim Apartment Rent Ordinance (Interim Ordinance) was adopted. The Interim Ordinance became effective on June 17, 2016, and will be in effect until January 1, 2017 or 60 days after the permanent ordinance is in place, whichever is earlier. The Interim Ordinance adopted by City Council reduced the annual allowable rent increase on tenants from 8% to 5%, eliminated rent increases available through the pass-through provisions (including debt-service, capital improvement, rehabilitation, and operations & maintenance) after September 1, 2016, and implemented a fair return petition process.
The new Chapter 9 — Fair Return Procedures will be added by amendment to the Regulations. The amendment to the regulations will provide direction to allow the Hearing Officers to conduct fair return petition hearings called for under the Interim Ordinance. The fair return petition process is the mechanism that provides owners the opportunity to show the City that they are not receiving a fair return and should be entitled to additional rent increases.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: September 27, 2016, 1:30PM
Link to memo: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2155&meta_id=592533
Link to ordinance P(a): http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2155&meta_id=592290
Link to reso P(b): http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2155&meta_id=592292
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=8a7b6bab-83ea-4b0a-98a2-69389d5f2114
Appointing Council Members Khamis & Tam Nguyen to ABAG Executive Board
Appoint Councilmember Tam Nguyen and Councilmember Johnny Khamis to the Association of Bay Area Governments Executive Board.
ABAG provides planning and research resources related to land use, housing, environmental and water resource protection, disaster resilience, energy efficiency and hazardous waste mitigation, risk management, financial services and staff training to local cities, and towns
Where: San Jose Rules Committee
When: Sept 21, 2016, 2 pm
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=592582
Link to agenda: http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/60789
Taking a position on Measure A
Adopt a position of support for County Measure A.
Where: San Jose Rules Committee
When: Sept 21, 2016, 2 pm
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=592589
Link to agenda: http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/60789
Supporting Muwekma Ohlone’s pursuit of federal tribal recognition, and the Standing Rock Sioux’s efforts to stop the Dakota Pipeline
(a) Adopt a resolution supporting the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe in their ongoing pursuit of status as a Federally Recognized Tribe and direct staff to provide support to our state legislators as they pursue the process to federally recognize the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.
(b) Adopt a resolution supporting the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in their ongoing fight to protect their treaty-ensured rights and environmental landscape.
(c) Direct the City Manager to draft and execute a letter transmitting the resolutions to the appropriate parties.
(d) Place the item on the October 4, 2016 Council Agenda for action.
Where: San Jose Rules Committee
When: Sept 21, 2016, 2 pm
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=592591
Link to agenda: http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/60789
City of Palo Alto
Increasing city Minimum Wage to reach $15 by 2019
The Council will consider amending the City’s Minimum Wage ordinance to align with the Cities Association recommendation to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour in three steps: $12 on 1/1/2017; $13.50 on 1/1/2018, $15 on 1/1/2019, and a CPI increase after 2019 indexed to the Bay Area CPI with a 5 percent cap and no exemptions.
Note: Some businesses have recommended an exemption for wait staff in restaurants. The City Attorney noted that California is one of just a few states prohibiting tip credits. Whether this State law applies only to the state minimum wage or also to a local minimum wage has not been decided in court.
Where: Palo Alto City Council – Special Meeting
When: September 26, 2016, 5:30PM, Council Chambers
Link to item: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53862
Link to agenda: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53880
City of Santa Clara
Special closed session meeting re labor negotiations
The Council will hold a special meeting Monday night to confer with labor negotiators.
Employee Organization(s): Unit #1 – Santa Clara Firefighters Association, IAFF, Local 1171; Unit #2 – Santa Clara Police Officer’s Association; Unit #3 – IBEW Local 1245 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers); Unit #4 – City of Santa Clara Professional Engineers; Units #5, 7 & 8 – City of Santa Clara Employees Association; Unit #6 – AFSCME Local 101 (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees); Unit #9 – Miscellaneous Unclassified Management Employees; Unit #9A – Unclassified Police Management Employees; Unit #9B – Unclassified Fire Management Employees; Unit #10 – PSNSEA (Public Safety Non-Sworn Employees Association).
Where: Santa Clara City Council
When: Sept 19, 2016, 5 pm
Link to item: n/a
Link to agenda: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1845&doctype=AGENDA
City of Milpitas
Awarding Solid Waste Collection franchise to either Republic or Garden City
The City’s contract for solid waste collection expires in September 2017. The City conducted a two part procurement process, separating disposal and collection contact award. In response to the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP), two companies submitted disposal proposals (Green Waste Recovery and Waste Management, Inc.) and six companies submitted solid waste collection and materials processing proposals (California Waste Solutions, Garden City Sanitation, Green Team, Green Waste Recovery, Republic Services, and Waste Management, Inc.). The Council in March 2016 awarded Waste Management, Inc. the disposal contract.
The City Manager provided oversight of, and participated in the negotiations. As the negotiations with the proposers progressed, it became clear that it was not possible to negotiate viable franchise agreements with Green Team and Green Waste Recovery. The two remaining companies are Republic and Garden City. At the time of posting, staff are still awaiting responses from Garden City on several contract language and cost issues that may impact staff’s recommendations.
In general, the rates proposed by Republic represent a 7.2% REDUCTION in rates, relative to the current rates, while Garden City’s proposal represents a 7.2% INCREASE in rates. Among the drivers of the cost and rate differences between the companies are their material handling costs and desired profit levels. The staff report provides more detail about the two proposals.
The benefits of the Garden City proposal include: participation in a publicly-owned, highly transparent, facility (the SMaRT Station); direct attention to the Milpitas contract by company ownership, likely resulting in higher service quality; and no longer delivering any materials to Newby Island.
City staff remain concerned about entering in to a new long-term agreement with Republic, given the history of legal conflict between the parties. If City Council awards the franchise agreement to Republic, City staff intend to work closely with Republic during the transition to improve the relationship and will significantly increase oversight and management of the agreement and relationship. The new franchise agreement provides a number of contract management tools that the City did not previously have.
The current staff recommendation is for the Council to select one of the two proposals; if additional info is received before the meeting, staff may present a revised recommendation. Council may either:
- Adopt a Resolution to approve and authorize the City Manager to award and execute the solid waste collection franchise agreement with Republic Services, subject to final review and incorporation of non-substantive changes by the City Manager and City Attorney;
- OR, direct staff to return on October 6, 2016 with a franchise agreement with Garden City Sanitation.
The City’s current contract expires September 5, 2017. Award of an agreement is necessary to ensure continuity of service.
The draft agreement with Republic includes the following personnel provisions:
- Hiring Displaced Employees. Contractor shall make best efforts to offer employment to qualified employees of the prior contractor for the performance of this Agreement. Such efforts shall not be required in regard to employees who are (1) exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, (2) employed by the prior contractor for less than six months, or (3) convicted of a job related or workplace crime. Contractor shall not be obligated to offer employment to more prior contractor’s employees than the Contractor needs to perform the services required under the Agreement and the Contractor shall not be obligated to offer employment to prior contractor’s employees that are not working prior to the Commencement Date due to a leave of absence related to disability or workers’ compensation claim. Additionally, the Contractor shall not be obligated to displace any of its current employees or modify its current job performance requirements or employee selection standards. Additional employees, if needed, shall be obtained pursuant to procedures currently in effect under the collective bargaining agreement with the prior contractor. This requirement, however, shall not be applicable to management or supervisory personnel. Upon request by the City, the Contractor shall demonstrate to the City that good faith efforts that have been made to comply with this provision.
- Wage and Benefits. Wages and benefits applicable to employees performing work under the Agreement shall be commensurate with current compensation or in accordance with existing agreements with represented labor groups.
- Labor Agreements. Labor agreements for drivers and mechanics shall be included as Exhibit K and future modification shall be submitted to the City. The Contractor shall provide full copies of the labor agreements including any and all amendments, extensions, renewals, or other forms of modification.
Where: Milpitas City Council
When: Sept. 20, 2016, 7pm
Link to item: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2016/092016/Item_12.pdf
Link to agenda: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2016/092016/agenda.pdf
Council considers minimum wage ordinance for $15 by 2019
Staff recommends Council consider the model ordinance recommended by the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, which gradually increases the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour by 2019. Considerable outreach was also done in Cupertino to solicit community and business input. Opinions differ significantly on this issue. There is no community-wide consensus in Cupertino on an approach or the impacts of raising the minimum wage.
No exemptions, other than for collective bargaining agreements, are recommended in the Cities Association model ordinance. However, there are a number of alternative approaches to this issue that Council could consider based on feedback from our business community:
- Learner Exemptions: Learners (regardless of age) may be paid not less than 85% of the minimum wage rounded to the nearest nickel during their first 160 hours of employment in occupations in which they have no previous similar or related experience. This exemption is included in the state’s minimum wage law.
- Exemption for employees receiving discretionary tips. These employees would be paid at the state minimum wage.
Cupertino businesses offered suggestions for Council to consider if moving forward with a minimum wage increase:
- Exemption for new and temporary seasonal employees, targeting summer jobs for teens.
- Exclude tipped employees from the ordinance, as many tipped employees may already make substantially more than the minimum wage rate.
- Look into policies to provide small businesses with relief for increasing commercial rents.
If enacted, the City of Cupertino will need to implement mechanisms to enforce its minimum wage ordinance. Several cities with existing minimum wage ordinances in Santa Clara County have contracted with the City of San Jose for enforcement services through a complaint-driven model. The City of San Jose is open to entering into similar agreements with other cities in the region. Staff recommends exploring this option.
Where: Cupertino City Council
When: September 20, 2016, 6:45pm, 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Link to item: https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2835908&GUID=0DA90F5B-F492-479B-814E-0B23B9A83E96&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://cupertino.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
Moratorium on payday lending and check cashing within city limits
Staff recommends Council adopt an interim urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the establishment, expansion, or relocation of payday lending and check cashing businesses within the City of Cupertino pending completion of an update to the City’s Zoning Code.
Background: The State currently regulates maximum loan amounts, fees, and other aspects of how payday lenders operate. However, local jurisdictions can legally enact local policies to restrict payday loan businesses from operating in their communities.
In March, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley wrote a letter requesting that the City consider an ordinance to prevent the proliferation of payday lenders in Cupertino. No payday lenders currently operate in the City.
Locally, the cities of San José, Sunnyvale, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Campbell, and Los Altos, as well as the County of Santa Clara, have already adopted regulations concerning payday lenders. Cupertino’s Zoning Code does not currently define or regulate payday loan businesses separately from other uses. Based on the City’s Zoning Code, payday loan and check cashing businesses are allowed. In fact, one such payday lender operated a store in the City from 2005- 2009.
Where: Cupertino City Council
When: September 20, 2016, 6:45pm, 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Link to item: https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2836491&GUID=D6416110-9DE0-4439-82D1-FB2909C3E39F&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://cupertino.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
City of Sunnyvale
Approve 446-acre Peery Park Specific Plan, fees, and community benefits; direct staff to analyze adding more housing to the plan
Council will consider adopting the PEERY PARK SPECIFIC PLAN and related actions, including certifying the EIR, amending the General Plan, and rezoning the parcels in the Plan Area.
Council will also consider: establishing fees for Peery Park; prioritizing the flexible community benefits; appropriating $100,000 of City Funds to provide a portion of the local match for the Peery Park Rides Grant Program; and directing staff to analyze whether additional housing should be added to the Specific Plan, and return to Planning Commission and City Council.
Peery Park is an approximately 446 net acre area is made up of over 180 properties, consisting of over 77% industrial uses, 12% commercial and less than 1% residential. Peery Park was primarily developed by Peery-Arrillaga and later portions were redeveloped by the Irvine Company and others. It is one of the older industrial areas of the City and although some of the properties in the area have been redeveloped, many are still in their original state.
The Peery Park Specific Plan area is a 446-acre area made up of over 180 properties, 77 percent of which are industrial, 12 percent retail and 1 percent residential. Peery Park was primarily developed by Peery-Arrillaga and later portions were redeveloped by the Irvine Company and others. It is one of the older industrial areas of the City and although some of the properties in the area have been redeveloped, many are still in their original state. Offices for Apple Inc., LinkedIn, Hewlett-Packard, Synopsys and MC Software are in the area.
The specific plan will provide the city and the public with a guide for the future development of the area, including the general vision and details on the types of uses and public improvements and infrastructure needed to support the area. Given Peery Park’s favorable location for high-tech and other emerging companies and excellent access via two freeways and Central Expressway, the Specific Plan process has focused on increasing capacity for more Class ‘A’ offices while also addressing the continued need for Class ‘B’ and ‘C’ space. The project began October 2013.
Where: Sunnyvale City Council
When: September 20, 2016, 7:00PM, Council Chambers
Link to item: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2837914&GUID=E05039D8-D49E-42C2-AEF6-10FA1B945F44&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=24675&GUID=92003858-11AA-4C13-A98E-15FFEAD40EC0&Mode=MainBody
Position of support for Measures A & B
Recommendation to adopt a policy position of support on Measure A (County affordable housing bond) and B (VTA transportation tax).
Where: Mountain View City Council
When: Sept. 20, 2016, 5p
Link to item: https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2838307&GUID=AE9A1255-A7F1-43F6-BC4E-
Link to agenda: https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=452518&GUID=89FAAF77-970F-4058-BA46-50C43D71D395
West Valley Mission Community College District
Irvine company proposal for an affordable housing complex on Mission College campus
Discussion of the Irvine company proposal, including other potential options, to build an affordable housing complex on the Mission College campus available for employees of the West Valley Mission Community College District. Discussion may include direction to administration.
Where: West Valley Mission Community College Board of Trustees
When: Sept. 20 at 6:00pm at Mission College
Link to agenda packet: http://www.wvmccd.cc.ca.us/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8777
Santa Clara County Board of Education
Charter petition for Countywide Options for Youth (OFY) – staff recommend denial
On June 24, 2016 the Charter Schools Office (CSO) of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) received a petition for an SCCOE authorized independent, countywide charter school from the Options For Youth (OFY) – Santa Clara charter team. OFY is seeking approval to establish and operate a public charter high school for county-wide benefit serving students in ages 13-22 for a proposed charter term of five years beginning in July 2017.
Based upon staff’s review of the petition and findings of fact, it is recommended that the petition be denied.
While staff found that the petition provided a relatively comprehensive description of the required educational elements (with missing details or specificity) there were significant inconsistencies and questions regarding other required elements including, but not limited to, the location selection, its revenues and expenditures, and its governance structure through its relationship with Options For Youth, Inc. and Pathway Management Group, Inc. Some of the key elements and issues are summarized below with greater detail in the Staff Analysis and Proposed Findings of Fact dated September 21, 2016.
OFY describes a target population that may demonstrate significant academic gaps and lack of academic success. The petition describes significant support staff but fails to include them in the budget.
The petition describes an initial site located in Gilroy which will serve students spread across Santa Clara County; however, Gilroy is located at the southern-most region of the county. This location will provide a hardship on any students wishing to attend the program from other communities. Based on the choice of location students may be better served by a district rather than countywide charter.
Additionally, the statements in the petition regarding OFY’s plan to open additional resource centers at is will raise concerns about compliance with the geographic limitations applicable to charter schools and the potential exposure to litigation on this issue.
The petition provides what appears to be a fiscally viable program based on the other OFY programs throughout the state. However through further analysis questions arose as to how ADA is calculated when no delineation or provisions are made for students served whose age will not generate ADA and the substantial overstatement of expenditures throughout the budget in the areas of management, books and supplies, student activities, consulting, and administration. Further questions arose as to the proposed teacher student ratio of 1:50 enrolled students when the ADA is projected on 1:24.
The petition provides that the school would be governed by OFY‐Santa Clara, Inc. but Options For Youth‐California, Inc. is the sole member of the former corporation, and as such, exercises effectively complete control over both the corporation and the school. Additionally, another related corporation, Pathways Management Group, serves as OFY’s management corporation. The specifics of the relationships between the entities and their officers and employees and the reason for this structure are not clearly described and lead to an overall lack of transparency in the school’s operations, particularly as it appears that none of these entities are proposed to comply with the requirements of the Brown Act It is problematic that the degree of local representation and local voice in the charter school operation is not clearly set forth or articulated in the petition.
The concerns described regarding deficiencies in the description of the required charter elements, the EERA statement, budget issues, issues regarding compliance with the law and other identified areas of concern serve to establish that the petitioner is demonstrably unlikely to successfully implement the program set forth in the petition.
While the charter petition states that the OFY-Santa Clara will be the employer for all purposes, it also specifies that the OFY-Santa Clara will be covered by the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) as opposed to the EERA which is inconsistent with this specific charter requirement as well as other terms of the Charter Schools Act and the EERA.
The petition describes a target student population that is already being served by a SCCOE‐dependent charter school, Opportunity Youth Academy (OYA), and the purpose and proposed program is duplicative of OYA. Further, while the number of students in the target population is substantial it is a difficult pupil population to attract and enroll and the petition’s projected enrollment may be overstated given the established and operating OYA in multiple locations in the county.
The petition appears to reserve to the charter operators the authority to determine what laws of general application (such as the Brown Act and the Public Records Act) apply to its operations as well as which SCCOE directives are “reasonable” and require the OFY-Santa Clara to comply. This is likely to lead not only to violations of law and California public policy, but also to ongoing tension and disputes between the OFY-Santa Clara and SCCOE.
Where: Santa Clara County Board of Education
When: Sept 21, 2016, 5 pm
Link to item: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/sccoe/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=ADQTPQ77A362
Link to agenda: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/sccoe/Board.nsf/Public
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