| City of Gilroy |
Extending the Exclusivity Agreement with Sharks Sports & Entertainment, LLC to end of January 2021 for the indoor entertainment and sports complex at Gilroy Sports Park
Issue summary: In May of 2019, the City of Gilroy entered into an exclusivity agreement for the possibility of a future partnership with a private firm, Sharks Sports & Entertainment, LLC for developing an indoor entertainment and sports complex on a portion of the Gilroy Sports Park. The exclusivity agreement is set to expire in May 2020. The exclusivity agreement extension would expire on January 31, 2021 and would give both parties the opportunity to conduct further due diligence and proceed in talks. Discussions during this preliminary period are non-binding and provide the opportunity to fully assess the potential of the proposed facility in Gilroy.
The Council may approve an extension of the exclusivity agreement with the Sharks Sports & Entertainment, LLC, through January 31, 2021.
When: Monday, April 20 at 6:00PM
Where: City Council Chambers
| City of Cupertino |
Authorizing to pursue negotiation of a new 10-year agreement with Recology Cupertino, 18-month extension if unsuccessful negotiations starting February 2021
Issue summary: The Franchise Agreement with Recology Cupertino (Recology) for solid waste collection services was authorized by Council on May 18, 2010 for the period of November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2015. The second amendment extended the period of service to January 31, 2021.
The proposed Fourth Amendment establishes a bridge term of 18 months to ensure continuation of trash, recycling, and organic materials hauling service in the event negotiations are not successful and to bridge the period until a new agreement is negotiated. Recology has agreed to provide service during a bridge term, if needed, but in order to continue to provide the current level of services through this bridge term, Recology has requested a special maximum rate adjustment to increase rates for all service recipients by 5% in addition to the regular CPI adjustments. The proposed increase would be effective February 1, 2021 of a bridge term. Recology has requested a second special maximum rate adjustment to increase rates another 5% in addition to the regular CPI adjustment effective February 1, 2022 if the bridge term is still in effect.
The City has the option to negotiate a new 10-year agreement with Recology if the following four conditions are met: 1) Diversion; 2) Program development; 3) Limited cost adjustments: and, 4) Intent to negotiate. With the four Agreement conditions met by Recology, sole source negotiations for a new franchise agreement can proceed.
The City may authorize the City Manager to pursue negotiation of a new 10-year agreement with Recology Cupertino; and, if negotiations are unsuccessful, an 18-month extension with a 5% increase on all rates effective February 1, 2021 and a 5% increase on all rates effective February 1, 2022 in order to allow time to identify another solid waste collector.
In preparation for a new solid waste collector agreement, an agreement with HF&H Consultants was authorized by Council on October 15, 2019. To date, HF&H has assisted the Environmental Division staff with an analysis of potential services and contract terms that will be considered for the potential new agreement. In order to ensure transparency and fairness in the process of awarding a new franchise and to create an impartial climate during the franchise negotiations, a Franchise Negotiations Communications Protocol was written and Recology has agreed to adhere to it.
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 6:45 PM
Where: Videoconference
| Santa Clara County |
Updates on COVID-19 and discuss expanding childcare for essential workers
Issue summary: The committee will receive updates relating to COVID-19 discuss the following:
- Expansion of child care access to additional essential workers throughout the County
- Support for CalFresh and the General Assistance Program
- Flexibility of requirements for Requests for Proposals, including possible use of vacant buildings for Meals on Wheels and other needs
- Impact of COVID-19 response on the County Budget
- Additional discussion items related to Children, Seniors, and Families and COVID-19.
Memo not yet posted.
When: Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 9:30am
Supporting Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to place 3-county Caltrain tax on Nov. 2020 ballot
Issue summary: The committee will receive a report from the Office of Intergovernmental Relations and may forward to the Board of Supervisors a recommendation to support the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board’s placement of a three-county measure to impose a one-eighth of one percent retail transactions and use tax on the November 3, 2020 election ballot.
The County’s costs of placing the sales tax measure on the November 2020 ballot would be reimbursed by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board.
SB 797 allows a regional measure by the JPB to impose the retail transactions and use tax, even if, combined with all taxes imposed by cities or counties, it exceeds the two percent combined cap. Net revenues generated from the retail transactions and use tax will provide a dedicated funding source to support the operational and capital costs of Caltrain service. Specifically, the tax revenues from the measure will be prioritized to support the operation of Caltrain service levels throughout its corridor to expand service and increase capacity; support the infrastructure, rolling stock, and capital projects necessary to advance the expansion of Caltrain peak hour service from six trains per hour per direction to eight trains per hour per direction, as well as expansion of Gilroy services to a minimum of five morning and five afternoon trains; and to develop and implement programs to expand access to the Caltrain service and facilitate the use of the system by passengers of all income levels. Revenues from the measure would also help leverage other local, regional, state, and federal investments to advance the capital projects necessary to implement the Caltrain Business Plan’s 2040 Service Vision.
The five other agencies that must approve placement of the measure on the ballot will consider the item over the next few months. The JPB must adopt a resolution to submit the measure to voters before the end of August 2020.
When: Thursday, April 23, 2020 at 9:30am
Direction on building temporary micro-housing for families at Civic Center
Issue summary: The board will receive a report from staff with options for a temporary housing program for families at the Civic Center. Staff evaluated three options designed to reduce costs; key differences in the three options are primarily related to establishing the site and include: size of units for sleeping and other operations, the amount and source of electrical power on site, the number of families that could be accommodated, and the unit delivery time.
Option 1: Pallet shelter connected to electric grid
Option 1 would use the 100 square foot shelters developed by Pallet, the lowest cost reasonable option identified. This option could serve up to 25 families per night with an estimated length of stay of four months. Option 1 would include a temporary power set up connected to the grid. This would ensure the most consistent power source for the site, as well as sufficient power for lighting throughout the site, small appliances for on-site food storage and heating, an appropriately-sized HVAC system for each unit, and an outlet in each unit for and other power needs. While the Office of Supportive Housing worked with Supervisor Chavez’s office to consult the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) on solar options, after understanding the electrical load requirements for the project, BAAQMD estimated that the solar batteries required for the project could cost as much as $1,000,000, which exceeds the cost of running power lines.
Option 2: Pallet shelter with solar-powered system
Option 2 would also use the 100 square foot Pallet shelters, has the same unit delivery time, and could serve the same number of families. The primary difference between Option 1 and Option 2 is the power source. Each Pallet shelter would have a solar-powered system that includes two internal lights, one external light and a battery station that can charge a cell phone. In addition, solar panels will not support the power load required for an HVAC system for each unit. As such, heating would need to be provided through battery-operated heaters, and the operator could provide families with sleeping bags designed for low temperatures. Finally, the solar power options identified would not support appliances, so perishable food storage would not be possible.
Option 3: Shipping containers connected to electric grid
Option 3 addresses the question asked at the March 24, 2020 meeting by Supervisor Ellenberg regarding unit size. One of the unit types reviewed in the market research is customized shipping containers. Sleeping units would be 160 square feet and multiple shipping containers would be connected to provide larger office and community space. Because the units are larger, fewer units could fit on the site so the project would likely serve fewer families than Options 1 and 2.
All options of the temporary housing program would target unsheltered homeless families who need one-time or short-term assistance to obtain permanent housing and who are not prioritized for Permanent Supportive Housing or Rapid Rehousing programs. The maximum household size would be four people due to the size of the units; larger families would be referred to other temporary housing programs for families, including the County’s new motel program. Onsite supportive services would include problem-solving focused case management, with the goal of resolving the immediate housing crisis, as well as referrals to other resources that would help the families immediately as well as and maintain long-term housing stability.
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:30am
Direction on affordable housing impact fee & inclusionary housing requirements
Issue summary: Staff recommends an affordable housing impact fee on residential developments with up to two units on unincorporated lands outside of the Stanford University Community Plan Area, with either a tiered fee or a flat fee. In addition, staff recommend a 16% inclusionary housing requirement with alternative compliance options, including an in-lieu fee or off-site construction/rehabilitation, for residential development with three or more units in the greater unincorporated area.
If the board directs staff to proceed with the development of an ordinance imposing inclusionary housing requirements on residential development outside of the SCPA, staff requests direction from the board on the option to utilize a Tiered Fee approach (Option 1) or a Flat Fee approach (Option 2) for the affordable housing impact fee. The board could also direct staff to conduct outreach to the public and interested parties to solicit input on this affordable housing impact fee and inclusionary housing requirements.
While the board did not previously consider establishing an Affordable Housing Impact Mitigation Fee for residential projects, KMA’s Draft 2020 Updated Nexus Studies supports such a fee on residential development, close to $25 per square feet in the unincorporated areas.
The following key provisions are recommended for the ordinances:
- For development of one or two residential units (including single family homes), establish an affordable housing impact mitigation fee, either as a tiered fee or a flat fee:
- A Tiered Fee (Option 1) based on the house sizes of $10 per square foot (psf) for the first 2,000 square feet, $15 psf from 2,001 to 4,000 square feet; and $25 for development over 4,000 square feet;
OR
- A Flat Fee (Option 2) of $25 psf to all new development.
- For development of three or more residential units, apply a 16% inclusionary housing requirement.
- Exempt accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from affordable housing impact fee and inclusionary housing requirements. Also exempt ADUs from meeting the inclusionary obligations for a residential development.
- Set income level requirements for the inclusionary affordable units at the moderate level for for-sale units, and at low-income levels for rental units.
- Provide compliance options as an alternative to on-site inclusionary unit construction, such as an in-lieu fee option or an option to construct or rehabilitate off-site units.
- For residential development with seven units or multiples thereof, require the development to provide the inclusionary units on site, with an alternative compliance option to construct affordable units off-site or rehabilitate units at a 2:1 ratio.
- For residential development resulting in fractional inclusionary units (development with less than seven units; or a number of units not a multiple of seven), the developer may have an option to construct the affordable unit on site or pay in-lieu fees to meet inclusionary obligations.
Based on board direction, next steps are:
- March/April 2020: Conduct Community Outreach
- April 2020: Develop Draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
- May 2020: Planning Commission Hearing
- June 2020: Board of Supervisors Hearing
- A subsequent Affordable Housing Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance imposing mitigation fee requirements for non-residential development in the greater unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County would follow the completion of this effort as part of Phase III.
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:30am
Consider recommendations to add two FTEs to OLSE staff and for $1.5M for ongoing funding for OLSE Community Outreach and Education
Issue summary: To address the resource needs identified in the Status Report from OLSE at the March 24, 2020 (Item No. 50) Board of Supervisors’ meeting, OLSE recommends adding one Program Manager I position and one Research and Evaluation Specialist II/I position to develop the Business License Program and support the Labor Standards Community Outreach and Education Initiative.
The Program Manager I position will plan, organize, direct, and control activities of the OLSE Business License Program, lead the study and development of a Building Permit Pilot, and support the Labor Standards Community Outreach and Education Initiative. This will include working in conjunction with the County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development to plan, evaluate, and strategically implement the Business License Program as it relates to labor standards advancement and enforcement, promotion, and outreach, and to collaborate with the District Attorney’s Office and the Office of the Sheriff’s Law Enforcement to Investigate Human Trafficking (LEIHT) Task Force to enforce labor standards and combat labor trafficking.
The Research and Evaluation Specialist II/I position will perform a variety of activities focused on research and evaluation of the enforcement programs and outreach and engagement activities of the OLSE, contribute to the study and development of policy advancing labor standards, and serve a significant role in the drafting and design of planned OLSE publications. It will work in conjunction with OLSE Compliance and Program Managers to provide research and analytical support to OLSE’s four enforcement programs currently in varying stages of development and implementation.
The cost estimate for this proposal is as follows:
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:30am – Virtual Only
Creating new Healthcare Access Program for uninsured patients, replacing current charity care and Ability to Pay policies
Issue summary: Policies and programs for Santa Clara County public hospitals are approved by the Health and Hospital Committee, which serves as the Governing Board. Since the proposed Program would expand access to healthcare services to more individuals and families, it is being brought forward for the Board of Supervisors’ consideration.
Currently, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center’s Ability to Pay Determination (APD) and Charity Care and Discount policies provide access to medical services through the hospital and clinics at discounted cost for eligible low-income patients. These policies outline the amount a patient is required to pay for the services, offering a sliding scale for the cost. Patients whose family income is between 0-350% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and who are not eligible for third-party health insurance coverage, such as Medi-Cal or Covered California, are eligible to enroll. In addition, patients who are insured yet whose medical costs exceed 10% of the family’s income are also eligible for a discount on their portion of the amount owed.
The proposed Healthcare Access Program would replace the APD and Charity and Discount policies at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Hospitals and Clinics, and the related charity and discount policies for O’Connor Hospital (VMC-O’Connor) and St. Louise Regional Hospital (VMC-Saint Louise), creating a new policy and program that is consistent across the County’s hospitals and clinics. The Healthcare Access Program would increase the income threshold for eligibility from below 350% FPL to 650% FPL, providing access to the full range of medically necessary medical and behavioral health services, medications, and supplies offered by all three County hospitals and clinics. Eligibility criteria would continue to consider County residency, family size, and income, whether the applicant is eligible for health insurance (or another third-party source of payment for healthcare services), or if the applicant incurred or paid medical bills that exceed 10% of their family’s annual income.
If adopted, the Healthcare Access Program would assist many more County residents than the County’s current policies because of the expanded income eligibility limits. The eligibility threshold would increase from up to 350% of the FPL to 650% FPL. The proposed Program would also increase the level of assistance many families receive for medically necessary services and supplies by expanding the discount (write-off) percentages for eligible patients. For example, for an APD outpatient visit, the cost for eligible County residents with a family income under 350% FPL would drop from varying co-payments (ranging from $5-$30 per visit) to no charge. The costs for eligible County residents and non-County residents with a family income at or above 350% and under 400% FPL would drop from 100% of charges to no charge. For the first time, eligible County residents with family incomes at or above 400% and below 650% FPL would qualify for discounts (write-offs) of 70%, 50% or 25% of their payment responsibility.
Approval of the proposed Santa Clara County Healthcare Access Program (Program or Healthcare Access Program) will not require modification to the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center Hospitals and Clinics FY 19-20 Adopted Budget. However, the policy would have fiscal implications, which could be mitigated in part by Disproportionate Share Hospital funding and one time Novel Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) funding, as well as a reduction in billing and collection costs. The proposed changes would also fulfill the Health System’s Charity Care and Discount Care requirements under the California Hospital Fair Pricing Policies (HFFP) law, Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 127400 et seq.; the California Emergency Physician Fair Pricing Policies (EPFPP) law, Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 127450 et seq.; the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 501(r); and 26 C.F.R. parts 1, 53, among other relevant laws and guidance.
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:30am – Virtual Only
Approve emergency finding in order to forego normal bid process for construction at De Paul Health Center
Issue summary: Staff recommend the board approve foregoing the normal bid solicitation and contracting process for construction at De Paul Health Center, due to the COVID-19 emergency.
On April 3, 2020, the County entered into an emergency Job Order Contract agreement with SBAY Construction, Inc. for a maximum contract value of $5,098,418, and maximum contract duration of one year. SBAY is the current JOC contractor for the County of Santa Clara Health System and has worked at all Health System facilities including the De Paul Health Center. This JOC is authorized under an emergency directive from the County Executive to take measures to reactivate the De Paul hospital facility in preparation for a possible surge in COVID-19 patient admissions.
The Emergency Procurement Process was used to address this pressing need by securing the services of SBAY in the most expeditious manner possible to avoid any delays resulting from a competitive solicitation process.
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:30am – Virtual Only
Chavez recommendation on convening public process to discuss strategies for reopening the community
Issue summary: No details available.
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:30am – Virtual Only
Ellenberg referral on COVID-19 long-term response planning
Issue summary: In recent days recommendations from policy groups and state guidelines have been released describing how communities might begin to reopen following broad physical distancing strategies. As the County prepares for a long-term effort to mitigate, manage, and suppress COVID-19, it will be critical to prevent both a resurgence of COVID-19 once a shelter-in-place order is rescinded, and assure the economic viability and social vitality of our community. Therefore, this referral requests that Administration immediately pursue the following actions:
- Produce a plan detailing the public health tools, technology, staffing and funding necessary to support future phases of the COVID-19 disease control and prevention effort. This may include new resources or greatly expanded approaches to testing, disease surveillance, and contact tracing systems. This information should support the procurement, hiring, staging and integration of tools and resources that will be needed in order to support a smooth and safe transition from a community-wide shelter in place into future phases of the response effort.
- Establish a multi-sector COVID-19 Task Force comprised of local leaders as indicated below, or others as recommended by Administration, to inform the translation of national, state and local public health orders or recommendations into practice for Santa Clara County. This task force would serve in an advisory capacity to facilitate public-private partnerships on COVID-19 community response activities and recovery efforts.
- This task force should be time-bound to mirror the duration of the current State public health emergency or any subsequent local public health emergency for COVID-19 and meet as frequently as is deemed to be necessary to keep pace with the evolving COVID-19 response.
- The task force should focus on the following objectives and possibly others at the direction of the County Health Officer or the Director of Emergency Services:
- Identify strategies for physical distancing or other approaches to limit coronavirus transmission in various settings that can be implemented with the least possible disruption of operations or economic activity.
- Identify strategies to reduce disproportionate social and economic impacts on various sectors or groups across Santa Clara County, with a focus on vulnerable populations and groups that have been historically disenfranchised.
- Develop tools and methods of outreach and communication to various sectors of the community to support continued communication and implementation of public health orders.
- Identify policy priorities for local, state or national level advocacy to support economic recovery of Santa Clara County and/or to minimize the social and economic impacts of the COVID-19 response.
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 9:30am – Virtual Only
| City of San Jose |
Liccardo proposal on returning to work; focused on Building Trades and developer recs for re-opening construction projects
Issue summary: The Mayor has prepared a 5-page memo (attached to item) with a number of actions he recommends the City Manager and City Attorney to take, report or, and/or agendize for Council action. Some highlights include:
- Create a team to work collaboratively with the County to identify specific job categories currently deemed “nonessential,” but appear relatively safe to consider as early candidates for a staged reopening of the economy;
- Review the attached “Industry Specific COVID-19 Construction Field Guidelines,” issued by the California Building Trades, various member unions, and the Association of General Contractors, and identify preparatory steps the City can take … to enable substantially broader categories of construction activity to safely resume.
- Direct the City Attorney to review the Governor’s March 19, 2020 Executive Order, and to render an opinion to the Council in closed session about whether broader categories of construction can move forward under the Governor’s Executive Order, with additional safety precautions.
- Return to Council with clear metrics that identify extent of preexisting backlogs of inspections, permits, and approvals, and timelines for resolving those backlogs in time for immediate resumption of development and business activity.
See memo for full set of recommendations.
Recommended action: Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to return to Council at the earliest opportunity to describe the Emergency Operations Center’s response to any of these views under the City Manager’s Report, Item 3.1 on the Council Agenda, and agendize for action as necessary, the following, as further described in the Mayor’s April 15, 2020 memorandum:
1. Setting the Goal by Defining the Threshold;
2. Ramping Up Contact Tracing;
3. Identifying Lower-Risk Occupations;
4. Facilitating Construction;
5. Clarifying State Authority; and
6. Clearing Backlogs.
When: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:00PM – Virtual Meeting
Revised City Budget calendar for current, and next, fiscal years
Issue summary: Approve the revised 2019-2020/2020-2021 City Budget Calendar as presented in Attachment A of the staff memorandum and the schedule for City Council Budget Study Sessions for the 2020-2021 Operating Budget, 2020-2021 Capital Budget and 2021-2025 City Capital Improvement Program, and 2020-2021 Fees and Charges Report as presented in Attachment B and explained in the staff memorandum (not yet posted as of 4/17 6pm).
When: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 at 2:00PM – Virtual Meeting
Approving funding appropriations to address budget impacts of COVID-19
Issue summary: Staff recommend council adopt the 2019-2020 Appropriation Ordinance and Funding Sources Resolution amendments in various funds to address budgetary impacts due to COVID-19. The staff memo with attachments detailing changes in the General Fund and Special/Capital Fund has not been posted yet.
When: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 1:30 PM
Approve update to density bonus provisions to implement state housing reforms
Issue summary: The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the council approve an ordinance to update the City’s density bonus provisions in conformance with state law and extend the applicability of density bonus incentives, amend zoning district use tables as required by state law and consistent with the General Plan, and add a new chapter implementing ministerial approvals as required by state law. These actions would facilitate the City’s implementation of recent state housing reforms and further implement the General Plan by incentivizing affordable housing projects.
Between 2017 and 2019, the State Legislature and Governor enacted several bills that expand the State Density Bonus Law and require ministerial review for certain housing projects. State Density Bonus Law amendments enable 100% affordable housing projects to take advantage of further concessions and incentives, height limit increases, and parking reductions in some instances. Affordable housing, supportive housing, and low barrier navigation centers that meet state law requirements now require ministerial review (that is, review without discretion that requires automatic approval if all requirements are met) within specified time limits. These changes require new procedures and amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which this ordinance provides.
When: Tuesday, April 28, 2020 at 1:30 PM
Modifying procedures for agenda items submitted after Rules Committee
Issue summary: Mayor Liccardo’s memo recommends council direct the City Manager and City Attorney to amend the resolution modifying public meetings, noticing, and document posting in the City’s Sunshine Procedures. The amendment would:
- Allow only the City Manager—not Mayor and Council Offices—to request the City Clerk place an item on the City Council Agenda after the date of the hearing of the Rules Committee, but at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, in compliance with the Council Rules of Conduct Resolution No. 79367 Rule 3(d), which requires 2/3 vote of Council to add items after Rules.
- Allow Councilmembers and the Mayor to have the City Clerk place an item on the City Council Agenda under Orders of the Day after the date of the hearing of the Rules Committee, but at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, if the Clerk utilizes the procedures authorized in Consolidated Open Government and Ethics Resolution (“Sunshine Resolution”) No. 77135, Section 2.3.2.1.E to allow items to be so added if the Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney concur that the item requires immediate action, and Council authorizes its addition by a 2/3 vote.
These changes are described as intended to organize the valuable time of staff through Rules and Open Government Committee in order to publicly vet proposals and allow staff feedback on its ability to analyze and implement them. Hundreds of City Staff have redeployed to coordinate the provision of 350,000 daily meals to our residents, move hundreds of homeless residents into safety, and other critical issues.
[NOTE: Since all Council committees other than Rules are being suspended through at least June 30th, Councilmembers will not have the normal avenue of moving an item through the committee process to place it in the Council agenda. This consolidates additional power in the Rules Committee to prevent items from being agendized for Council discussion.]
Link to item: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4419477&GUID=64F92B9C-BAA9-4355-8142-FBFEDBC8EE76&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=712186&GUID=8C8D57C8-778C-4E76-8D0F-203C389DAD3E&Options=info&Search=
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 1:30 PM
Adopting moratorium on rent increases in rent stabilized units and mobile homes
Issue summary: Council will consider adopting an urgency and companion ordinance that establishes a moratorium on rent increases for tenants residing in rent stabilized apartments and mobile home owners and mobile home residents residing in mobile homes subject to rent control. Approval of the urgency ordinance requires 8 or more votes.
Specifically, the ordinance would:
- Invoke the urgency provisions in the City Charter, as an emergency measure for immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, to temporarily prohibit the eviction of a tenant for nonpayment of rent, if that tenant meets the criteria listed in the ordinance regarding COVID-19;
- Prohibit rent increases through December 31, 2020;
- Apply the moratorium to rent increases that went into effect on or after April 1, 2020;
- Provide that a landlord and tenant, mobile home resident, or mobilehome owner can enter into a voluntary short-term agreement, without changing other terms of the rental contract, to temporarily reduce the rent through the term of the Ordinance, or shorter period as agreed-upon by the parties;
- Deny tenant service reduction claims related to temporary closure or elimination of recreational common area amenities to comply with County or State public health orders related to COVID-19;
- Suspend late fees for unpaid Apartment Rent Ordinance Program fees; and
- Waive building/repair maintenance permit fees for rental properties with 20 or fewer units.
Several letters from small landlords oppose the ordinance, including raising that large newer apartments are not covered by rent control while older buildings/small landlords are.
When: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 1:30 PM
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