Agenda PDF

Transcription

Agenda PDF

AGENDA
CITY OF UNION CITY/
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
34009 ALVARADO NILES ROAD
I.
CALL TO ORDER
I.a.
Pledge of Allegiance
I.b.
Roll Call
Mayor Carol Dutra-Vernaci
Vice Mayor Emily Duncan
Councilmember Lorrin Ellis
Councilmember Pat Gacoscos
Councilmember Jim Navarro
I.
II.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
III.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS - None
IV.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Comments from the audience on non-agenda items will be accepted
for a period of 30 minutes. Speakers are limited to three minutes
each. Persons wishing to speak must complete a speaker card
available at the rear of the Council Chamber or from the City Clerk. If
the number of speakers exceeds the time allotment, cards will be
shuffled and 10 speakers chosen at random. The remaining
speakers may speak under Section XI of the agenda.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine in
nature and will be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required
on a specific item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and
considered separately.
City Council/RSA Agenda
1
V.a.
Waived Further Reading of Proposed Ordinance
(This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire
text of any proposed Ordinance.)
V.b.
Approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meetings Held
on June 14, 2016
V.c.
Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council
Meetings Held on June 28, 2016
V.d.
Adopt a Resolution Designating the Voting Delegate and
Alternate Voting Delegate for the League of California Cities
Annual Conference – October 5 - 7, 2016, Long Beach
V.e.
Adopt a Resolution Approving Authorization of Signatories for
the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
V.f.
Adopt a Resolution for the Adoption of the Federal Fiscal Years
2017-2019 DBE Goal for FTA Funded Projects
V.g.
Award of Contract for Purchase of One 2017 Chevrolet Volt for
the City Manager's Department, City Project #16-24, and to
Declare Unit #307 (VIN#2B3HD46R44H621460) as Surplus to
be sent to Public Auction
V.h.
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Filing of Applications with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Funds
for the Operation of Union City Transit and Paratransit for Fiscal
Year 2016-2017
V.i.
Approve Specifications and Authorize for Bids For a New
Regenerative Air Street Sweeper Vehicle
VI.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
VII.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
VII.a. Briefing to the City Council on Governor Brown's Streamline
Affordable Housing Trailer Bill Legislation (By-Right Housing)
VII.b. Options to Address Rent and Tenant Issues
VIII.
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - None
IX.
AUTHORITIES AND AGENCIES - None
X.
CITY COMMISSION / COMMITTEE REPORTS - None
XI.
SECOND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
XII.
SCHEDULED ORAL COMMUNICATION
XII.a. Public Comment from Nanda Ramadhass
XIII.
ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
2
Oral Reports by Mayor and Councilmemebers on meetings of County
or Regional Board and Commissions
Alameda County Fire Department Advisory Commission
Alameda County Library Advisory Commission
Alameda County Mayors Conference
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC)
Alameda County Waste Management Authority (WMA)
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
City of Union City Audit Subcommittee
City of Union City Youth Violence Prevention & Intervention
Advisory Committee
Disaster Council
Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee
East Bay Economic Development Alliance (EDA)
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority
(EBRCSA)
Economic Development Advisory Team (EDAT)
Housing Authority of Alameda County
League of California Cities, East Bay Division (LOCC)
New Haven Unified School District Joint Sub-Committee
Oakland Airport Community Noise Management Forum
Oversight Board to the Successor Agency to the Union City
Redevelopment Agency
Teen Center Project Updates
Union City Chamber of Commerce
XIV.
GOOD OF THE ORDER
XV.
CLOSED SESSION - None
XVI.
ADJOURNMENT
A complete agenda packet is available for review at City Hall or on our
website www.unioncity.org
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of City Council members
regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public
inspection at the City Clerk's Counter at City Hall, located at 34009
Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, California, during normal business hours.
Assistance will be provided to those requiring accommodations for
disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Interested person must request the accommodation at least two working
days in advance of the meeting by contacting the City Clerk at (510) 6755348.
3
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Draft Minutes for the City Council Meeting Held on June 14, 2016
Type
Resolution
4
MINUTES
CITY OF UNION CITY/
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
I.a.
I.b.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci led the salute to the flag.
Roll Call
Present: Councilmembers Ellis*, Gacoscos, Navarro, Vice Mayor
Duncan, Mayor Dutra-Vernaci
Absent: None
*Councilmember Ellis arrived at 7:15 p.m.
II.
III.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
III.a. Presentation by Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Staff on the Housing
Counseling Services ECHO Provides to Union City
Director Rocha provided detailed information on the services ECHO provides to Union
City which include fair housing education, counseling and investigation, and
tenant/landlord counseling and dispute resolution.
Director Rocha responded to questions from Council. Council provided comment.
III.b. Plan Bay Area Update
Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) Executive Director Ezra Rapport
presented the update on the Plan Bay Area 2040. Information discussed included Union
City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), Union City’s Priority Development
Areas (PDAs) and Union City’s Planned Conservation Areas (PCAs).
Executive Director Ezra responded to questions from Council.
provided comment.
IV.
Councilmembers
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Jaime Patino thanked the Mayor and staff for the quick response and
reassuring statement regarding the recent mass shooting in Orlando.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Vice Mayor Duncan and seconded by Councilmember Gacoscos to approve
Consent Calendar items V.a through V.k. The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote.
City Council/RSA Minutes
1
5
V.a. Waived Further Reading of Proposed Ordinance
(This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire text of any proposed
Ordinance.)
V.b. Approved the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on May 17, 2016
V.c. Approved the Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on May
24, 2016
V.d. Adopted Resolution No. 4915-16 to Accept Work for the Decoto Green Street
Project, City Project No. 11-01
V.e. Adopted Resolution No. 4916-16 Establishing an Appropriation (GANN) Limit for
Fiscal Year 2016-17 and Amending the Established Appropriation (GANN) Limit for
Fiscal Year 2015-16
V.f.
Adopted Resolution No. 4917-16 Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a
General Municipal Election to be Held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 for the Election
of Certain Officers; Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda to
Consolidate a General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016
with the General Election to be Held on that Date Pursuant to Section 10002 of the
Elections Code, and Requesting Certain Services of the Registrar of Voters; and
Establishing Regulations for Candidate Statements on the Sample Ballot
V.g. Adopted Resolution No. 4918-16 Approving a Professional Services Agreement with
Retired Annuitant Tom Gorrie
V.h. Adopted Resolution No. 4919-16 Approving a Professional Services Agreement with
Retired Annuitant Ben Horner
V.i.
Adopted Resolution No. 4920-16 Authorizing Execution of an Agreement
with the County of Alameda for Additional Service Hours at the Union City
Branch Library during Fiscal Year 2016-17
V.j. Adopted Resolution No. 4921-16 Accepting Work for the 11th Street
Traffic Signal Improvements, City Project No. 14-11
V.k. Adopted Resolution No. 4922-16 Approving a Non-exclusive Franchise
Agreement for Rotational Towing Services
VI.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI.a. Consider the Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Master Fee Schedule for the
Fiscal Year 2016-17, and Adjustments Thereto for Changes in the Consumer Price
Index and Increases as Prescribed in the Municipal Code
Finance Director Mark Carlson presented the staff report. There were no questions or
comments from Council.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci opened the public hearing and called for comment. Being none,
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Ellis and seconded by Councilmember Navarro, to
approve Resolution No. 4923-16 adjusting the City’s Master Fee Schedule for the
Fiscal Year 2016-17, except for the proposed fees for solid waste, organic waste and
recyclable materials collection and processing and storm water runoff surcharge. The
motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote.
2
6
VI.b. Public Hearing (Published Notice) Introducing an Ordinance Adding Chapter 7.06 “City
of Union City Food Ware Ordinance” to the Municipal Code to Restrict the Use of Expanded
Polystyrene Food Ware Products
Recycling Manager Roberto Munoz presented the staff report and responded to questions from
Council.
Recycling Coordinator Jennifer Cutter and Americorps CivicSpark Fellow Anthony Primer detailed
the extensive outreach that was conducted prior to introducing the ordinance.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci opened the public hearing and called for comment.
Jessica Lyham spoke in opposition to the proposed Ordinance on behalf of the Union City
members of the California Restaurants Associations.
Being no further comment, Mayor Dutra-Vernaci closed the public hearing.
Recycling Manager Roberto Munoz responded to questions from Council. Councilmembers
provided comment.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Duncan and seconded by Councilmember Gacoscos to Introduce an
Ordinance Adding Chapter 7.06 “City of Union City Food Ware Ordinance” to the Municipal Code to
Restrict the Use of Expanded Polystyrene Food Ware Products. The motion was carried by
a unanimous voice vote.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci recessed the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci resumed the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
VII.
VII.a. Adopt a Resolution Amending the Adopted Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget to
Include the Public Safety PERS Cost Related to the Police Classic Employees,
Increased Contract Cost of Fire and Library Services, Supplemental Appropriation for
Internet/Data Circuits and Property Management of Union Square Office
Finance Director Carlson presented the staff report and responded to questions from
Council. Councilmembers provided comment.
Barry Ferrier stated he believed an error was on page 146 of the staff report related to
Fire Services. He stated the item was off by approximately $3 million.
City Manager Acosta stated staff would review the information and come back with
corrections if needed
It was moved by Councilmember Navarro and seconded by Vice Mayor Duncan to
Adopt Resolution No. 4924-16 amending the adopted Fiscal Year 2016-17 Operating Budget to
include the Public Safety PERS costs related to the Police Classic Employees, increased
contract cost of Fire and Library Services, supplemental appropriation for Internet/Data
Circuits and Property Management of Union Square Office. The motion was carried by
a unanimous voice vote.
City Manager Acosta reported on the alleged error identified by Mr. Ferrier, and noted
that the $3 million was included as part of the recommended capital equipment.
VII.b. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Staffing Amendments
3
7
Human Resources Director Bonnie Roland Williams presented the staff report and
responded to questions from Council. Councilmembers provided comment.
It was moved by Councilmember Gacoscos and seconded by Vice Mayor Duncan, to
adopt Resolution No. 4925-16 Approving fiscal yeal 2016-17 staffing amendments.
The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote.
VII.c. 2015 Climate Action Plan Implementation Update – Item Not Heard
VII.d. General Plan Update Final Focus Area Study Session - Union City Boulevard Corridor
and Horner-Veasy Area
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci recused herself from discussion related to Union City Boulevard as
per under the Political Reform Act she has an economic interest within 400 feet of the
Union City Boulevard focus area.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci exited Council Chambers.
Planning Manager Campbell presented the staff report, provided summary of actions to
date. Land use alternatives for the Union City Boulevard focus area were presented and
Council was asked their preference in an effort to narrow the discussion.
Council provided feedback.
Planning Manager Campbell stated staff would bring forth a refined alternative at a future
meeting based on Council feedback. This concluded the discussion on the Union City
Boulevard Land Use Alternatives.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci returned to the dais to participate in discussion of the land use
alternatives for the Horner-Veasy focus area.
Planning Manager Campbell reviewed the land use alternatives for the Horner-Veasy
focus area and asked Council their preference in an effort to narrow the discussion.
Council provided feedback.
Planning Manager Campbell stated staff would bring forth a refined alternative at a future
meeting based on Council feedback.
There was no formal action was taken by Council.
VII.e. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Union City to Amend Certain
Provisions of Title 1 and Title 2 of the Municipal Code to Revise Inconsistent and Legally
Obsolete Provisions and to Add Desirable Provisions
Deputy City Attorney Kris Kokotaylo presented the staff report and responded to
questions from Council.
Regarding the issue of Board and Commission term limits, Council discussed
increasing the number of terms from two (2) to three (3) to match the number of terms
allowed for City Council. Council reached consensus to keep the term limit to two (2)
terms.
Regarding an increase in the Planning Commission from five (5) to seven (7) members,
Council reached a consensus to the keep the Planning Commission at five
commissioners with two (2) alternates.
4
8
It was moved by Mayor Dutra-Vernaci and seconded by Councilmember Navarro to
introduce the Ordinance amending Certain Provisions of Title 1 and Title 2 of the
Municipal Code with the discussed revisions related to the Planning Commission. The
motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote.
VII.f. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Contract in the amount of $285,457.00 with Avidex
Industries, LLC for Renovation of the Union City Council Chambers
Assistant to the City Manager Rick LaForce presented the staff report and responded to
questions from Council. An amendment to the presented resolution states “Contract to
be approved in content and form by City Attorney.”
Barry Ferrier expressed his support for the renovation, which he believed was long
overdue.
City Manager Acosta added that there would be a change in the configuration of the City
Clerk’s station. This information was not included in the report.
It was moved by Councilmember Ellis and seconded by Councilmember Navarro, to
adopt Resolution No. 4926-16 approving a contract in the amount of $285,457.00 with
Avidex Industries, LLC for renovation of the Union City Council Chambers. The motion
was carried by a unanimous voice vote.
VIII.
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - None
IX.
X.
XI.
Barry Ferrier reported on some street racing activity taking place at the Lucky’s
parking lot in Union Landing.
XII.
SCHEDULED ORAL COMMUNICATION – None
XIII.
ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
Oral Reports by Mayor and Councilmembers on meetings of County or Regional Board and
C Commissions
Alameda County Fire Department Advisory Commission – Councilmember
Navarro reported his attendance of the June 9 Fire Academy graduation,
where there were 18 graduates recognized.
Alameda County Library Advisory Commission – Nothing reported.
Alameda County Mayors Conference – Mayor Dutra-Vernaci reported on the
last meeting where a representative from Spur spoke on transportation issues.
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) – Mayor Dutra-Vernaci
attended the ACTC meeting where it was stated that Lawrence Livermore Lab
will add 3000 jobs in the next two years, which will have an effect on traffic
and planning.
Alameda County Waste Management Authority (WMA) – Councilmember Ellis
stated he attended the Stop Waste meeting on May 25, where Union City
business Corning Life Sciences received the StopWaste Business Efficiency
5
9
Award
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) – Nothing reported.
City of Union City Youth Violence Prevention & Intervention Advisory
Committee (YVPIP) – Vice Mayor Duncan reported her attendance of the June
1 programming meeting for the YVPIP.
Disaster Council – Nothing reported.
Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee – Nothing reported.
East Bay Economic Development Alliance (EDA) – Mayor Dutra-Vernaci
reported on her attendance of the annual retreat where the increased
population of elderly was discussed in relation to planning (i.e. autonomous
cars).
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority (EBRCSA) – Mayor
Dutra-Vernaci Meeting occurred after recent officer shootings and the
communications systems worked well.
Economic Development Advisory Team (EDAT) – Nothing reported.
Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) – Councilmember
Gacoscos reported on her attendance of the June 8 HACA meeting where
scholarships were awarded to 13 students, three (3) of which were from Union
City.
League of California Cities, East Bay Division (LOCC) – Nothing reported.
New Haven Unified School District Joint Sub-Committee – Nothing reported.
Oakland Airport Community Noise Management Forum – Nothing reported.
Oversight Board to the Successor Agency to the Union City Redevelopment
Agency – Nothing reported.
Teen Center Project Updates – Nothing reported.
Union City Chamber of Commerce – Nothing reported.
XIV. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Councilmember Gacoscos stated she attended the following events:
May 26 - Commissioner Appreciation;
May 28 - Asian American Festival;
May 30 - Memorial Day event at Chapel of the Chimes;
June 2 – Windflower project naming ceremony; and
June 4 – City Council retreat
Councilmember Navarro invited the community to attend the “Going Away
Luncheon” for Fr. Geoffrey Baraan on June 26.
Vice Mayor Duncan stated she attended most of the events attended by
Councilmember Gacoscos.
6
10
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci stated she was sent a picture of road work taking place
on Delores Dr. where subcontractors need to clean up. Mayor Dutra-Vernaci
noted that Voss Construction was doing a good job.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci stated that Samtrans will hold an additional meeting on
the Dumbarton rail project on June 27, 7:30 p.m.
XV. CLOSED SESSION - None
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci adjourned the meeting at 12:06 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anna M. Brown
City Clerk
7
11
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Type
Draft Minutes for the Special City Council Meeting of June 28, 2016 Attachment
Draft Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on June 28,
Attachment
2016
12
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF UNION CITY
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
6:30 PM
City Council Conference Room
34009 Alvarado Niles Road
I.
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
Present: Councilmembers Gacoscos and Navarro, Vice Mayor Duncan,
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci
Absent: Councilmember Ellis
II.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
CLOSED SESSION
III.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Gov. Code § 54956.9 (d)(1), Yolanda Smith, individually and as
Successor in interest of Amos Smith Jr., v. Daniel Dejong and
Daniel Blum United States District Court, Northern District of
California, Case No. C 14-00546 TEH (LB)
IV.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m. with no reportable
action.
Anna M. Brown
City Clerk
13
MINUTES
CITY OF UNION CITY/
7:00 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I.
CALL TO ORDER
I.a.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci led the salute to the flag.
I.b.
Roll Call
Present: Councilmembers Gacoscos and Navarro, Vice Mayor
Duncan, Mayor Dutra-Vernaci
Absent: Councilmember Ellis
II.
III.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
III.a. A Proclamation in Recognition and Appreciation to Geoffrey Fisher for 18+ Years of
Meritorious Service to the City of Union City
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci read the proclamation aloud and presented it to Information
Technology Manager Geoffrey Fisher.
Manager Fisher thanked Council and staff for the recognition.
IV.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Harvey Dosanj discussed an issue regarding City trees, the damage they
cause to sidewalks and who should bear the burden of the costs to repair
damage caused by City trees.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci noted his comment as a common frustration voiced by
community members, but that it is a home owner’s responsibility.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci requested discussion of item V.c.
It was moved by Councilmember Navarro and seconded by Councilmember
Gacoscos to approve Consent Calendar Items V.a., V.b., and V.d. The motion
was carried by the following voice vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Navarro and Gacoscos, Vice Mayor Duncan and
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Ellis
1
14
V.a. Waived Further Reading of Proposed Ordinance
(This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire text of any proposed
Ordinance.)
V.b. Conducted Second Reading and Adopted Ordinance No. 820-16 Adding Chapter
7.06 “City of Union City Food Ware Ordinance” to the Union City Municipal Code
(Introduced June 14, 2016)
V.d. Adopted Resolution No. 4927-16 Approving Changes to the Fiscal Years 2015-2016
and 2016-2017 Authorized Positions List to Include Removal of (1) Senior Accountant
and Reinstatement of (1) Accountant
Discussion of Item V.c
V.c. Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Certain Provisions of Title
1 and Title 2 of the Municipal Code to Revise Inconsistent and Legally Obsolete
Provisions and to Add Desirable Provisions
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci noted the Municipal Code was silent on term limits
when commissioners switch commissions (i.e. Planning Commission
term limit reached then Commissioner joins Park and Recreation). The
Mayor asked if it should be codified that term limits start over when
changing commissions.
City Attorney Reyes did not believe that was necessary as the way the
code was drafted, that would be accurately interpreted.
It was moved by Mayor Dutra-Vernaci and seconded by Vice Mayor
Duncan to adopt Ordinance No. 821-16 Amending Certain Provisions of
Title 1 and Title 2 of the Municipal Code to Revise Inconsistent and
Legally Obsolete Provisions and to Add Desirable Provisions. The
motion was carried by the following voice vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
VI.
Councilmembers Navarro and Gacoscos, Vice Mayor
Duncan and Mayor Dutra-Vernaci
None
None
Councilmember Ellis
PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI.a. Public Hearing (Published Notice) to Adopt a Resolution Approving Site Development
Review, SD-16-001, and Use Permit, UP-16-003, Applications for Demolition and
Reconstruction of an Existing Shell Service Station on Property Located at 2001
Decoto Road (APN: 486-0099-007-05)
Associate Planner Tim Maier presented the staff report and responded to
questions from Council. Councilmembers provided comment.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci opened the public hearing and called for public
comment.
Applicant Muthana Ibrahim thanked Council for consideration of the
project and made himself available for questions.
2
15
Being no further comment, Mayor Dutra-Vernaci closed the public
hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Gacoscos and seconded by
Councilmember Navarro, to approve Resolution No. 4928-16 Approving
Site Development Review, SD-16-001, and Use Permit, UP-16-003,
Applications for Demolition and Reconstruction of an Existing Shell
Service Station on Property Located at 2001 Decoto Road (APN: 4860099-007-05). The motion was carried by the following voice vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
None
None
Councilmember Ellis
VI.b. Public Hearing for Renewal of Landscape & Lighting District No. 3
Public Works Engineer Tim Ruark presented the staff report and
responded to questions from Council. Councilmembers provided
comment.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci opened the public hearing and called for public
comment. Being no, Mayor Dutra-Vernaci closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Vice Mayor Duncan and seconded by Councilmember
Navarro to approve Resolution No. 4929-16 Confirming the Assessment
and Diagram as Described in the Annual Engineer’s Report and Ordering
the Levy for the Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 for
Fiscal Year 2016/17. The motion was carried by the following voice vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
VII.
None
None
Councilmember Ellis
VII.a. Adopt a Resolution Identifying Potential Budget Reduction Impacts of a Loss of
Measure UU Funding
City Manager Acosta presented the report highlighting the reductions that
would need to be made in the Police, Fire and Youth and Family Services
Departments. City Manager Acosta responded to questions from Council.
Councilmembers provided comment.
Council commented on the importance of letting residents know the
realities ahead should the funding from Measure UU be lost.
It was moved by Councilmember Gacoscos and seconded by
Councilmember Navarro to adopt Resolution No. 4930-16 Identifying
Potential Budget Reduction Impacts that Could Arise from the Loss
Of
Measure UU (2008 Public Safety Parcel Tax) Funding
VIII. SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - None
IX.
3
16
X.
XI.
Barry Ferrier reported on his attendance of the last Dumbarton Rail meeting
held in Redwood City, which was held in conjunction with North Fair Oaks
Community Council. Mr. Ferrier also expressed his desire to see the
Reconvene the Dumbarton Rail Community Advisory Commission reconvened
and noted that semi-annual reports were supposed to be provided.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci requested an update on the matter from Public Works
Engineer Ruark.
XII.
SCHEDULED ORAL COMMUNICATION - None
XIII. ITEMS REFERRED BY COUNCIL
Oral Reports by Mayor and Councilmembers on meetings of County or Regional Board and
Commissions
Alameda County Fire Department Advisory Commission – Nothing reported
Alameda County Library Advisory Commission – Nothing reported
Alameda County Mayors Conference – Nothing reported
Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) – Nothing reported
Alameda County Waste Management Authority (WMA) – Nothing reported
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) – Nothing reported
City of Union City Youth Violence Prevention & Intervention Advisory
Committee – Nothing reported
Disaster Council – Nothing reported
Dumbarton Rail Corridor Policy Advisory Committee – Nothing reported
East Bay Economic Development Alliance (EDA) – Nothing reported
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority (EBRCSA) – Nothing
reported
Economic Development Advisory Team (EDAT) - Vice Mayor Duncan stated
she will attend the next week
Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) – Nothing reported
League of California Cities, East Bay Division (LOCC) – Nothing reported
New Haven Unified School District Joint Sub-Committee – Nothing reported
Oakland Airport Community Noise Management Forum – Nothing reported
Oversight Board to the Successor Agency to the Union City Redevelopment
Agency – Nothing reported
Teen Center Project Updates – Nothing reported
4
17
Union City Chamber of Commerce – Councilmember Gacoscos reported on
her attendance of the last general membership meeting where increasing
membership and improving services were among the topics of discussion.
A Mentorship Program with James Logan High School and increasing
company tours were also discussed.
XIV. GOOD OF THE ORDER
Councilmember Gacoscos stated she attended a luncheon in honor of Father
Geoffrey Baraan on June 26, where she gave an impromptu Proclamation for
Father Baraan Day. She stated Father Baraan made specific mention of Chief
McAllister, and his appreciation for him.
Councilmember Gacoscos announced these upcoming events:
July 2 UCPD 50th Anniversary at the William Cann Civic Center
July 13 Chamber of Commerce Community Spirit Awards at the
Ruggieri Senior Center.
August 21 - Sister Cities Festival
Councilmember Navarro stated that he and Councilmember Gacoscos
attended the Filipino Bar Association event on June 24.
Councilmember Navarro stated he also attended the luncheon for Father
Baraan and read a personal statement expressing his appreciation for Father
Baraan.
Vice Mayor Duncan asked about the current outreach efforts for Boards and
Commission recruitment and suggested reaching out to past graduates of the
City’s Citizen Academy.
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci reported on her attendance of the U.S. Mayors
Conference in Indiana, where she took part in sessions related to Childhood
Obesity, Dementia and Alzheimer’s Programs, Transportation Programs,
Complete Streets Programs, and the Dalai Lama - Lady Gaga discussion on
acts of kindness. Mayor Dutra-Vernaci stated she would share this information
with staff and commissions related to the topics.
The Mayors from the City of Flynt, MI and Charleston, SC were present and
spoke about the issues affecting their cities; the water crisis and mass shooting
respectively. Also, in the wake of the Orlando shooting, the Mayor from
Orlando was present and spoke about strategies and resources employed by
his City in the face of the tragedy.
XV. CLOSED SESSION - None
XVI. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Dutra-Vernaci adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m.
Anna M. Brown
City Clerk
5
18
DATE:
7/12/2016
TO:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ANNA M. BROWN, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT:
ADOPT A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE VOTING DELEGATE AND
ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE – OCTOBER 5-7, 2016, LONG BEACH
The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution designating the City of Union City’s voting delegate and
alternate voting delegate to the Annual Conference of the League of California Cities (LOCC) in Long Beach on
October 5 - 7, 2016.
BACKGROUND
It is customary (and required by the LOCC bylaws) for the City of Union City to designate its voting delegate
and alternate voting delegate for the Annual Conference of the LOCC.
DISCUSSION
Council assignments currently reflect Vice Mayor Emily Duncan as the designated voting delegate to the
LOCC, and Councilmember Ellis as the alternate voting delegate. Vice Mayor Duncan and Councilmember
Gacoscos have indicated they will be attending the LOCC conference this year. Mayor Dutra-Vernaci,
Councilmembers Navarro and Ellis are not planning to attend. Vice Mayor Duncan is prepared to serve in her
role as the voting delegate, and Councilmember Gacoscos is available to serve as the alternate voting delegate.
LOCC bylaws require that voting delegates and their alternates be confirmed by Council Resolution not later
than September 23.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve a resolution designating the voting delegate and alternate voting
delegate for the League of California Cities annual conference - October 5-7, 2016, Long Beach.
Prepared by:
19
Anna M. Brown, City Clerk
Submitted by:
Anna M. Brown, City Clerk
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution selecting voting delegates for the 2016 Annual LOCC
Conference
Type
Resolution
20
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY
DESIGNATING THE VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE
FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
OCTOBER 5 – OCTOBER 7, 2016, IN LONG BEACH
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities (“League”) bylaws require that every
city wishing to vote at the League’s Annual Business Meeting designate its voting
delegate and alternate voting delegate by Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Union City intends the City be duly
represented at said Business Meeting, which is to be held in conjunction with the
League’s Annual Conference in Long Beach on October 5 – October 7, 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby designates
Vice Mayor Emily Duncan as its Voting Delegate and Councilmember Gacoscos as its
Alternate Voting Delegate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference in Long
Beach, California on October 5 – October 7, 2016.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union
City at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of July 2016, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
________________________________
CAROL DUTRA-VERNACI
Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
ANNA M. BROWN
City Clerk
________________________________
BENJAMIN T. REYES II
City Attorney
21
DATE:
7/12/2016
TO:
FROM:
MARK CARLSON, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AUTHORIZATION OF SIGNATORIES
FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT
FUND (LAIF)
The City Council is asked to update the authorized signatories for the State of California Local Agency
Investment Fund (LAIF).
BACKGROUND
The City’s investment policy allows funds to be deposited in the State of California Local Agency Investment
Fund (LAIF). LAIF requires a resolution authorizing specific individuals to transact business with LAIF. The
approval of one authorized individual is needed to withdraw from or make deposits to LAIF, via telephone.
Any changes to the LAIF account require the signature of two authorized employees.
DISCUSSION
With the departure of Administrative Services Director, David Glasser, the signature authorities for LAIF
transactions must be updated. Through adoption of the attached Resolution, the authorized signatories for
LAIF Account #98-01-940 and #11-01-039 will be Mark Carlson, Finance Director; Gayle Okada, Supervising
Accountant; Lola Tapia, Senior Accountant; and Antonio Acosta, City Manager.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution updating the list of City employees
authorized to transact business with LAIF.
Prepared by:
Gayle Okada, Supervising Accountant
22
Submitted by:
Mark Carlson, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Type
Resolution
Resolution
Attachment A
Attachment
23
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY AUTHORIZING
INVESTMENTS OF MONIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 730 of the Statues of 1976, Section 16429.1 was added to the
California Government Code to create the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury for the
deposit of money of a local agency for purposes of investment by the State Treasurer, and
WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find that the deposit and withdrawal of money in the
Local Agency Investment Fund is in accordance with the provisions of Section 16429.1 of the
Government Code for the purposes of investments as stated herein is in the best interest of the City,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby authorize the deposit and withdrawal of the
City’s monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund in the State Treasury in accordance with the
provisions of Section 16429.1 of the Government Code for the purpose of investment as stated herein,
and verification by the State Treasurer’s Office of all banking information provided in that regard,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Officers identified in the attached Exhibit “A” shall
be authorized to make transfers between the Local Agency Investment Fund and the City’s banks.
24
EXHIBIT “A”
AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER FUNDS BETWEEN THE LOCAL AGENCY
INVESTMENT FUND AND THE CITY’S FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND ACCOUNT #98-01-940:
Finance Director
Supervising Accountant
Senior Accountant
City Manager
Mark Carlson
Gayle Okada
Lola Tapia
Antonio Acosta
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND ACCOUNT #11-01-039:
AB3107 S/A Union City for Union City Community Redevelopment Agency 2010 TAB
Finance Director
Supervising Accountant
Senior Accountant
City Manager
Mark Carlson
Gayle Okada
Lola Tapia
Antonio Acosta
25
DATE:
7/12/2016
TO:
FROM:
MINTZE CHENG, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
ADOPT A RESOLUTION FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL FISCAL
YEARS 2017-2019 DBE GOAL FOR FTA FUNDED PROJECTS
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution that sets the overall annual Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) Goal for Federal Fiscal Years 2017-2019 for two FTA-funded projects.
BACKGROUND
The City of Union City anticipates using Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds to construct the
Pedestrian At-Grade Crossing Improvements that will link BART to Duncan Way in the Station District and
for the Rehabilitation of Eight (8) Transit Buses. The utilization of these federal funds requires that the City
adopt a Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Goal for these projects.
DISCUSSION
The use of any federal funds, such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) funds, requires the establishment of project-specific DBE goals. The DBE goal is
developed utilizing a federally prescribed two-step goal setting methodology, described in 49 CFR Part 26.
Step 1 includes establishing a base goal utilizing quantifiable evidence to determine the relative availability of
DBEs within specific industries within City’s market area. Step 2 consists of refining the base goal which
consists of surveying and assessing other known relevant evidence to determine what additional adjustments, if
any, are needed to narrowly tailor the base figure. After considering the factors described above, as well as
knowledge of our contracting market, the City determined that the appropriate overall DBE goal for FTAassisted City projects for the FY 2017 though FY 2019 is 1.0%, which reflects the projected market availability
of DBE firms.
For FHWA-funded projects, the City has signed an Implementation Agreement with Caltrans which allows us
to come under the umbrella of their DBE program and allows us to simply calculate a goal for each contract.
A Public Notice showing the proposed goal and associated Methodology was posted on City’s website on
June 8, 2016 for a 30-day review and comments period which ended on July 11, 2016. The FTA DBE Goal and
Policy Statement were also emailed to approximately 50 Chambers of Commerce and DBE Chambers
26
throughout the bay area informing them of the Public Notice which provided a link to City’s website. No
comments on the goal were delivered as of 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 11, 2016.
FISCAL IMPACT
The two FTA-funded projects consist of Pedestrian At-Grade Crossing Improvements in the anticipated
amount of $980,000 and the Rehabilitation of Eight (8) Transit Buses in the amount of $1,600,000, for total
FTA funds in the amount of $2,580,000.
City Council’s adoption of the overall annual DBE Goal for FTA funded projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2017
through 2019 is intended to ensure compliance with Department of Transportation’s federal funding
requirements, provisions and financial responsibilities.
Failure to adopt the DBE Goal will jeopardize the City of Union City’s federal financial assistance and the
ability to construct these projects using FTA funds.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) Goal of 1.0 % for Federal Fiscal Years 2017-2019. Adopting the attached resolution will
enable expenditure of funds for the two FTA funded projects.
Prepared by:
MURRAY CHANG, CIVIL ENGINEER II
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
Type
Resolution
27
RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPT A RESOLUTION FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 20172019 DBE GOAL FOR FTA FUNDED PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City of Union City is required to develop and submit a Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal for disadvantaged business participation for DOT-assisted
contracts triennially as a condition of federal financial assistance, pursuant to Title 49 CFR Part 26;
Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Programs; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to requirements of Title 49 CFR Part 26, the City of Union City has
established a DBE Goal of 1.0% for Federal Fiscal Year 2017-19 for FTA funded projects; and
WHEREAS, as required by law, a Public Notice showing the proposed goal and associated
Methodology was posted on City’s website on June 8, 2016 for a 30-day review and comments
period which ended on July 11, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the FTA DBE Goal and Policy Statement were also emailed to approximately
50 Chambers of Commerce and DBE Chambers throughout the bay area informing them of the
Public Notice which provided a link to City’s website; and
WHEREAS, no comments on the DBE goal were received by the end of the 30-day review
and comments period which ended on July 11, 2016; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the DBE goal by the City Council is required to ensure compliance
with Department of Transportation’s federal funding requirements, provisions and financial
responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the two FTA-funded projects consist of Pedestrian At-Grade Crossing
Improvements in the anticipated amount of $980,000 and the Rehabilitation of Eight (8) Transit
Buses in the amount of $1,600,000, for total FTA funds in the amount of $2,580,000;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Union City does
hereby approve and adopt the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Goal of 1.0% for Federal
Fiscal Year 2017-19.
28
DATE:
7/12/2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ADOPT A RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT TO PURCHASE ONE 2017
CHEVROLET VOLT FOR THE CITY MANAGER’S DEPARTMENT, CITY
PROJECT NO. 16-24; AND TO DECLARE UNIT #307
(VIN#2B3HD46R44H621460) AS SURPLUS TO BE SENT TO PUBLIC AUCTION
Public Works staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the purchase of one 2017
Chevrolet Volt for City Manager Department and declaring a 2003 Dodge Intrepid (Unit #307) as surplus.
BACKGROUND
Unit #307 (2003 Dodge Intrepid, VIN#2B3HD46R44H621460), has been in use for thirteen years. This vehicle
has had intermittent problems and warrants discontinued use. Unit #307 is used by the CUPA program under
the Economic and Community Development Department. Unit #300 (2009 Toyota Camry,
VIN#4T1BB46K39U064473), has been in use by the City Manager’s department for seven years. The Camry
had gone through recent repair work, is in good condition, and will be assigned to the CUPA program to
replace the Dodge Intrepid Unit #7.
DISCUSSION
The Dodge Intrepid is on the scheduled replacement list. The Fleet Division obtained three proposals from
bay area dealerships. The qualified proposal was obtained from Fremont Chevrolet for a 2017 Chevrolet Volt
(VIN# 1G1RD6S55HU101183) in the amount of $41,464.25.
The City plans to purchase a new replacement vehicle, 2017 Chevrolet Volt for Unit #300, decommission 2003
Dodge Intrepid - Unit #307, and re-assign 2009 Toyota Camry to Unit #307.
FISCAL IMPACT
The purchase price of $41.464.25 includes taxes, license, fees, and extended warranty. Funding for the
replacement of this vehicle is available from the vehicle replacement fund (6122).
29
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the purchase of one 2017
Chevrolet Volt (VIN# 1G1RD6S55HU101183) from Fremont Chevrolet. It is further recommended that the
City Council declare old unit #307 (2003 Dodge Intrepid, VIN#2B3HD46R44H621460) as surplus to be sent
to public auction.
Prepared by:
Richard Sealana, Public Works Superintendent
Submitted by:
Mintze Cheng, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
Type
Resolution
30
AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF ONE 2017 CHEVROLET VOLT
AND DECLARING ONE 2003 DODGE INTREPID AS SURPLUS TO BE SENT TO
PUBLIC AUCTION, CITY PROJECT NO. 16-24
WHEREAS, the City desires to purchase one 2017Chevrolet Volt as a
replacement for one 2003 Dodge Intrepid;
WHEREAS, the Fleet Division did obtain three competitive proposals from local
dealerships revealing Fremont Chevrolet as the qualified proposal;
WHEREAS, the qualified proposal was in the amount of $41,464.25;
WHEREAS, Funding for this replacement vehicle is available from the vehicle
replacement fund (6122);
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Union City hereby authorizes the purchase of one 2017Chevrolet Volt and awards the
contract to Fremont Chevrolet of Fremont, California;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Union City
hereby declares 2003 Dodge Intrepid, VIN#2B3HD46R44H621460 as a
decommissioned surplus vehicle to be sent to public auction.
31
DATE:
7/12/2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Filing of Applications with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Allocation of Funds for the
Operation of Union City Transit and Paratransit for Fiscal Year 2016-2017
The attached resolution authorizes City staff to file annual funding applications with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) for the operation of Union City Transit and Union City Paratransit for Fiscal
Year 2016-2017. Staff recommends approval of the proposed resolution.
BACKGROUND
The State’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides two main sources of funding for public
transportation, the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA). The LTF funds are
derived from ¼-cent of the 7.25-cent retail sales tax collected statewide. STA funds are derived from the statewide
sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. TDA and STA funds are apportioned though MTC.
DISCUSSION
Funds are claimed to meet operating, planning and capital requirements. Unclaimed and/or unused funds are rolled
over for future transit operating needs and are set aside to fund large upcoming transit capital projects. TDA and
STA funds will be claimed to operate the City’s local fixed-route transit system and Union City’s ADA (Americans
with Disabilities Act) paratransit services. The estimated total application amounts for these funds are as follows
(fixed route and paratransit combined) based on current allocation estimates:
TDA
TDA Capital
STA
Total
$2,880,270
$286,644
$468,244
$3,635,158
FISCAL IMPACT
The TDA and STA funding sources along with anticipated passenger fares and other grants will fully fund Union
City Transit and Union City Paratransit services for Fiscal Year 2016-2017. There will be no impact on the General
32
Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the filing of applications with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for allocation of Transportation Development Act and State Transit
Assistance funds for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
Attachment: Draft Resolution
Prepared by:
Wilson Lee, Transit Manager
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
Type
Resolution
33
RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF APPLICATIONS WITH THE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLES 4 AND 4.5 AND STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE
FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-2017
WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA), (Public Utilities Code
§99200 et seq.), provides for the disbursement of funds from the Local Transportation
Fund (LTF) of the County of Alameda for use by eligible applicants for the purpose of
transportation services; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the TDA, and pursuant to the
applicable rules and regulations thereunder (21 Cal. Code of Regs. §6600 et seq.) a
prospective applicant wishing to receive an allocation from the Local Transportation
Fund (LTF) shall file its claim with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; and
WHEREAS, the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund is created pursuant to Public
Utilities Code §99310 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the STA fund makes funds available pursuant to Public Utilities
Code §99313.6 for allocation to eligible applicants to support approved transit projects;
and
WHEREAS, TDA funds from the Local Transportation Fund of Alameda County
and STA funds will be required by applicant in Fiscal Year 2016-2017 for local
transportation services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Union City is an eligible applicant for TDA and STA
funds pursuant to PUC section(s) §99260, §99275, §99313 and §99314;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is
authorized to execute and file appropriate applications and supporting documents with
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for an allocation of TDA and STA funds
for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in conjunction with the filing of the claim,
and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission be requested to grant the allocations of
funds as specified herein.
34
DATE:
7/12/2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING
FOR BID A NEW REGENERATIVE AIR STREET SWEEPER VEHICLE
The Public Works Streets Division needs to replace a 10-year old street sweeper that is becoming unreliable and costly to
maintain. It is recommended that the City Council approve the specifications for one regenerative street sweeper and set
the bid advertisement date for Thursday July 14th, 2016.
BACKGROUND
Public Works’ Street Division is responsible for sweeping all Union City owned streets at least twice a month, including
city owned facilities (City Hall, Ruggeri Senior Center, Mark Green Sports Center, etc.). We are one of the few cities in
the bay area with similar number of curb miles that performs street sweeping on the same street twice a month. Two
sweepers perform the daily street cleaning work, with a third one as a backup. The continuous wear and tear is taking a
toll on the reliability of these street sweepers, especially Unit #474. This vehicle was purchased in 2005 and is currently
the designated back up vehicle to our two primary street sweepers. Whenever one of the primary street sweepers is sent
out for maintenance, the backup unit fills in the gap. However, this unit itself requires maintenance after a few days of
operation, which becomes a problem if one of the two primary sweepers doesn’t come back in time.
DISCUSSION
Union City residents are accustomed to the twice monthly street sweeping schedule. Whenever the City skips a day due
to either vehicle maintenance issue or street sweeping falls on a holiday, staff tries its best to make it up by sweeping it on
the fifth Friday of each month or operate all three sweepers to meet the schedules. As the amount of debris continue to
increase each year, evident in the amount of refuse bins cycled through each month, it is pertinent we continue to keep
our street sweepers in optimal operating condition. State and federal environmental mandates require keeping streets
clean and minimizing pollutants from entering water ways.
The Public Works Department desires to purchase one new regenerative street sweeper to replace one of the primary
sweepers and to rotate it as backup status with Unit #474. This will ensure at least two operational street sweepers at all
times.
Public Works staff has prepared the specifications for a regenerative air sweeper and once approved by City Council, the
bidding documents can be advertised by July 14th, with a bid opening date of August 2nd.
35
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the specifications and authorize Public Works to seek bids for a
regenerative air sweeper. Following receipt of bids, staff plans to recommend the approval or rejection of the bids to the
City Council at the meeting on August 9th, 2016.
FISCAL IMPACT
The requested action for the sweeper specifications approval and release for bids does not have fiscal impact. Staff will
request a supplemental appropriation for City’s Vehicle Replacement Fund when it presents the sweeper procurement
contract to the City Council. The estimated cost of a new sweeper is about $250,000.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the specifications for one regenerative
street sweeper and advertising for bids.
Prepared by:
Travis Huang, Civil Engineer III
Submitted by:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
Type
Resolution
36
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVE SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE FOR BIDS FOR A
NEW REGENERATIVE AIR STREET SWEEPER
CITY PROJECT NO. 16-27
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department operates two street sweeping
sweepers each workday on a year-round basis to maintain the cleanliness of city streets
and to be in compliance with State/Federal environmental mandates;
WHEREAS, the existing backup street sweeper is unreliable and requires
constant maintenance;
WHEREAS, City desires to procure a new regenerative air street sweeper to
replace one of the current primary sweepers and rotate it to backup status;
WHEREAS, funding for the replacement street sweeper can be made available
through the vehicle replacement account. Funding plan will be presented to the Council
when sweeper contract is awarded.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of
Union City hereby authorizes the bid process for the purchase of one (1) regenerative air
sweeper, City Project No. 16-27, with bid specifications on file in the office of the Public
Works Director.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Union City is
hereby authorized to cause a Notice Calling for Bids for the required equipment to be
published in form and manner required by law.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all persons desiring to bid on said
equipment are to file their bid with the City Clerk of the City of Union City at 34009
Alvarado-Niles Road, California, prior to 2:00 p.m. on the day stated in the Notice
Calling for Bids.
37
DATE:
7/12/2016
TO:
FROM:
JOAN MALLOY, ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
BRIEFING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON GOVERNOR BROWN'S
STREAMLINE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRAILER BILL LEGISLATION (BYRIGHT HOUSING)
The purpose of this staff report is to provide the City Council with information on Governor Brown’s
proposed Streamline Affordable Housing trailer bill, also known as the By-Right Housing legislation.
BACKGROUND
Governor Brown recently introduced a budget trailer bill that would approve multi-family housing projects “by
right” (i.e., with no discretionary review) if the project includes specified amounts of affordable housing. The
Streamline Affordable Housing legislation was not approved as part of the State budget package on June 15,
2016. However, it has been indicated that the proposal will be revisited in August. The Governor also set aside
$400 million in funding for affordable housing in the State budget that is contingent on approval of the
Streamline Affordable Housing legislation.
A range of environmental groups, affordable housing advocates, advocates for local land use control, and the
League of California Cities have expressed opposition to the proposal because it would limit local land use
authority, public engagement, and environmental review; and it does not provide adequate funding for
affordable housing or maintain adequate years of affordability. The City has voiced its opposition to the
legislation to Assembly Member Quirk and Senator Wieckowski.
DISCUSSION
The proposed legislation would require cities and counties to approve housing projects as a permitted “use by
right” as long as,
1) The project is consistent with the city’s objective planning standards: zoning code, general plan,
land use, density, setbacks, and objective design review standards; and
2) The project provides a specified amount of affordable units (between five percent and 20 percent).
Included as Attachment A is the proposed legislation for the Streamline Affordable Housing trailer bill as of
June 10, 2016.
38
Applicable Housing Projects
The proposed legislation only applies to new multi-family residential or mixed-use construction projects that
contain two or more attached units. The proposal does not apply to single-family homes, the construction of
a secondary dwelling unit or the conversion of an existing structure to condominiums.
Affordable Housing Requirements
To qualify under the proposed legislation, a project would need to provide a specified amount of affordable
units in order to be a permitted “use by right.” The percentage of affordable units would vary based on the
site’s location in proximity to transit, as detailed below:
Transit Priority Area Sites[1]
Projects that are in a transit priority area would have to provide either:
o Ten percent of the total units provided as affordable units for lower income households
(80 percent of area median income)
OR
o Five percent of the total units provided as affordable units for very low income
households (50 percent of area median income)
A project would be considered in a priority transit area if the project site is within ½ mile of a major
transit stop. A major transit stop is an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal, or the intersection of
two or more major bus routes with a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak
weekday commute periods and offering weekend service. For Union City, areas that may be considered
major transit stops include the BART, Alvarado-Niles Road, Alvarado Boulevard, Dyer Street, and
likely Union City Boulevard in the vicinity of Old Alvarado.
Non-Transit Priority Sites
For projects not located within a transit priority area, the developer would have to provide 20 percent
of the total units as affordable units for lower income households (80 percent of area median income).
Affordability Period
In order to qualify under the proposed legislation, the affordable units would be required to be maintained for
the following time periods:
Ownership Developments
The affordable units would have to be affordable for thirty (30) years
Rental Developments
The affordable units would have to be affordable for fifty (55) years
Applicable Sites
If adopted, the proposed legislation would apply to all land designated for multi-family residential or mixed-use
developments. Figure 5-4 from the Housing Element identifies vacant and underutilized parcels that have been
identified as suitable for housing (included as Attachment B). In addition to the specific parcels highlighted on
the map, the Old Alvarado area, Mission Boulevard corridor, and the Station District would also be eligible for
“by-right” projects because the areas permit multi-family residential uses above ground floor residential.
39
Use By Right
“Use by Right” means the following:
The city cannot require discretionary review by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City
Council, such as Site Development Review or a Conditional Use Permit;
The city can only apply objective/quantifiable Planning Standards from the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance to a project (i.e., no design review or case-by-case considerations);
The project would not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
The approval process would not include any public notification or community input.
The proposed legislation would effectively eliminate Union City’s current design review process and would
replace it with a 30-90 day consultation period in which the City would be required to either approve a project
or document why it is inconsistent with the City’s objective planning standards within 30 days of receiving a
project application. If the City fails to respond within 30 days or fails to provide an explanation, the project is
deemed to be consistent with general plan and zoning standards. There is currently no requirement in the
legislation that a developer respond or comply with any City comments. Further, it is unclear what would
happen should a developer fail to address the City’s initial comments during the 90-day window.
Below is a chart showing the City’s current review process for a typical multi-family residential project in
comparison to the process proposed under the proposed legislation. Opportunities for public notice and
comment would be eliminated, as would all opportunity for decision makers (Zoning Administrator, Planning
Commission, and City Council) to weigh in on a project proposal.
Current Development Review Process
Proposed Review Process for
By-Right Developments
· Development Review Committee (DRC)
Review limited to 30-90 days. No
requirement to comply with comments
· Development Review Committee (DRC)
evaluation of project
· Public Notices
· Public Open House (optional)
· Environmental Review (CEQA)
· Study Session at Planning
Commission (optional)
· Public Hearing at Planning Commission
· Public Hearing at City Council
· Permits Issued
o Grading/Drainage Permit
o Tree Removal Permit
o Encroachment Permit
o Building Permit
o Landscape Permit
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
· Permits Issued
o Grading/Drainage Permit
o Tree Removal Permit
o Encroachment Permit
o Building Permit
o Landscape Permit
Staff is monitoring the development of the proposed legislation closely. In anticipation of the proposal
becoming law, staff is preparing a Zoning Text Amendment that would establish objective planning standards
applicable to all multi-family and mixed-use development projects. These new zoning standards would codify
standard conditions of approval and best practices that are typically applied through the Site Development
Review, Use Permit Review, and CEQA processes. Staff anticipates bringing the proposed Zoning Text
Amendment to the Council in the next several weeks.
40
[1] For ownership developments, the project would still need to meet the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance which
requires 15 percent of the total units be provided as affordable. However, the affordable units that would be provided under the proposed
legislation would be counted toward the 15 percent Inclusionary Ordinance requirement.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City has a result of receiving this report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the City Council receive the report. No action is needed at this time. Staff will continue to
brief the Council on the status of the proposed Streamline Affordable Housing legislation and its implications
for the City’s development review process. Staff also anticipates returning to the City Council with a Zoning
Text Amendment in the next several weeks to codify development standards in anticipation of the Streamline
Affordable Housing legislation.
Prepared by:
Alin Lancaster, Housing and Community Development Coordinator
Submitted by:
Joan Malloy, Economic and Community Development Direcotr
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Type
Attachment A - Streamline Affordable Housing Legislation
Attachment
Attachment B - Housing Element Sites
Attachment
Attachment C - Summary of Legislation
Attachment
41
weg
Attachment A
Streamlining Affordable Housing Approvals
Trailer Bill Technical Modifications (6-10-16)
SECTION 1. Section 65400.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65400.1. (a) A development applicant or development proponent pursuant to
Section 65913.3 of the Government Code may submit information describing the
development, including, but not limited to, land use and zoning designations and
requested permit(s) for the development to the Department of Housing and
Community Development in a reporting format to be made available. The information
submitted shall be compiled along with information pursuant to subparagraph (B) of
subsection (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 and Section 65588 of the
Government Code as follows:
(1) Upon receipt of a local government determination regarding the
development submittal.
(2) Issuance of a building permit for the development.
(b) The Department of Housing and Community Development shall annually
review and report on its website the information that has been submitted pursuant
to this section.
SEC. 2. Section 65913 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65913. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there exists a severe
shortage of affordable housing, especially for persons and families of low and
moderate income, and that there is an immediate need to encourage the development
of new housing, not only through the provision of financial assistance, but also through
changes in law designed to do all of the following:
(1) Expedite the local and State-supported residential development process.
(2) Assure that local governments zone sufficient land at densities high
enough for production of affordable housing.
(3) Assure that local governments make a diligent effort through the
administration of land use and development controls and the provision of regulatory
concessions and incentives to significantly reduce housing development costs and
1
42
weg
Attachment A
thereby facilitate the development of affordable housing, including housing for
elderly persons and families, as defined by Section 50067 of the Health and Safety
Code.
These changes in the law are consistent with the responsibility of local
government to adopt the program required by subdivision (c) of Section
65583.
(b) The Legislature further finds and declares that the costs of new housing
developments have been increased, in part, by the existing permit processes and by
existing land use regulations, and that vitally needed housing developments have
been halted or rendered infeasible despite the benefits to the public health, safety,
and welfare of those developments and despite the absence of adverse
environmental impacts. It is therefore necessary to enact this chapter and to amend
existing statutes which govern housing development so as to provide greater
encouragement for local and state governments to approve needed and sound
housing developments., and so as to assure that economic contributions by taxpayers
and the private sector to support housing are cost-effectively and efficiently deployed
to promptly create new housing in locations and at densities that have already been
approved by local governments in general plans and zoning codes.
(c) It is the intent of the Legislature that the provisions of Section 65913.3 of
the Government Code advance all of the following:
(1) Provisions of Government Code Section 65008.
(2) Implementation of State planning priorities pursuant to Government Code
Section 65041.1.
(3) Attainment of Section 65580 of the Government Code.
(4) Significant actions designed to affirmatively increase fair housing choice,
furthering the objectives of the Federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601, and
implementing regulations.
(5) Objectives of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
commencing with Section 38500 of the Health and Safety Code.
2
43
weg
Attachment A
(6) Compliance with non-discretionary inclusionary zoning ordinances
adopted by localities.
(7) By right approval for developments that are consistent with objective landuse standards as defined in Section 65913.3(a)(9) and adopted by a locality,
including but not limited to housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning
ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.
(8) Attainment of sufficient housing to accommodate all local government
shares of regional housing need referenced in Section 65584 and improve reporting
progress pursuant to Section 65400 for the legislature to amend Section 65913.3 or
take additional measures to further attain the State’s planning priorities.
SEC. 3. Section 65913.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65913.3. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have
the following meanings:
(1) “Approved remediation measures” shall mean measures included in a
certified environmental impact report to mitigate the impact of residential development in
the subject location; or uniformly applied development policies or standards that have
been adopted by the local government to mitigate the impact of residential development
in that location.
(2) “Affordable housing cost” or “Affordable rent” shall be as defined by Health
and Safety Code subdivision (b) of Section 50052.5 or subdivision (b) of Section 50053,
respectively.
(3) “Attached housing development” or “development” means a newlyconstructed structure containing two or more new dwelling units that is a housing
development project, as defined by subdivision (2) of subsection (h) of Section
65589.5 of the Government Code, but does not include a second unit, as defined by
subdivision (4) of subsection (i) of Section 65852.2 of the Government Code, or unit
from conversion of an existing structure to condominiums.
(4) “Department” means the Department of Housing and Community
Development.
(5) “Financial assistance” means any award of public financial assistance that is
3
44
weg
Attachment A
conditioned upon the satisfaction of specified award conditions; this term shall include
but not be limited to: the award of tax credits through and by the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee, and the award of grants or loans by any state agency or any
public agency.
(6) “Land-use authority” means any entity with state-authorized power to
regulate land-use permits and entitlements conferred by local governments.
(7) “Land-use restriction” means covenants restricting the use of land,
recorded regulatory agreements, or any other form of an equitable servitude.
(8) “Major transit stop” means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a
ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or
more major bus routes with a service interval frequency of 15 minutes or less during
the morning and afternoon peak weekday commute periods, and offering weekend
service.
(9) “Objective zoning standards” and “objective design review standards”
mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by the public
official; the standards must be uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and
uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development
applicant or proponent and public official prior to submittal. Such standards may be
embodied in alternate objective land-use standards adopted by a locality, and may
include but are not limited to housing overlay zones , specific plans, inclusionary
zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.
(10) “Public agency” means a federal, state, or local government agency, or a
local or regional housing trust fund which has been funded or chartered by a federal,
state, or local government agency.
(11) “Required by law to record” means, but is not limited to, a development
applicant or proponent is required to record a land-use restriction based on any of
the following:
(A) As a condition of award of funds or financing from a public agency.
(B) As a condition of the award of tax credits.
(C) As may be required by a contract entered into with a public agency.
(12) “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit
4
45
weg
Attachment A
stop that is existing or planned, provided the planned stop is scheduled to be
completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement
Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
(13) “Urban uses” means any residential, commercial, public institutional, transit
or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.
(b) A development that satisfies all of the following criteria shall be a permitted
use by right as that term is defined in subdivision (i) of Section 65583.2 of the
Government Code:
(1) The development applicant or proponent has submitted to the local
government its intent to utilize this authority, and has certified under penalty of perjury
that, to the best of the person’s knowledge and belief, the development conforms with
all other provisions identified herein.
(2) The development is consistent with the following objective planning
standards: land use and building intensity designation applicable to the site under
the general plan and zoning code, land use and density or other objective zoning
standards, and any setback or objective design review standards, all as in effect
at the time that the subject development is submitted to the local government
pursuant to this section.
(3) The development is located either on a site that is immediately adjacent to
parcels that are developed with urban uses or on a site in which at least 75 percent of
the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses or
bounded by a natural body of water. For the purposes of this section, parcels that are
only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined.
(4) The development must be an attached housing development, for which
the development applicant or proponent already has recorded, or is required by law
to record, a land-use restriction, which shall require all the following:
(A) A duration of at least 30 years for owner-occupied developments or 55 years
for rental developments.
(B) That any public agency and any member or members of the public, including
non-profit corporations, may bring and maintain an enforcement action to assure
5
46
weg
Attachment A
compliance with this land use restriction. This sub-paragraph (B) shall also be deemed
satisfied where a public agency that provides financial assistance to a development has
the exclusive right to enforce the subject land use restriction.
(C) For developments within a transit priority area, a restriction on the real
property of the development to a level of affordability equal to or greater than either of
the following:
(i) At least ten percent of the total units of a housing development for lower
income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) At least five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low
income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.
(D) For developments not within a transit priority area, a restriction on the real
property of the development to a level of affordability equal to or greater than at least
twenty (20) percent or more of the residential units restricted to and occupied by
individuals whose income is eighty (80) percent or less of gross county area median
income.
(5) Unless the development incorporates approved remediation measures in the
following locations as applicable to the development, the development is not located on
a site that is any of the following:
(A) “Farmland of statewide importance,” as defined pursuant to United States
Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for
California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation.
(B) Wetlands, as defined in Section 328.3 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
(C) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178 of the
Government Code, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as
indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code; however, this limitation
shall not apply to any of the following:
(i) Sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency
6
47
weg
Attachment A
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179 of the Government Code.
(ii) Sites that have adopted sufficient fire hazard mitigation measures as may
be determined by their local agency with land-use authority.
(iii) Sites that are within a five (5) mile driving distance of the nearest fire
station.
(D) Hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the
Government Code, or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of
Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code,
unless the Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for
residential use or residential mixed-uses.
(E) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State
Geologist in the official maps published thereby as referenced in section 2622 of the
Public Resources Code, unless the development complies with applicable fault
avoidance setback distances as required by the Alquist Priolo Act and complies with
applicable State-mandated and objective local seismic safety building standards.
(F) Within a flood plain as determined by maps promulgated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has been issued a flood
plain development permit pursuant to Sections 59 and 60 of Title 44 of the Code of
(G) Within a flood way as determined by maps promulgated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, unless the development receives a no rise
certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Title 44 of the Code of
(H) Within an area determined by the Department to be inappropriate for
affordable housing development by additional objective criteria, including areas severely
lacking in access to public transit, accessibility to employment or educational
opportunities, and residentially supportive retail and service amenities, all as to be
determined through regulations adopted by the Department at its discretion; until the
Department adopts such regulations this sub- paragraph (H) shall not be interpreted to
prohibit any such site. The Department is authorized, but not mandated, to adopt
regulations to implement the terms of this sub- paragraph (H); and such regulations
7
48
weg
Attachment A
shall be adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act set forth in Government
Code section 11340 et seq. Division 13 of the Public Resources Code shall not apply to
either: the Department’s adoption of the regulations authorized by this section, or any
financial assistance awarded by any public agency to any development that satisfies
subdivision (b) of this section. This section shall be operative regardless as to whether
the Department adopts the regulations authorized by this section.
(I) Within a site that has been designated in the National Register of
Historic Places pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, or a
site that has been listed in the California Register of Historical Resources
pursuant to section 5021 of the Public Resources Code.
(6) Unless the proposed housing development replaces units at a level of
affordability equal to or greater than the level of a previous affordability restriction, the
development must not be on a site in which any of the following apply:
(A) The site includes a parcel or parcels on which rental dwelling units are, or,
if the dwelling units have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period
preceding the application, have been subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or
law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low
income.
(B) The site is subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public
entity’s valid exercise of its police power; or occupied by lower or very low income
households.
(7) The development applicant or proponent shall provide a copy of the
declaration required by subsection (b)(1) of this section to all landowners of legal
parcels adjacent to the development concurrent with filing the submittal authorized by
this section. This sub-paragraph (7) may be satisfied if the aforementioned
declaration is mailed to the landowners at the address identified for receipt and
payment of taxes through the applicable county assessor, or if mailed to the subject
adjacent parcel’s postal address.
(8) The development shall not be upon a site that is Prime Farmland, as
defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and
monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared
8
49
weg
Attachment A
by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Department of
Conservation.
(c) If the applicable local government determines that the development is
inconsistent with at least one of the objective planning standards delineated in
subsection (b)(2), then it must provide the development applicant or proponent written
documentation of which standard or standards the development is not consistent with,
and a written explanation why the development is not consistent with that standard or
standards, all within thirty (30) calendar days of submittal of the development to the
local government pursuant to this section. If the documentation described in this
subsection fails to identify the objective standard or standards that the development is
not consistent with, if it fails to provide an explanation of why it is inconsistent therewith,
or if it is not provided to the development applicant or proponent within thirty (30)
calendar days of submittal, then for the purposes of this section, the development shall
be deemed to satisfy paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of this section.
(d) Any design review of the development shall not exceed ninety (90) days from
the submittal of the development to the local government pursuant to this section, and
shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or preclude the ministerial approval provided by this
section and the effect thereof.
(e) A development that satisfies subdivision (b) of this section shall not be subject
to the requirements of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code in order to be
accorded by right status under this section.
(f) This section does not relieve an applicant or public agency from complying
with the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410)).
(g) The review or approval of a permit, license, certificate, or any other
entitlement, by any public agency with land-use authority over any development that
satisfies subdivision (b) of this section shall be ministerial.
(h) Any person, as defined in Section 11405.70, seeking to require a City,
County, or public agency to ministerially review or approve the matters set forth in
subdivision (g) or enforce the by right provisions of subdivision (b) shall have the right to
enforce this Section through a writ of mandate issued pursuant to Section 1085 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Owners of legal parcels adjacent to any development that
9
50
weg
Attachment A
obtains by right approval under this section may also obtain relief through a writ of
mandate issued pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petition for
which must be filed within thirty days of the earlier of the adjacent land-owners receipt of
written notice of the subject approval, or actual notice of the approval.
(i) The development applicant or proponent may submit information describing
the development pursuant to Government Code Section 65400.1(a).
(j) The Legislature finds and declares that this section shall be applicable to all
cities and counties, including charter cities, because the Legislature finds that the lack
of affordable housing is a matter of vital statewide importance.
(k) Any and all individuals displaced by a development that is approved through
the ministerial process authorized by this section shall be accorded relocation
assistance as provided in the California Real Property Acquisition and Relocation
Assistance Act, set forth in Chapter 16, commencing with Government Code Section
7260. The development applicant or proponent shall be responsible for paying for
relocation assistance expenses incurred by any local agency as a result of this section.
(l) This section shall apply, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained
in this code or in any other law.
(m) Nothing in this section shall be construed to expand or contract the
authority of local government to adopt an objective standard by ordinance or charter
amendment requiring housing developments to contain a fixed percentage of housing
units affordable to and occupied by persons of specified lower or moderate incomes.
Any affordable housing units shall be credited against the affordable units required to
be created pursuant to subsection 65913.3(b)(4).
(n) A locality may adopt and publish a list clarifying its existing objective
planning standards that a development must be consistent with as referenced in
subsection (b)(2) of this Section.
10
51
Attachment B
Figure 5-4: Vacant/Underutilized Sites and Potential Rezone Sites
He
sp e
880
ri a
§
¨
¦
n
d
In
t
us
ri a
l
U
V
238
PR-2: Whipple Road
Whipple
LI-4: Mission Boulevard
Whipple
Dyer
LI-2: Union City
Boulevard South
Whipple
Smi t h
Al v
LI-3: Silver Dollar
va
ra
do
Nile
s
do
U
V
84
Union City
Al
ara
LI-1: Station District Block 2
PR-3: Alvarado
Niles Rd
Nile
Fr
e
AM-1: Turk Island
Un
´
PR-4: Cal Trans
io
n
Ci
ty
Pa
s
ad
P
eo
mo
nt
s
PR-1: Alameda Creek Site
re
Vacant and Underutilized Sites
0
0.25
0.5
Potential Rezone Sites
1
Miles
City Limits
52
Source: Union City, 2014
June 15, 2016
Attachment C
League of California Cities Summary
“By Right” Housing Approvals
Proposed Trailer Bill1
June 10, 2016, Version
The Department of Finance released an updated version of the Governor’s “by right”
housing proposal.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/trailer_bill_language/local_government/documents/707
StreamliningAffordableHousingApprovals6-10-16.pdf
While some minor issues have been clarified, other new issues of concern have been added.
Basic Framework: The Governor’s proposal for streamlining affordable housing approvals
requires cities and counties to approve:
•
•
•
•
•
A certain type of housing project with modest levels of affordable units
As a permitted “use by right”
With no public input;
With limited ministerial review; and
No CEQA compliance
Major Changes:
1
•
Adds definition of “objective planning standards” and “objective design standards”
which prohibits personal or subjective judgement by the public official.
•
Adds definition of “financial assistance”
•
Requires developer applying for ministerial review to notify owners of adjacent
parcels
•
Prohibits approval of housing project on Prime Farmland.”
•
Expands the definition of “immediately adjacent to urban uses” to include parcels
adjoined by a street or highway
•
Allows “any person” to file suit to require city/county to grant ministerial approval.
Adjacent property owners are also allowed to sue the city/county to enforce the
statute or challenge the city/county’s approval.
•
Clarifies that an inclusionary housing ordinance is an “objective planning standard”
but that a housing development’s affordable units must be credited against the
affordable units required by an inclusionary ordinance.
Based on most recent Department of Finance draft.
1
53
June 15, 2016
What types of housing projects are included?
Newly constructed structure containing two or more dwelling units in a project that is
entirely residential or part of a mixed-use development that comply with the criteria
summarized in the next question. The proposal does not apply to the construction of a
second unit or the conversion of an existing structure to condominiums. [NOTE: The
proposal is not clear. A cross reference to another definition in the law, raises concerns that
the law could also apply to a single-family housing development, mixed use or transitional
or supportive housing.]
What restrictions are placed on the location of these housing projects?
1. Urban site: Located on a site that is either immediately adjacent to parcels that are
developed with urban uses or for which at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins
parcels that are developed with urban uses. The revised version adds “or is bounded by a
natural body of water,” which presumably is intended to pick up sites bordering the ocean,
lakes and rivers.
2. Prohibited sites: A Project cannot be located on the following sites unless the
development incorporates “approved remediation measures:” (A) Farmland of
statewide importance; (B) Wetlands; (C) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone
[unless the site is within 5 miles of the nearest fire station; has been excluded from specific
hazard zones by the city/county; or has adopted sufficient fire hazard mitigation measures;
(D) Hazardous Waste site; (E) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone; (F) Flood plain;
(G) Floodway; (H) Within an area “determined to be inappropriate for affordable housing
development” by the Department of Housing and Community Development based upon
“objective criteria” such as lacking in access to public transit, accessibility to employment or
educational opportunities, and residentially supportive retail and service amenities. The
third draft of the proposal prohibits a housing development on “Prime Farmland” even if
the development incorporates “approved remediation measures.”
3. Replacing existing affordable housing: Unless development replaces units at a level of
affordability equal to or greater than the level of a previous affordability restriction, the
development may not be on any property that is (A) a parcel on which rental dwelling units
are, or have been within past 5 years, subject to a recorded covenant that restricts rents to
levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income; (B) subject to any
other form of rent or price control; or (C) occupied by lower or very low income
households.
What is a permitted “use by right?”
This means that a city may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development
permit, or other discretionary review or approval that would constitute a “project” for
purposes of CEQA. [NOTE: This means that approval of a housing project covered by the
proposal is not subject to any environmental evaluation under CEQA.]
What is the approval process for a housing project that qualifies for permitted “use
by right” review?
2
54
June 15, 2016
Within 30 days of receiving an application, the public official must either approve the
development or explain why it is inconsistent with objective planning standards. If the
public official fails to respond within 30 days or fails to provide an explanation, project is
deemed to be consistent with general plan and zoning standards.
What else is included in the proposal?
•
•
•
Declaration that the proposal applies to charter cities
Declaration that it overrides anything to the contrary in the existing law.
CEQA does not apply to a public agency’s award of financial assistance to any
development that qualifies as a permitted use by right under the proposal. The
revised version defines “financial assistance” to mean any award of public financial
assistance that is conditioned upon certain specified award conditions including the
award of tax credits through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and
grants or loans by a public agency.
What criteria must a housing project comply with to qualify for permitted “use by
right” review?
A housing project must comply each of the following requirements:
•
Objective planning standards: Consistent with the following objective planning
standards: land use and building intensity designation applicable to the site under
the general plan and zoning, or other objective zoning standards, and any setback or
objective design review standards in effect at the time the application is submitted
•
Affordability (TPA): For developments within a transit priority area2, subject to a
restriction lasting 30 years for owner-occupied and 55 years for rental requiring at
least 10% of the units be affordable to lower income households or at least 5% of
the units to be affordable to very low income households.
•
Affordability (non-TPA): For developments outside a transit priority area, subject
to a restriction lasting 30 years for owner-occupied and 55 years for rental
requiring at least 20% of the units to be affordable to households whose income is
80% or less of area median gross income.
•
Approved remediation measures: A project is not entitled to use by right if it is
located on certain sites (e.g. prime farmland, hazardous waste site, etc.) unless the
developer complies with “approved remediation measures.” These are measures
included in a certified environmental impact report to mitigate the impact of
residential development in the location proposed by the project; or uniformly
applied development policies or standards that have been adopted to mitigate the
impact of residential development in that location.
Comments and Concerns
Broad definition of who can sue to enforce statute
3
55
June 15, 2016
The third draft of the proposal says that “any person” seeking a city/county to review or
approve a housing development under this section may sue. “Any person” is a significant
expansion of the universe of people who would typically have “standing” to sue. For
example, the Housing Accountability Act [“Anti-NIMBY” statute] allows only the applicant or
any person who would be eligible to live in the development to bring an action to enforce
the statute.3
Also, property owners of parcels adjacent to the development may sue within 30 days of the
earlier of the adjacent land-owners receipt of written notice of the subject approval, or
actual notice of the approval. (Note: it is not clear what the rationale is in this version of
both notifying adjacent property owners and then empowering them to sue a local agency.
Typically public notice precedes an opportunity to be heard, but “ministerial” means no
public discussion and no discretionary decisions that could be informed by public input,
leaving unsatisfied parties with the courts as their only forum. An approving city could
potentially face lawsuits from both proponents and opponents.
Unprecedented role for HCD in local land use planning
The proposal authorizes HCD to inject itself directly into local land use authority by adopt
regulations that determine areas that are inappropriate for affordable housing development
because they lack access to public transit, accessibility to employment or educational
opportunities, and residentially supportive retail and service amenities. The term
“affordable housing development” is not defined in this measure potentially empowering
HCD with even broader authority. A development proposed in an area identified as
“inappropriate” will not qualify for “permitted use by right” unless the development
incorporates “approved remediation measures.”
No public review
The hallmark of local government land use decisions has been the public hearing. A public
hearing (1) allows interested members of the community to inform the decision-makers of
their support or opposition to the project; and (2) guarantees that property rights will not
be impacted without the “due process of law.”
Excluding the elected decision makers
The proposal excludes the elected city council and board of supervisors from land use
decisions. These public officials are elected to represent their constituents and to be
available and responsive. The proposal asks appointed staff, who are not directly
accountable to local voters, to make the policy decisions: this is the arena reserved for
elected officials.
Local governments are already required to approve housing but with public hearings and
CEQA review
•
3
Housing Accountability Act (20% lower income; 100% moderate income or middle
income; emergency shelter) (Gov. 65589.5)
Government Code § 65589.5(k).
4
56
June 15, 2016
Must approve a housing project that is consistent with general plan and zoning ordinance
unless (1) specific adverse impact on public health or safety; (2) housing is not needed; (3)
denial required to comply with state or federal law; (4) project is on land zoned for
agriculture or resource preservation.
•
“No net loss” (Gov. 65863)
May not reduce the residential density for any parcel unless remaining sites identified in
housing element are adequate to accommodate RHNA
• Density bonus (Gov. 65915)
Must award density bonus and other concessions and incentives when development
includes 10% lower income, 5% very low income, senior citizen, or 10% for moderate
income in common interest development
•
Least cost zoning (Gov. 65913.1)
Must zone sufficient land for residential use with appropriate standards to meet housing
needs for all income categories identified in housing element. When land is zoned, then
Housing Accountability Act requires approval.
•
Second units (Gov. 65852.2)
Must approve second unit with ministerial review. City may not adopt ordinance that
totally precludes second units in residential zones unless specific adverse impacts on public
health, safety, and welfare.
•
Ministerial approval of multifamily housing (Gov. 65589.4)
Must approve as a permitted use multifamily housing structure located on an infill site that
is consistent with general plan and zoning ordinance in which at least 10% of the units are
affordable to very low income households; or at least 20% available to lower incomes; or
50% affordable to moderate income households.
No project specific CEQA review
The proposal requires ministerial review of a housing project if it is consistent with
“objective general plan and zoning standards.” CEQA review that is required for both the
general plan and zoning ordinance does not extend to the project level. CEQA review that is
required for both the general plan and zoning ordinance may have occurred many years
before the development application is submitted. Cities and counties will not be able to
determine whether site-specific conditions or changed circumstances and new information
require environmental mitigation. If for some reason a previous environmental document
was helpful in evaluating the project, the bill does not allow a city to impose conditions to
require compliance with previously-adopted mitigation measures.
5
57
June 15, 2016
What are “objective zoning standards”?
To be a “permitted use by right,” a development must comply with the location
requirements, the affordability requirements, and must be consistent with the following
objective planning standards: land use and building intensity, land use and density or other
objective zoning standards, and any setback or objective design review standards. The
third draft of the proposal defines “objective zoning standards” and “objective design
review standards” as standards that
“involve no personal or subjective judgment by the public official; the standards
must be uniformly verifiable by reference to an external or uniform benchmark or
criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent
and public official prior to submittal.”
The new definition clarifies that an inclusionary housing ordinance is an “objective zoning
standard” but requires that the affordable housing units provided in the housing
development must be credited against the requirements of the inclusionary ordinance.
The third draft of the proposal authorizes a city/county to adopt and publish a list of
“objective zoning standards” that a development must be consistent with.
Affordable housing will not remain affordable
A housing development must be “required by law to record” a land-use restriction based on,
for example,(1) a condition of award of funds or financing from a public agency; (2) as a
condition of the award of tax credits; (3) as might be required by contract entered into with
a public agency. In order for a housing development that does not receive funding to
remain affordable, a city/county must adopt a requirement to record a land use restriction
to maintain affordability.
Breadth of the proposal
The proposal states that it applies “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in
the law.” It is not possible to accurately evaluate the impact of this statement because of its
breadth.
6
58
DATE:
7/12/2016
TO:
FROM:
JOAN MALLOY, ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT:
OPTIONS TO ADDRESS RENT AND TENANT ISSUES
The purpose of this staff report is to provide the City Council with several options on how to address rent and
tenant issues within Union City. Staff recommends that the City Council receive this information, consider the
different options, and provide direction to staff on the City Council’s preferences.
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2016, the City Council held a study session on rent and tenant issues. The Council heard
information on recent rental market trends, reviewed different types of tenant protection measures, and
obtained input from the public. Included as Exhibit A is a table showing the average rents for cities in Alameda
County.
Existing Tenant Protection Measures
The City of Union City does not have local tenant protection regulations except for mobile home park tenants.
State law provisions provide some protection for Union City tenants. However, State law does not preclude
landlords from raising rents with proper notice; nor does it set limits for the amount of rent increases. State law
does set minimum notice periods for rent increases and lease terminations. Included as Exhibit B is a chart
indicating the various types of tenant protection measures, if any, enacted in Alameda County jurisdictions. Of
those surveyed, Dublin, Emeryville, Livermore, and Newark have no tenant protection measures, Union City
and Pleasanton only regulate mobile home parks, and Alameda, Berkeley, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, and
San Leandro have some type of tenant protection measures.
DISCUSSION
Below are four options that staff recommends the City Council review and provide direction to staff on which
option the Council prefers. Also included as Exhibit C is a summary of these four options.
Option A – No Action
Option B – Enhanced Lease Term Ordinance
Option C – Rent Review Ordinance (non-binding)
59
Option D – Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections Ordinance
OPTION A – No Action
The City Council can decide to take no action and table the discussion. Staff will continue to work with Eden
Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Housing to promote their tenant/landlord counseling and fair
housing programs.
OPTION B - Enhanced Lease Terms Ordinance
The City Council could consider adopting an ordinance that would require landlords to offer tenants longer
term leases, such as a one-year lease. The ordinance would need to permit rent increases during the term of the
lease, in order to comply with state law. However, the ordinance would require that all rent increases must be
clearly identified within the lease. This type of ordinance would give tenants greater predictability of their
housing costs. Tenants could reject the one-year lease and request a shorter lease term.
Example City
The City of Palo Alto has a lease term ordinance (enacted in 1980), that requires landlords to offer one-year
leases to prospective tenants and tenants that are renewing leases. Palo Alto’s ordinance does permit rent
increases during the term of the lease however the rent increase must be clearly stated in the lease.
Eligible Units – All rental units
OPTION C - Rent Review Ordinance (non-binding)
Overview of Rent Review
The City Council could adopt a non-binding rent review ordinance, which would offer tenants a mediation
process before a landlord could impose a rent increase. The ordinance would establish an appointed rent
review board to oversee the mediation process. The board would be comprised of tenant, landlord, and nonconflicted (i.e. homeowner) representatives. Tenants would voluntarily bring cases before the rent review board
and the board would provide recommendations. However, since this ordinance would be non-binding, if a
landlord cannot come to an agreement with their tenant then the landlord’s proposed rent increase would still
go into effect. The ordinance would also require that landlords notify tenants of the availability of rent review
before imposing a rent increase. Failure to follow these noticing requirements would invalidate the proposed
rent increase.
Landlord to Landlord Counseling
The Rental Housing Association (RHA) of Southern Alameda County offers a free, volunteer-based landlord to
landlord counseling program to cities with rent review ordinances (i.e. Fremont, San Leandro, and
unincorporated Alameda County).
Example Cities
The cities of Fremont and San Leandro have rent review ordinances. Both cities use city staff and a third-party
service provider to administer the program; Fremont contracts with Project Sentinel and San Leandro contracts
with ECHO Housing. Below is an overview of the rent review process in Fremont and San Leandro:
Fielding Inquiries / Ordinance Education
Staff would hold periodic educational workshops for tenants and landlords
Intake Rent Review Requests and Notify Landlords
San Leandro only accepts rent review requests from tenants that have received a 7% rent increase or
60
more
Fact Finding
Collect information and documentation from tenant and landlord
Conciliation
Third party provider works with the tenant and landlord to try to reach an agreement
Mediation (Fremont Only)
Trained mediators convene a meeting of both parties
Referral to RHA’s Landlord to Landlord Counseling Program
Cases that cannot be resolved at the conciliation/mediation stage are sometimes referred to RHA
Rent Review Board Meeting (San Leandro) / Fact Finding Panel Meeting (Fremont)
Board/Panel hears cases and provides recommendations
Case Continuation (San Leandro Only)
Board has the discretion to continue a case
Eligible Units - All rental units
Cities with this type of ordinance have stressed the importance of having rent review board members with
mediation and conflict resolution experience. As discussed in the Fiscal Impact section, staff would
recommend providing mediation and conflict resolution training to all rent review board members and staff.
Administering a rent review process is time intensive and will require additional staff and City Attorney time.
The City Attorney and staff would need to be present at all board meetings.
OPTION D - Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections Ordinance
Rent Stabilization
The Council could consider adopting a rent stabilization ordinance that would limit rent increases to one-time
per year and would tie allowable rent increases to either a fixed percentage or inflation rates. This type of
ordinance is intended to protect tenants from excessive rent increases and to provide tenants with greater
certainty and predictability regarding housing cost increases.
Eligible Units
As discussed during the May study session, there are limitations as to what type of rental units would be
eligible for rent stabilization. State law (“The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act”) prohibits local jurisdictions
from doing the following:
1. Applying rent stabilization ordinances to housing constructed on or after February 1, 1995
2. Applying rent stabilization ordinances to single-family homes and condominiums (where title is held
separately for each unit)
3. Regulating the initial rental rate of a unit once the previous tenants have vacated the unit. Thus, when a
unit becomes vacant, the rent can be raised to the current market rate without regulatory restrictions.
Although the City has 6,454 renter occupied units, only 2,760 of these units (or 43%) would be eligible for rent
stabilization due to the Costa-Hawkins Act restrictions, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. The major
implication of the Costa-Hawkins Act is that only older, rental properties, built before February 1, 1995, would
be affected by a rent stabilization ordinance. Included as Exhibit D is additional information on eligible units
61
and included as Exhibits E-1, E-2, and E-3 are maps showing where the eligible units are located
Table 1
Union City Tenure (2012)
Tenure Type
Units
Owner Occupied Units
13,837
Renter Occupied Units
6,454
Total
20,291
Percent
68.2%
31.8%
100.0%
Source: City of Union City 2015-2023 Housing Element
Table 2
Pre-1995 Market-Rate Rental Housing
# of
Property Type
Units
Apartment Complexes (5+ Units)
2,146
Duplex Units
446
Triplex
108
Quadraplex
60
Total Eligible Market-Rate Rental Units
2,760
Total Renter Occupied Units
% of Rental Units Eligible for Rent Stabilization
% of All Units Eligible for Rent Stabilization
# of
Properties
23
223
36
15
297
6,454
43%
14%
Rent Review Board
Similar to Option C, a rent stabilization ordinance would also include establishing a rent review board that
would oversee the enforcement of the ordinance. The rent review board would hear appeal cases made
voluntarily by tenants or property owners.
Just Cause Eviction Protections
All cities in the Bay Area that have rent stabilization ordinances also have just cause eviction protections within
their ordinances. These protections restrict the allowable reasons for which a landlord can evict a tenant, also
known as “just cause evictions.” Under just cause eviction protections, landlords may evict a tenant for only
reasons listed in the ordinance. Examples of typical “just causes” include the following:
Failure to pay rent or habitually paying rent late;
Violation of the rental agreement terms, where a notice and opportunity to correct the violation
has been provided;
· Committing or allowing the existence of a nuisance;
· Damaging the unit or common areas;
· Unreasonably interfering with the comfort, safety, or enjoyment of other tenants;
· Committing or allowing an illegal activity or use;
· Owner or family member occupancy;
· Resident manager occupancy;
· Substantial rehabilitation;
·
·
62
·
·
Denying landlord lawful entry;
Unauthorized subtenant.
Example Cities
Cities with rent stabilization and just cause eviction protections: Alameda, Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Hayward,
Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose.
TIMELINE
Should the Council wish to pursue Options B, C, or D, staff anticipates that an ordinance could be adopted by
the end of 2016. Specific timelines for each option are included in Exhibit C.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of receiving this report. However, if the City Council directs staff to
develop an ordinance, it would require additional funding that is currently not appropriated. Based on
discussions with the City Attorney and other cities’ budgets, staff estimates that the cost to develop an
ordinance could be between $15,000 and $40,000 and would include legal services, staff time, and
outreach/education costs (e.g. mailers, community meetings, etc.).
On-Going Costs
If the City Council adopted an ordinance there would be implementation, enforcement, and outreach/education
costs that are currently not appropriated. Based on discussions with the City Attorney and a review of other
cities’ budgets, staff has provided in Table 3 the annual costs estimates for the different options. These cost
estimates include staff time, City Attorney time, outreach/education (e.g. mailers, workshops, etc.) and
mediation training for rent review board members and staff (applicable to Options C and D). If the City
Council decided to enact more than one of the options, there could be some cost savings due to economies of
scale. Included as Exhibit F is a more detailed cost analysis.
Table 3
Annual Cost Estimates
Option
Option A – No Action
Option B – Enhanced Lease Terms (One-Time Start-Up Costs)
Option B – Enhanced Lease Terms (Annual Cost Estimate)
Option C – Rent Review
Option D – Rent Stabilization & Eviction Protections
Annual
Cost Estimate
$0
$33,830
$6,500
$123,019
$133,019
Staff estimates that Option D (Rent Stabilization) would cost about the same as Option C (Rent Review) as the
majority of the costs come from administering a rent review board. Additionally, staff anticipates that the
outreach/education costs would be similar for both options.
Rental Registration Fee
Several cities in the Bay Area with rent stabilization ordinances charge property owners an annual per unit fee,
also known as a rental registration fee, in order to offset their enforcement costs (See Table 4 below). Some
cities also allow the landlord to pass all or a percentage of the rental registration fee onto tenants.
63
Table 4
Annual Rental Registration Fees
Jurisdiction
Fee/Unit
Berkeley
$213
East Palo Alto
$234
Hayward
$2.77
Los Gatos
$22
Oakland
$30
In order to collect and enforce an annual rental registration fee, it would require additional staffing and funding
that is currently not appropriated. Based on other cities’ budgets for these services, staff estimates that it would
cost approximately $25,000 per year in additional staffing and outreach/education costs to implement a rental
registration fee. Also note that the City already charges landlords a Rental Residential Business License Fee
(“Business License Fee”), so the rental registration fee would be in addition to the Business License Fee.
Currently, the City’s annual Business License Fee is $129 plus $11 for each rental unit over four (4) units. Table
5 below demonstrates the per unit fee that would need to be charged for each option in order for the City to
recuperate all of its expenses.
Table 5
Revenue Estimates
Option
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D
Eligible Units
N/A
All Rental Units
All Rental Units
Units Eligible for Rent Stabilization
# of
Units
N/A
6,454
6,454
2,760
Fee/
Unit
N/A
$1
$19
$48
Rent
Registration
Fee/Unit*
N/A
$4
$4
$9
Total
Fee/
Unit
N/A
$5
$23
$57
*This fee is to recuperate the costs associated with collecting and administering a rental registration fee.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests that the City Council receive the report and discuss the following options:
· Option A – No Action
· Option B – Enhanced Lease Term Ordinance
· Option C – Rent Review Ordinance (non-binding)
· Option D – Rent Stabilization and Eviction Protections Ordinance
Staff is recommending that the City Council pursue Option B (Enhanced Lease Terms). If the Council would
like to pursue an option that includes rent oversight, then staff also recommends Option C (Rent Review).
Option B and Option C could be implemented together or independently. Staff is not recommending Option D
(Rent Stabilization) as a majority of renters in Union City would not be eligible for this option and it would be
the most costly to implement.
Prepared by:
Alin Lancaster, Housing & Community Development Coordinator
64
Submitted by:
Joan Malloy, Economic & Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Type
Exhibit A - Average Rent Comparison (Alameda County)
Exhibit
Exhibit B - Tenant Protection Measures (Alameda County)
Exhibit
Exhibit C - Summary of Options
Exhibit
Exhibit D - Units Eligible for Rent Stabilization
Exhibit
Exhibit E-1 - Map of Eligible Units (Citywide)
Exhibit
Exhibit E-2 - Map of Eligible Units (Old Alvarado)
Exhibit
Exhibit E-3 - Map of Eligible Units (Decoto)
Exhibit
Exhibit F - Cost Estimates
Exhibit
65
Exhibit A
Average Rents ‐ Alameda County
January to March 2016 (Quarter 1)
City
Oakland
Emeryille
Berkeley
Dublin
Pleasanton
Newark
Fremont
Union City
Alameda
Livermore
Castro Valley
Hayward
San Lorenzo
San Leandro
Average
Rent
$ 2,866
$ 2,791
$ 2,663
$ 2,545
$ 2,382
$ 2,350
$ 2,307
$ 2,264
$ 2,237
$ 1,976
$ 1,936
$ 1,929
$ 1,734
$ 1,622
% Change from
Q1 2015
7.2%
8.5%
4.3%
8.4%
4.0%
7.3%
8.2%
10.3%
9.4%
6.5%
14.8%
N/A N/A 11.5%
Average
Studio
$ 2,042
$ 2,118
$ 2,053
$ 2,263
$ 2,114
N/A $ 1,666
$ 2,053
$ 1,921
N/A $ 1,475
$ 1,593
N/A $ 1,161
Average
1bd/1bth
$ 2,549
$ 2,562
$ 2,426
$ 2,258
$ 2,147
$ 2,184
$ 2,078
$ 2,111
$ 2,004
$ 1,739
$ 1,628
$ 1,732
$ 1,579
$ 1,492
Aveverage
2bd/1bth
$ 2,669
$ 3,052
$ 2,537
$ 2,439
$ 2,300
$ 2,217
$ 2,292
$ 2,224
$ 2,209
$ 1,966
$ 1,860
$ 1,928
$ 1,820
$ 1,616
Average
3bd/2bth
$ 4,101
$ 3,760
$ 3,051
$ 3,473
$ 2,988
$ 3,321
$ 3,058
$ 2,585
$ 2,572
$ 2,298
$ 2,509
$ 2,479
$ 2,000
N/A Source: RealFacts of Novato, California. RealFacts collect rental housing data nationwide and are deemed as authorities on information for the rental housing industry.
66
Exhibit B
Summary of Tenant Protection Measures ‐ Alameda County
City
Ordinance Type
Adoption Year
# of Affected Units
Rent Increase Threshold
Enforcement Reviewing Body
City Department
All rental units
More than 5%: property owner is required to initiate a rent mediation process through the City
5% or Less: property owner not required to initiate rent mediation process however tenant is allowed to
Binding
‐ Pre‐1995 multi‐family units
Non‐Binding
‐ Single‐family units
‐Post‐1995 multi‐family units
Rent Review Advisory Committee
Housing & Community Development
Alameda
Rent Stabilization
& Just Cause Evictions
Rent Review
Advisory Committee
1979
Rent Review Ordinance
2016
Berkeley
Rent Stabilization
1980
Multi‐family rental units constructed before June 30, 1980
65% of the percentage increase in the CPI
Binding
Rent Stabilization Board
Rent Stabilization Board
Dublin
None N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Emeryville
None N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Community Development
Rent Review
1997
All rental units
Any rent increase
Non‐binding
Recommendations
‐ 3rd‐Party Mediation Service Provider ‐ Fact Finding Panel
Mobile Home Rent Stabilization
1987
753
Mobile homes
The greater of
3% of existing rent, $10 per month, or 60% of the percent change in the CPI
Binding
Rent Review Officer
Rent Stabilization
1983
8,920 Units
(applies to only 5+ unit properties)
5% of existing rent
Binding
City‐appointed Mediator & Arbitrator
City Attorney
1989
2,322
Mobile homes
The greater of
3% of existing rent OR
60% of the percent change in the CPI
Binding
Rent Review Officer
City Attorney
Livermore
None N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Newark
None N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Oakland
Rent Stabilization
Rent Stabilization
1983
Just Cause Evictions
2002
Binding
Housing Residential Rent‐
Relocation Board
Housing & Community Development
Pleasanton
2001
433
Mobile homes
Binding
Hearing Officer
City Manager
San Leandro
Rent Review
2001
Applies to properties with 2+ units
Non‐binding
Recommendations
Rent Review Board
1987
999
Mobile homes
Binding
Hearing Officer
Economic & Community Development
Fremont
Hayward
Union City
67
Multi‐family rental units constructed before Average of the percentage increase in the CPI
January 1, 1983
% change of CPI (not less than 1% but not to exceed 5%) plus increase (if any) in operating expenses, capital improvements, and tax increases
7% of existing rent
OR
More than one rent increase within 12 months
The lesser of 7% of existing rent
OR
90% of the percent change in the CPI
Exhibit C
Summary of Options
OPTION A
No Action
Option
Description
Eligible
Units
Example
Cities
Estimated Annual Enforcement Cost*
Timeline
OPTION B
Enhanced Lease
Terms Ordinance
Lease Terms
‐ Requires landlords to offer tenants longer term leases
‐ Example: One year leases
No Action
OPTION D
OPTION C
Rent Stabilization &
Rent Review Ordinance
Eviction Protections Ordinance
(non‐binding)
Rent Stabilizaiton
Rent Review Board
‐ Restricts rent increases to one‐time per year ‐ Offers a mediation process before a landlord is able to impose a rent increase and limits increases to a fixed % or tie increase to inflation
‐ Establishes a rent review board that ‐ A rent review board oversees appeal process
oversees the mediation process
‐ Rent review board comprised of tenants, Just Cause Evictions
landlords, and non‐conflicted (i.e. ‐ Restricts the allowable reasons for which a homeowner) representatives
‐ Process is non‐binding, so if the landlord landlord can evict a tenant
cannot come to an agreement with the ‐ All Bay Area cities that have rent stabilization tenant then the landlord’s proposed rent also have Just Cause Eviction Ordinances
increase would still go into effect
‐ This prevents landlords from evicting tenants, for the purpose of raising rents beyond the rent stabilization ordinance threshold
N/A
All rental units
All rental units
N/A
Palo Alto
Fremont
San Leandro
$0
N/A
Staff Costs (0.15 FTE)
Outreach/Education
Legal Services
Total Start Up Costs
$ 17,330 $ 15,000 $ 1,500 $ 33,830 Outreach/Education
$ 6,500 Total Annual Costs
$ 6,500 • July to Aug ‐ Draft Ordinance
• Sept ‐ Community Outreach
• Oct 11th – 1st Reading
• Oct 25th – 2nd Reading
• Nov 25 – Ordinance Effective
(30 days after 2nd reading)
Outreach/Education
Legal Services
Mediation Training
Total Annual Costs
2,760 Eligible Units
(multi‐family units built before 1995)
Alameda, Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Hayward,
Los Gatos, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose
$ 54,519 $ 30,000 $ 35,000 $ 3,500
$ 123,019 • July to Aug ‐ Draft Ordinance
• Sept to Oct – Community Outreach
• Oct 25th – 1st Reading
• Nov 8th – 2nd Reading
• Dec 8th ‐ Ordinance Effective
*If more than one option was adopted, there would be some cost savings due to economies of scale
68
Outreach/Education
Legal Services
Mediation Training
Total Annual Costs
• July to Aug ‐ Draft Ordinance
• Sept to Oct – Community Outreach
• Nov 8th – 1st Reading
• Dec 13th ‐ 2nd Reading
• Jan 13th ‐ Ordinance Effective
$ 54,519 $ 40,000 $ 35,000 $ 3,500
$133,019 Exhibit D
Pre‐1995 Market Rate Rental Housing (5+ Units)
Property Name
31050 New Haven St
34831 Peco St
34875 Peco St
3688 Smith St
4185 Marsten
827 A ST
885 Whipple Road
918 G St
Adrienne Village
Casa Nueve Apartments
Dry Creek Apartments
Eaves
Greenhaven Apartments
Las Palmas
Medallion Apartments
Mission Sierra
Parkside Apartments
Parkway Green
Rosewood Townhomes
Skylark Apartments
Summerhill Place Apartments
Verandas
West View Park Apartments
Duplex Units
Triplex Units
Quadraplex Units
Address
31050 New Haven St
34831 Peco St
34875 Peco St
3688 Smith St
4185 Marsten
827 A ST
885 Whipple Road
918 G St
31755 Alvarado Blvd
33641 9th St
33300 Mission Blvd
2261 Decoto Road
31770 Alvarado Blvd
33875 11th Street
2500 Medallion Drive
34864 Mission Blvd
1501 Decoto Road
2501 Medallion Dr
2345 Kennedy Ave
34655 Skylark Drive
3900 Horner St
33 Union Square
2600 Decoto Road
Year Built
1962
1972
1972
1936
1920
1960
1964
1985
1984
1964
1973
1986
1983
1953
1978
1986
1979
1972
1973
1986
1986
1990
1972
Subtotal
# of Units
12
5
5
5
6
7
8
12
75
16
199
208
250
12
176
304
208
52
34
174
60
282
36
2,146
Pre‐1995 Market Rate Rental Housing (2 to 4 Units)
1890‐1991 446
1898‐1984 108
1963‐1978 60
Subtotal* 614
Total Pre‐1995 Market Rate Rental Units
2,760
Total Units in Union City (2014)**
Single family
2 to 4 units
5+ Units
Total
16,491
784
3,157
20,432
% of total units that are eligible for rent control
14%
*64 of the 614 units are currently owner‐occupied
**Excludes mobile homes due to the City's existing rent ordinance for mobile homes
69
Exhibit E-1
Unitts Eligiible fo
or Rent Stab
bilization
Citywid
de
2
2‐4 Units 5+ Units
70
Exhibit E-2
Units Eligible for Rent Stabilization Old Alvarado
71
Exhibit E-3
Units Eligible for Rent Stabilization Decoto
72
Exhibit F
Cost Estimates
Option A ‐ No Action
N/A
$ ‐
Option B ‐ Enhanced Lease Terms
One‐Time Start Up Costs
Staff Costs
Outreach/Education
Legal Services
Total Start Up Costs
FTE
0.15
Annual Costs
Outreach/Education
Total Annual Costs
$ 17,330
$ 15,000
$ 1,500
$ 33,830
$ 6,500
$ 6,500
Option C ‐ Rent Review
Staff Costs
Outreach/Education
Legal Services
Mediation/Conflict Resolution Training
Total Annual Costs
Option D ‐ Rent Stabilization & Eviction Protections
Staff Costs
Outreach/Education
Legal Services
Mediation/Conflict Resolution Training
Total Annual Costs
Rental Registration Fee Collection/Administration*
Staff Costs
Outreach/Education
Legal Services
Total
FTE
0.50
$ 54,519
$ 30,000
$ 35,000
$ 3,500
$ 123,019
FTE
0.50
$ 54,519
$ 40,000
$ 35,000
$ 3,500
$ 133,019
FTE
0.20
$ 17,423
$ 6,500
$ 1,000
$ 24,923
*Several cities in the Bay Area with rent stabilization ordinances charge property owners an annual per unit fee, also known as a rental registration fee, in order to offset their enforcement costs. Revenue Estimates
The revenue estimates below demonstrate the per unit fee that would need to be charged per option in order for the City to recuperate all of its expenses.
Option
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D
Eligible Units
N/A
All Rental Units
All Rental Units
Rent # of Fee/ Registration Fee/Unit
Units
Unit
‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
6,454 $ 1 $ 4
6,454 $ 19 $ 4
2,760 $ 48 $ 9
Estimated Number of Rental Units
Eligible for Rent Stabilization
Not Eligible for Rent Stabilization
Total Rental Units
Total Fee/Unit
$ ‐
$ 5
$ 23
$ 57
Total Annual Revenue
$ ‐
$ 58,754
$ 147,942
$ 157,942
2,760
3,694
6,454
73

Agenda PDF

Transcription

Similar documents

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016

Porky Expo Flyer

The NeuLion Report

Sept 30-Oct 2, 2016 Nov 4-6, 2016 @Camp Tadmor

4 star ALOE HOTEL, PAPHOS

the Guidelines for the registration on

Ticket plus hotel packages for the Chelsea Flower Show 2016