Creating Oversight Committee for Measure A Housing Bond; Counsel advised to not include Assessor or a housing advocate
On August 16, the Board of Supervisors directed Administration to draft an ordinance to establish an independent citizens’ oversight committee for the Housing Bond. The attached ordinance meets the Board’s referral, with two exceptions.
First, to ensure full independence of the Committee, and based on feedback from bond counsel, best practices counsel against naming any officer or employee of the organization as a member of the Committee. Accordingly, the proposed Ordinance does not include the Assessor and in his place includes a member of the general public. Second, given the focus of the Housing Bond, the Administration recommends that the “housing advocate” member of the committee be replaced by “an affordable/supportive housing professional.” The proposed Ordinance also prohibits alternates from serving on the Committee.
If the ordinance is adopted and the Housing Bond is passed, the County would establish an independent nine-member Committee to advise the Board as authorized to ensure bond proceeds are used for the stated purposes of the Housing Bond.
Where: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
When: Sept. 27, 2016, 9 am
Link to item: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=7199&MediaPosition=&ID=83189&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=7199
County claims Sourcewise is diverting federal funds needed for Senior Nutrition Program
The purpose of this report is to update the Board of Supervisors on the Administration’s continued efforts to foster a more collaborative working relationship between Sourcewise, the County’s Designated Area Agency on Aging, and the County, with regard to the crafting of the Area Plan on Aging and other efforts to serve the County’s senior residents. The Administration has undertaken the following actions since the last report to the Board:
- February 19, 2016 correspondence to Sourcewise regarding federal funding for senior nutrition services.
The Administration wrote to Sourcewise to thank Sourcewise for providing one-time-only funding of $63,238.00 to the Senior Nutrition Program for additional congregate meals, but to also notify Sourcewise that this funding was insufficient to cover the anticipated meal costs for the year. The Administration respectfully requested $228,252.00 of the Older Americans Act (OAA) funding to accommodate the growth of the Senior Nutrition Program. Sourcewise declined to provide this additional funding in a letter dated February 23, 2016. This correspondence is attached as Exhibit A.
- April 12, 2016 correspondence to the California Department of Aging regarding the County’s relationship with Sourcewise.
The Administration wrote the California Department of Aging on April 12, 2016 regarding the County’s continued concerns regarding Sourcewise, including Sourcewise’s diversion of OAA funds away from the Senior Nutrition Program. The Administration did not receive a response from the California Department on Aging. This correspondence is attached as Exhibit B.
- April 13, 2016 correspondence to Sourcewise regarding entering into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the County, through which the parties would agree to collaborate and share information on the funding of senior nutrition services.
The Administration wrote to Sourcewise on April 13, 2016 regarding the County’s desire to enter into a MOU with Sourcewise. The goal of the MOU would be to ensure that both the County and Sourcewise are aligned in their understanding of the needs of the senior community and are allocating resources in a collaborative manner to address those needs. The Administration also invited Sourcewise to present at the Children, Seniors, and Families Committee on a regular basis to update the County on its progress of implementing the Area Plan and its distribution of OAA funding. The Administration’s letter to Sourcewise and Sourcewise’s response to the Administration is attached as Exhibit C.
- The Health Trust’s Food for Everyone report highlighted senior nutrition needs and challenges.
While Sourcewise is continuing to divert OAA funding away from the Senior Nutrition Program, the Health Trust has recommended, as published in its Food for Everyone report, the expansion of the Senior Nutrition Program to provide access for low-income seniors to the Senior Nutrition Program. The executive summary of this report is attached as Exhibit D.
Where: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
When: Sept. 27, 2016, 9 am
Link to item: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=7199&MediaPosition=&ID=83256&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=7199
Yeager referral for policy recs on sugar-sweetened beverages
Referral from Sup. Yeager: The Administration should consider at least the following regulatory and policy strategies when developing their recommendations:
- Requiring advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages to display a health warning.
- Requiring health information be posted where SSBs are sold to inform consumers of the health impacts of these beverages.
- Eliminating SSBs as the default beverage in children’s meals.
- Prohibiting the sale of SSBs at County run health facilities.
- Promoting healthy beverage consumption in child care settings.
- Expanding water access and promotion policies.
Administration should consider the steps needed to make any new initiatives most effective. If funding is needed to support the development, implementation or enforcement of new policies, the Administration should include these resource requests in the report back.
Where: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
When: Sept. 27, 2016, 9 am
Link to item: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=7199&MediaPosition=&ID=83324&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=7199
Extending Interim Apartment Rent Ordinance and modifications to landlord petition process
Update: New letters from California Apartment Association and the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.
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 letters from public: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2155&meta_id=593520
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=8a7b6bab-83ea-4b0a-98a2-69389d5f2114
Council to approve the terms of a side letter agreement between the City and its bargaining units on retiree healthcare providing that the lowest cost plan for any current or future
eligible retiree in the defined benefit retiree healthcare plan shall be permanently set such that it may not be lower or higher than the “Silver” level as specified by the current Affordable Healthcare Act (ACA) in effect in July 2015.
In August 2016, the City and bargaining units reached this side letter agreement. Changes to the lowest cost healthcare plan within these parameters would be subject to meet and confer with the bargaining units. In addition to securing that the lowest cost healthcare plan will cover a minimum of 70% of healthcare expenses, capping the lowest cost healthcare plan at 79% of healthcare expenses would act as a safeguard to increasing the costs of the defined benefit retiree healthcare plan in the future via a more expensive healthcare plan. This side letter agreement does not impact or otherwise change the existing connection between the defined benefit retiree healthcare benefit and the lowest cost plan available to active employees. Nor does it change any other terms contained in the Frameworks regarding retiree healthcare.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: October 4, 2016, 1:30PM, Council Chambers
Link to memo: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2156&meta_id=593857
Link to reso: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2156&meta_id=593859
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=446c4e95-621c-46bc-8702-07a89322c1c3
DEFERRED from 9/27 – Approving $4M tax break for Trammell Crow development of 1M sf office/retail & 325 housing units
DEFERRED FROM 9/27/16 (Item 4.2) PER ADMINISTRATION
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.
As required for the tax break, conduct a Public Hearing regarding an economic subsidy estimated value not to exceed $4 million in connection with a Project Completion Agreement with Trammell Crow Company if all conditions of receiving the tax suspension are satisfied.
Trammel Crow has been pursuing the construction of a mixed use development with up to 1 million square feet for office/retail development and up to 325 multi-family attached residences on an 8.93 gross acre site on the southwest corner of W. Santa Clara Street and Delmas Avenue. Trammel submitted their Planned Development rezoning in September 2015, and have been actively working to submit their building permit since the approval of their Planned Development Permit in May of 2016.
The project will not be able to pull its first building permit in time to meet the requirements of the tax suspension. Staff’s recommendation is to extend the timeline of the program through the end of May 2017 and to allow, through the approval of a Satisfaction Agreement, a timeline for subsequent building permits necessary to construct the development. Staff is recommending that the developer be required to obtain all permits by December 31, 2018, and that to qualify for the incentive that the project be completed by December 31, 2019.
The project is projected to create approx. 1,580 construction jobs and 5,000 permanent jobs.
In addition, staff was directed to provide an analysis on requirements for pursuing local preferences for contractors. The City Attorney provided analysis on pursuing local preference which is not included in this item.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: October 4, 2016, 1:30PM, Council Chambers
Link to memo: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2156&meta_id=593831
Link to ordinance P(a): http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2156&meta_id=593833
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=446c4e95-621c-46bc-8702-07a89322c1c3
City to refund construction taxes to R&D projects that paid at the Commercial rate rather than Industrial; construction tax modernization proposed for early 2017
Council to approve a refund of construction taxes in the amount of $67,838.89 to OPI Commercial Builders for a project located at 3901 N. 1st Street.
Background: San Jose’s Building and Structure Construction Tax and CRMP Tax (also called the
Construction Excise Tax) are applicable to all building permits, including both new construction and tenant improvements. The tax rate for commercial purposes is higher than for industrial.
San Jose’s driving industries and industrial lands are dominated by technology companies like Cisco Systems, Samsung, Apple, Brocade, IBM, Super Micro Computer, and Maxim Integrated Products. Their facilities today are in many ways similar to an office environment with employees working on computers at desks, which would be otherwise considered Commercial. However, under San Jose’s current definition which includes R&D as industrial for tax purposes, construction of these facilities should be eligible for the lower industrial tax rate.
This, combined with a process that considers projects commercial unless they submit an industrial designation form, has led to a number of projects being incorrectly assessed for the Building and Structures and CRMP taxes. This is leading to a series of refunds that will need to be approved by the City Council. In addition, staff will be returning in early 2017 with a construction tax modernization program that, combined with process improvements, will provide increased understanding and clarity of the City’s construction taxes.
The first two of these refunds are being brought to Council on Oct. 4. OPI Builders paid a total of $87,221.43 in construction taxed for its project. During intake for this project, OPI Builders did not indicate an industrial use, although their project qualified since it is intended for research and development. On April 13, 2016, OPI requested a refund of $67,838.89. Staff has determined that the project will be used for industrial use and that the customer was due the refund. A refund claim in excess of $50,000 requires City Council approval.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: October 4, 2016, 1:30PM, Council Chambers
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2156&meta_id=593886
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=446c4e95-621c-46bc-8702-07a89322c1c3
Taking a position of support for Measure A
Adopt a position of support for County Measure A, as recommended by the Rules and Open Government Committee on September 21,2016.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: September 27, 2016, 1:30PM, Council Chambers
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=2155&meta_id=593869
Link to agenda: http://sanjose.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=8a7b6bab-83ea-4b0a-98a2-69389d5f2114
Recommending City positions on statewide propositions; incl. “no position” recs on Prop 51, 52, 57
Council will consider recommended City positions for Propositions 51-67, on the November 8 ballot, and request a one-week turnaround be granted so that this item can be heard at the October 4, 2016 City Council meeting.
Recommended City Position is to Oppose
Proposition 53 – Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Recommended City Position is to Support
Proposition 54 – Legislature, Legislation and Proceedings Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Proposition 55 – Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 58 – English Proficiency. Multilingual Education (SB 1174, Chapter 753 Statutes of 2014)
Proposition 59 – Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections (SB 254, Chapter 20, Statutes of 2016)
Proposition 63 – Firearms. Ammunition Sales Initiative Statute
Proposition 67 – Referendum to Overturn Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags
Recommend City Position is to Take no Position
Proposition 51 – School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities Initiative Statutory Amendment
Proposition 52 – Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program Initiative Statutory and Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 56 – Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare. Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Proposition 57 – Criminal Sentences. Parole, Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Proposition 60 – Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements Initiative Statute
Proposition 61 – State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute
Proposition 62 – Death Penalty Initiative Statute
Proposition 64 – Marijuana Legalization Initiative Statute
Proposition 65 – Carryout Bags. Charges Initiative Statute
Proposition 66 – Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute
Where: San Jose Rules Committee
When: September 28, 2016, 2PM, Wing 118- 120
Link to item: http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta_id=593839
Link to agenda: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/61017
City of Santa Clara
Discussion of statewide and regional minimum wage efforts to inform local minimum wage rate
Staff are presenting an update on state and regional minimum wage increase efforts in light of the City of Santa Clara’s own planned minimum wage increase, which is scheduled to be set at $11/hour by January 1, 2017. These updates include a new statewide law, which increases minimum
wages to $15 an hour by 2022 for large businesses and 2023 for small businesses. The State minimum wage is currently $10.00 an hour and under the new legislation will increase to $10.50 an hour on January 1, 2017. Second, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County recently voted to encourage all Santa Clara cities to consider a regional effort to increase the minimum wage to $19.00 an hour by 2019. The Cities Association also recommended some refinements to local minimum wage ordinances in the County to better align with the State’s new minimum wage legislation. Staff are presenting the new state law and the Cities Association memo for consideration by councilmembers as they take steps to ensure implementation of the local ordinance, regional consistency, and compliance with state law.
Where: Santa Clara City Council
When: September 27, 2016, 7:00pm
Link to item: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=54024
Link to agenda: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1842&doctype=AGENDA
City of Mountain View
Providing input on transportation analysis for North Bayshore Precise Plan & potential addition of 9,850 housing units
The Directors of Community Development and Public Works will present a preliminary transportation analysis of adding new residential uses to the North Bayshore Precise Plan for Council discussion and input. This analysis was based on policy guidance provided by Council members regarding the inclusion of up to 9,850 new residential units within the residential boundary area and a housing mix of mostly smaller units. The preliminary transportation analysis compares several development scenarios. Initial findings from the analysis include significant increases in inbound and outbound vehicle trips from office and residential uses during am and pm peak hours, planned residential build-out that exceeds gateway capacity, and a conservative estimate that approximately 10-20% of North Bayshore residents are likely to also work in the area. The analysis also includes potential transportation strategies for affecting gateway capacity and ensuring that residential build-out falls within this capacity.
The strategies included in the analysis will be further evaluated as part of the EIR review and could influence impacts and mitigation measures, potentially allowing for additional housing. The Draft Precise Plan is planned for public release in October. EPC and Council meetings are planned in November to discuss the Draft Plan. Additionally, staff will be requesting additional North Bayshore Precise Plan transportation consultant funding at an upcoming Council meeting. More details on this request for additional funding will be included in a future Council report.
Where: Mountain View City Council
When: September 27, 2016, 5:00pm
Link to item: https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2843006&GUID=BF323291-4193-487F-872E-0261AC370DEB&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=452519&GUID=2313D250-CE8F-4D1F-BA99-3AAA4B515BB1
Amending the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance to ensure relocation funding for no-cause evictions
Staff are seeking direction from Councilmembers on an ordinance that would amend the city’s existing Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO) in light of a forthcoming ballot measure (Measure W), which would amend the rental housing dispute resolution program (RHDRP) and regulate rents for units that received a Certificate of Occupancy prior to Feb 1, 1995 by requiring a landlord and tenant to go to binding arbitration for rent increase disputes.
If Measure W is approved by the voters, a landlord could only evict a tenant from rental units covered by the RHDHP for a specified set of just causes. However, a rental unit would be exempt from the just cause for eviction protection if a landlord complies with the City’s Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO). Council recently directed staff to prepare amendments to the TRAO to require tenant relocation assistance for no-cause evictions as an alternative method to the just-cause provision in Measure W in order to help mitigate the financial impact of displacement of tenants in the City of Mountain View.
The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to align the TRAO with Measure W by incorporating no-cause eviction into the TRAO and requiring a landlord to pay relocation assistance to tenants evicted for no cause. If Measure W is adopted by the voters, and the landlord elects not to comply with the TRAO’s requirement to provide relocation assistance, he or she could only evict a tenant for just cause in accordance with Measure W. The proposed changes would also replace the definition of rental unit in the TRAO with the definition used by Measure W for consistency and to maximize the number of units eligible for tenant relocation assistance, given that the Costa Hawkins Act does not apply to the TRAO. Other issues for councilmembers to discuss include whether the modified TRAO should require relocation assistance for the displacement of one household; whether to add owner move-in as a category of displacement; whether to remove the lease termination exception, which currently does not fall within the TRAO’s definition of displacement and therefore does not trigger relocation funding; whether to eliminate the household income eligibility requirement for defining displacement; how much relocation assistance to provide; and whether and how to include an enforcement provision in the ordinance.
Where: Mountain View City Council
When: September 27, 2016, 6:30pm
Link to item: https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2843601&GUID=CC18EB4E-B24A-4C2F-9605-3B6BB0E5FF9F&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=452519&GUID=2313D250-CE8F-4D1F-BA99-3AAA4B515BB1
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