I I
I I
employer-employee relations, while excepting the consideration of the merits, necessity, or organization of any service or activity provided by law or executive order. Existing law states that the Legislature finds and declares that the duties and responsibilities of local agency employer representatives under the act are substantially similar to the duties and responsibilities required under existing collective bargaining enforcement procedures and therefore the costs incurred by the local agency employer representatives in performing those duties and responsibilities under that act are not reimbursable as state-mandated costs. This bill would impose specified requirements with respect to the temporary employees, as defined, of a public employer who have been hired to perform the same or similar type of work that is performed by permanent employees represented by a recognized employee organization. In this regard the bill would require those temporary employees to be automatically included in the same bargaining unit as the permanent employees, as specified, upon the request of the recognized employee organization. The bill would also require a public employer to, upon hire, provide each temporary employee with their job description, wage rates, and eligibility for benefits, anticipated length of employment, and procedures to apply for open, permanent positions. By imposing new duties on local agencies that employ temporary employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require complaints alleging a violation of its provisions to be processed as unfair practice charges under the act. The bill would additionally include the same findings and declarations as set forth above. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Position
SB 329 (Dodd D) Cities: city council members: compensation.
Current Text: Enrollment: 6/21/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/7/2023
Last Amend: 4/24/2023
Status: 6/21/2023-Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 11:30 a.m.
Location: 6/21/2023-S. ENROLLED
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law authorizes a city council to enact an ordinance to provide each member of the city council a salary based upon the population of the city, as specified. Current law authorizes that amount to be increased by the city council by an amount that does not exceed 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary that is in effect when the increase is enacted. Current law provides for the procedures by which a city may enact ordinances. This bill would increase the maximum amount of salary, based upon the population of the city, that may be approved by an ordinance passed by the city council, as specified. The bill would authorize the salary of council members to be increased beyond the specified maximums to an amount not exceeding the greater of either 5% for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of the salary in effect when the ordinance or amendment is enacted, or an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, based upon the California Consumer Price Index, which shall not exceed 10% for each calendar year.
Position
SB 769 (Gonzalez D) Local government: fiscal and financial training.
Current Text: Amended: 6/12/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/17/2023
Last Amend: 6/12/2023
Status: 6/21/2023-From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes
1.) (June 21).
Location: 6/21/2023-A. APPR.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require, if a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a member of a legislative body, or provides reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a legislative body in the performance of official duties, all local agency officials, as defined, to receive at least 2 hours of fiscal and financial training, as described. The bill would require the training to be received at least once every 2 years, as provided. The bill would exempt a local agency official from the training requirements if they comply with specified criteria under existing law relating to eligibility for appointment or election to, and continuing education for, the office of county auditor, county treasurer, county tax collector, or county treasurer-tax collector.
Position
Public Safety LAP
I I
AB 21 (Gipson D) Peace officers: training.
Current Text: Introduced: 12/5/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/5/2022
Status: 5/19/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 12/5/2022)(May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 5/19/2023-A. 2 YEAR
Desk Policy 2 year Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to require field training officers who are instructors for the field training program to have at least 8 hours of crisis intervention behavioral health training to better train new peace officers on how to effectively interact with persons with mental illness or intellectual disability. This bill would require the commission to revise that training to include instruction on how to effectively interact with persons with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia. The bill would specify that a field training officer who completed the training prior to January 1, 2025, or who is exempt from completing the training, is not required to take the updated training, but would require a field training officer who has not completed the training on or after January 1, 2025, or who is not exempt from completing the training, to complete the revised training.
The bill would exempt jurisdictions that, prior to January 1, 2024, develop a training that meets the same requirements.
Position
AB 23 (Muratsuchi D) Theft: shoplifting: amount.
Current Text: Introduced: 12/5/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/5/2022
Status: 4/28/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was PUB. S. on 1/26/2023) (May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 4/28/2023-A. 2 YEAR
Desk 2 year Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would amend Proposition 47 by reducing the threshold amount for petty theft and shoplifting from $950 to $400. The bill would provide that it shall become effective only when submitted to, and approved by, the voters of California.
Position
AB 24 (Haney D) Emergency response: opioid antagonist kits.
Current Text: Amended: 4/26/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 12/5/2022
Last Amend: 4/26/2023
Status: 5/19/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/10/2023)(May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 5/19/2023-A. 2 YEAR
Desk Policy 2 year Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require the State Department of Public Health to compile a list of all counties that are experiencing an opioid overdose crisis, as defined, and publish the list on its internet website. The bill would also require the department to provide opioid antagonist kits free of charge to as many designated facilities as possible in the counties on the list, to create the opioid antagonist poster with easy-to-understand instructions and graphics on the administration of the attached opioid antagonist nasal spray, and to make the determination on how best to allocate and distribute its limited supply of opioid antagonist among its various programs in the event of an opioid antagonist supply shortage.
Position
AB 75 (Hoover R) Shoplifting: increased penalties for prior crimes.
Current Text: Introduced: 12/14/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/14/2022
Status: 4/28/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was PUB. S. on 12/14/2022)(May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 4/28/2023-A. 2 YEAR
I I
I I
Desk 2 year Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted as an initiative statute by Proposition 47, as approved by the electors in the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, makes the theft of property that does not exceed $950 in value petty theft and makes that crime punishable as a misdemeanor, with certain exceptions. The initiative statute defines shoplifting as entering a commercial establishment with the intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed $950. The initiative statute requires that shoplifting be punished as a misdemeanor. Current law, as amended by Proposition 47, provides that a registered sex offender or a person with a prior conviction for certain serious or violent felonies, such as a sexually violent offense, who commits petty theft is subject to imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year or in the state prison for 16 months or 2 or 3 years. This bill would reinstate a provision of law that was repealed by Proposition 47 that provides that a person who has been convicted 3 or more times of petty theft, grand theft, or other specified crimes and who is subsequently convicted of petty theft is subject to imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in a county jail for 18 months or 2 or 3 years.
Position
AB 742 (Jackson D) Law enforcement: police canines.
Current Text: Amended: 5/18/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/13/2023
Last Amend: 5/18/2023
Status: 6/2/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(8). (Last location was INACTIVE FILE on 5/31/2023)(May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 6/2/2023-A. 2 YEAR
Desk Policy Fiscal 2 year Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would prohibit the use of an unleashed police canine by law enforcement to apprehend a person unless the person is being pursued for a felony that threatened or resulted in the death of or serious bodily injury to another person and the person poses an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person and any use of a police canine for crowd control. The bill would prohibit a police canine from being used to bite unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person by the person against whom the canine is used. The bill would attribute the death of or serious bodily injury to a person caused by a police canine to the canine‘s handler as constituting deadly force. The bill would prohibit law enforcement agencies from authorizing any use or training of a police canine that is inconsistent with this bill.
Position
AB 797 (Weber D) Local government: police review boards.
Current Text: Amended: 3/23/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/13/2023
Last Amend: 3/23/2023
Status: 4/28/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was PUB. S. on 3/23/2023) (May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 4/28/2023-A. 2 YEAR
Desk 2 year Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires each department or agency in this state that employs peace officers to establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these departments or agencies, and to make a written description of this procedure available to the public. Current law also requires each department or agency to keep and maintain records of complaints and investigations, as specified. This bill would require the governing body of each city and county to, by January 15, 2025, create an independent community-based commission on law enforcement officer practices. The bill would authorize each commission to, among other things, conduct independent investigations of complaints against a police officer or sheriff alleging physical injury to a person, including injuries resulting in a person’s death.
Position
AB 955 (Petrie-Norris D) Controlled substances.
Current Text: Amended: 3/15/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/14/2023
Last Amend: 3/15/2023
Status: 5/1/2023-From committee: That the measure be retained in committee, and that the subject matter be referred to the Committee on Rules for assignment to the proper committee for study. (Ayes
8. Noes 0.) (April 27).
Location: 4/27/2023-A. RLS.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law makes possession of specified controlled substances, including fentanyl, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, except as specified. Current law makes possession of a controlled substance for the purposes of sale of the substance punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of 2, 3, or 4 years. This bill would make the sale of fentanyl on a social media platform, as defined, in California punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of 3, 6, or 9 years.
Position
SB 44 (Umberg D) Controlled substances.
Current Text: Amended: 4/13/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 12/5/2022
Last Amend: 4/13/2023
Status: 4/28/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was PUB. S. on 4/13/2023) (May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 4/28/2023-S. 2 YEAR
Desk 2 year Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law makes it a crime to possess for sale or purchase for purpose of sale, transport, import, sell, furnish, administer, give away, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, derive, process, or prepare various controlled substances, including, among others, fentanyl, peyote, and various other opiates and narcotics. This bill, Alexandra’s Law, would require the court to advise a person who is convicted of, or who pleads guilty or no contest to, the above crimes, as specified, of the danger of selling or administering illicit drugs and counterfeit pills and that, if a person dies as a result of that action, the defendant can be charged with homicide. The bill would require the court to read the advisory statement in a case in which the defendant exchanged a controlled substance containing fentanyl or its analogs for anything else of value, as specified. The bill would require the advisory statement to be included in a plea form, if used, and specified on the record.
Position
SB 316 (Niello R) Shoplifting: increased penalties for prior crimes.
Current Text: Introduced: 2/6/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/6/2023
Status: 5/19/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was PUB. S. on 2/15/2023) (May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 5/19/2023-S. 2 YEAR
Desk 2 year Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law, as amended by Proposition 47, provides that a registered sex offender or a person with a prior conviction for certain serious or violent felonies, such as a sexually violent offense, who commits petty theft is subject to imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year or in the state prison for 16 months or 2 or 3 years. This bill would reinstate a provision of law that was repealed by Proposition 47 that provides that a person who has been convicted 3 or more times of petty theft, grand theft, or other specified crimes and who is subsequently convicted of petty theft is subject to imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in a county jail for 18 months or 2 or 3 years.
The bill would also make this provision and the provision relating to a person with serious, violent, or sexual prior offenses applicable to a person whose prior or current conviction is for shoplifting.
Position
SB 719 (Becker D) Law enforcement agencies: radio communications.
Current Text: Amended: 3/29/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/16/2023
Last Amend: 3/29/2023
Status: 5/19/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 4/24/2023)(May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 5/19/2023-S. 2 YEAR
I I
Desk Policy 2 year Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law establishes the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) to make specified criminal justice databases, including individual criminal histories, wanted and missing persons, and stolen firearms, vehicles, and property, available to participating law enforcement agencies. Current law prohibits unauthorized access to CLETS and the unlawful use of CLETS information by authorized users. Current law authorizes the Attorney General to adopt policies, procedures, and practices related to the use of CLETS. These rules require a participating agency to restrict access to CLETS and define “access” as the ability to see or hear any information obtained from CLETS. This bill would require a law enforcement agency, including the Department of the California Highway Patrol, municipal police departments, county sheriff’s departments, specified local law enforcement agencies, and specified university and college police departments, to, by no later than January 1, 2024, ensure public access, in real time, to the radio communications of that agency, as specified.
Position
Regional Issues and Collaboration LAP
AB 11 (Jackson D) Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy.
Current Text: Amended: 3/23/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 12/5/2022
Last Amend: 3/23/2023
Status: 5/19/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 3/29/2023)(May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 5/19/2023-A. 2 YEAR
Desk Policy 2 year Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law establishes the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy (the commission) for the purpose of securing assistance for the Governor and itself in promoting economy, efficiency, and improved service in the transaction of the public business, as specified, and in making the operation of all state departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, and all expenditures of public funds, more directly responsive to the wishes of the people as expressed by their elected representatives through various means. Existing law declares that the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance. Current law declares that the provision of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households requires the cooperation of all levels of government. Current law declares that housing prices in California have risen dramatically in all parts of the state in the past decade, while the wealth gap, especially the racial wealth gap, continues to be a growing problem in California. This bill would require the commission to study the causes and effects of the rising cost of living in California and develop solutions toward making California a more affordable place to live, as specified. The bill would require the commission to meet quarterly, as specified. The bill would require the commission to complete 2 reports describing the commission’s findings and recommendations, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions as of January 1, 2027.
Position
AB 52 (Grayson D) Income tax credit: sales and use taxes paid: manufacturing equipment: research and development equipment.
Current Text: Amended: 6/15/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 12/5/2022
Last Amend: 6/15/2023
Status: 6/15/2023-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Location: 6/14/2023-S. APPR.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law, authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and current laws authorize districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Exemptions from state sales and use taxes are automatically incorporated into the local tax laws. This bill would allow, for a taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2024, and before January 1, 2029, a credit against those taxes to a taxpayer in an amount equal to the amount of tax reimbursement paid during
the taxable year for sales tax on gross receipts that would be exempt from taxation under the Sales and Use Tax Law pursuant to the sales and use tax exemption described above but for the provision that prohibits that exemption from applying with respect to any tax levied by a county, city, or district pursuant to, or in accordance with, the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the Transactions and Use Tax Law, sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Law, and sales and use taxes imposed pursuant to certain provisions of the California Constitution.
Position
AB 1227 (Low D) Elections: County of Santa Clara.
Current Text: Amended: 6/15/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/16/2023
Last Amend: 6/15/2023
Status: 6/15/2023-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E. & C.A.
Location: 5/10/2023-S. E. & C.A.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would authorize the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara to adopt, and a voter of that county to propose by initiative, an ordinance to elect county officers by ranked choice voting, as specified. The bill would authorize the county, in accordance with such an ordinance, to hold a ranked choice voting election at the statewide primary election, the first statewide general election following the statewide primary election at which the election otherwise would be held in accordance with existing law, or a combination thereof, and to use ranked choice voting in special elections to fill vacancies in county offices, as specified.
Position
Sustainability and Environmental Protection LAP
AB 573 (Garcia D) Organic waste: meeting recovered organic waste product procurement targets.
Current Text: Amended: 5/18/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/8/2023
Last Amend: 5/18/2023
Status: 6/14/2023-Referred to Com. on E.Q.
Location: 6/14/2023-S. E.Q.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law requires, no later than January 1, 2018, the State Air Resources Board to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve a certain reduction in statewide emissions of methane, including a goal of a 75% reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2025. Current law requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, in consultation with the state board, to adopt regulations to achieve these organic waste reduction goals, that provide for, among other things, the calculation by the department of recovered organic waste product procurement targets for each local jurisdiction, and that may include penalties to be imposed by the department for noncompliance. This bill would require the department, for purposes of those regulations, to allow a local jurisdiction, until December 1, 2039, in procuring recovered organic waste products to meet the target procurement requirements, to use California-derived recovered organic waste that the local jurisdiction sends for processing at a facility or operation outside of the state that meets certain conditions, as provided.
Position
AB 1482 (Gabriel D) Electric vehicle charging infrastructure: local publicly owned electric utilities.
Current Text: Amended: 5/1/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/17/2023
Last Amend: 5/1/2023
Status: 5/19/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/17/2023)(May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 5/19/2023-A. 2 YEAR
Desk Policy 2 year Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
I I
Summary: Current law vests the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) with regulatory jurisdiction over public utilities, including electrical corporations, while local publicly owned electric utilities are under the direction of their governing board. Under its current regulatory authority, the PUC adopted a resolution establishing, for electrical corporations, an average service energization time for electric vehicle charging infrastructure of 125 business days, except as provided, and requiring electrical corporations to provide certain information to the PUC regarding service energization time for electric vehicle infrastructure projects. This bill would require each electrical corporation, consistent with the commission resolution, to achieve a 125-business-day average service energization target starting from when a customer submits an application for service to the energization of an electric vehicle charging infrastructure project, except as provided. The bill would establish, for local publicly owned electric utilities, an average service energization time for electric vehicle charging infrastructure of 125 business days, and would require local publicly owned electric utilities to annually report certain information to the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) regarding the service energization time for electric vehicle charging infrastructure projects.
Position
AB 1567 (Garcia D) Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, Clean Energy, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2024.
Current Text: Amended: 5/26/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/17/2023
Last Amend: 5/26/2023
Status: 6/14/2023-Referred to Coms. on N.R. & W. and GOV. & F.
Location: 6/14/2023-S. N.R. & W.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would enact the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, Clean Energy, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2024, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $15,995,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, drought preparation, flood protection, extreme heat mitigation, clean energy, and workforce development programs.
Position
ACA 2 (Alanis R) Public resources: Water and Wildfire Resiliency Act of 2023.
Current Text: Introduced: 12/5/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/5/2022
Status: 4/20/2023-Referred to Coms. on W., P., & W. and NAT. RES.
Location: 4/20/2023-A. W.,P. & W.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would establish the Water and Wildfire Resiliency Fund within the State Treasury, and would require the Treasurer to annually transfer an amount equal to 3% of all state revenues that may be appropriated as described from the General Fund to the Water and Wildfire Resiliency Fund. The measure would require the moneys in the fund to be appropriated by the Legislature and would require that 50% of the moneys in the fund be used for water projects, as specified, and that the other 50% of the moneys in the fund be used for forest maintenance and health projects, as specified.
Position
SB 867 (Allen D) Drought, Flood, and Water Resilience, Wildfire and Forest Resilience, Coastal Resilience, Extreme Heat Mitigation, Biodiversity and Nature-Based Climate Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Park Creation and Outdoor Access, and Clean Energy Bond Act of 2024.
Current Text: Amended: 5/18/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/17/2023
Last Amend: 5/18/2023
Status: 6/21/2023-From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. (Ayes 11.
Noes 2.) (June 20).
Location: 6/20/2023-A. NAT. RES.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would enact the Drought, Flood, and Water Resilience, Wildfire and Forest Resilience,
I I
I I
Coastal Resilience, Extreme Heat Mitigation, Biodiversity and Nature-Based Climate Solutions, Climate Smart Agriculture, Park Creation and Outdoor Access, and Clean Energy Bond Act of 2024, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $15,500,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for drought, flood, and water resilience, wildfire and forest resilience, coastal resilience, extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity and nature-based climate solutions, climate smart agriculture, park creation and outdoor access, and clean energy programs.
Position
Transportation Issues LAP
AB 69 (Waldron R) Transportation: traffic signal synchronization: roadway improvement projects.
Current Text: Introduced: 12/9/2022 html pdf
Introduced: 12/9/2022
Status: 4/28/2023-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was TRANS. on 2/2/2023) (May be acted upon Jan 2024)
Location: 4/28/2023-A. 2 YEAR
Desk 2 year Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The State Air Resources Board is required to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020 and to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030, and to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the state board from the auction or sale of allowances as part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and to be available upon appropriation. Current law requires the Department of Finance, in consultation with the state board and any other relevant state agency, to develop, as specified, a 3-year investment plan for the moneys deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
Current law authorizes moneys in the fund to be allocated, as specified, for an investment in a traffic signal synchronization component that is part of a sustainable infrastructure project if the component is designed and implemented to achieve cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and includes specific emissions reduction targets and metrics to evaluate the project’s effect. This bill would additionally authorize moneys in the fund to be allocated for an investment in a traffic signal synchronization component that is part of a roadway improvement project requiring multiple signals, including, but not limited to, multimodal redevelopment projects, rail trail projects, urban renewal projects, or a project near transit facilities, if the component is designed and implemented to achieve cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and includes specific emissions reduction targets and metrics to evaluate the project’s effect.
Position
AB 295 (Fong, Vince R) Department of Transportation: maintenance projects.
Current Text: Amended: 5/18/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 1/25/2023
Last Amend: 5/18/2023
Status: 6/14/2023-Referred to Com. on TRANS.
Location: 6/14/2023-S. TRANS.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require the Department of Transportation to expedite roadside maintenance for specified projects related to roadside maintenance and the removal and clearing of material, as provided. The bill would also authorize local governmental entities, fire protection districts, fire safe councils, and tribal entities to notify the department of those projects related to roadside maintenance and the removal and clearing of material that have not been completed in an efficient and timely manner if the continued failure to complete these projects poses a clear and imminent danger, as provided. The bill would require the Division of Maintenance to begin the maintenance project within 90 days of being notified.
Position
AB 825 (Bryan D) Vehicles: bicycles on sidewalks.
I I
I I
Current Text: Introduced: 2/13/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/13/2023
Status: 6/7/2023-Referred to Com. on TRANS.
Location: 6/7/2023-S. TRANS.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would prohibit a local authority from prohibiting the operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk adjacent to a highway or corridor that does not include a Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeway, as defined. The bill would require a person riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk to yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and to adhere to a 10-miles-per-hour speed limit. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Position
SB 381 (Min D) Electric bicycles: study.
Current Text: Amended: 6/19/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/9/2023
Last Amend: 6/19/2023
Status: 6/19/2023-From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re- referred to Com. on TRANS.
Location: 5/4/2023-A. TRANS.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, to, on or before January 1, 2026, conduct a study on electric bicycles to inform efforts to improve the safety of users of the transportation system, and to submit a report of the findings from the study to the Legislature. The bill would require the study to examine, identify, and analyze available information regarding, among other things, data on injuries, crashes, emergency room visits, and deaths related to bicycles and electric bicycles and best practices for policy to promote safe use of electric bicycles.
Position
Water Supply and Conservation LAP
AB 249 (Holden D) Water: schoolsites: lead testing: conservation.
Current Text: Amended: 5/18/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 1/18/2023
Last Amend: 5/18/2023
Status: 6/14/2023-Referred to Coms. on E.Q. and ED.
Location: 6/14/2023-S. E.Q.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Would require a community water system that serves a schoolsite, as defined, to test for lead in the potable water system outlets of the schoolsite before January 1, 2027, except for potable water system outlets in buildings that were either constructed after January 1, 2010, or modernized after January 1, 2010, and all faucets and other end point devices used for providing potable water were replaced as part of the modernization. The bill would require the community water system to report its findings to the applicable school or local educational agency and to the State Water Resources Control Board. The bill would require the local educational agency or school, if the lead level exceeds a specified level at a schoolsite, to notify the parents and guardians of the pupils who attend the schoolsite, take immediate steps to make inoperable and shut down from use all fountains and faucets where the excess lead levels may exist, and work with the schoolsites under its jurisdiction to ensure that a potable source of drinking water is provided for pupils, as specified. The bill would require a community water system to test a potable water system outlet that replaces an outlet that is found to have excess levels of lead. The bill would require a community water system to prepare a sampling plan for each schoolsite where lead sampling is required under these provisions. The bill would require the state board to make the results of schoolsite lead sampling publicly available by posting the results on its internet website. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Position
I I
I I
AB 939 (Pellerin D) Santa Clara Valley Water District.
Current Text: Amended: 4/13/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 2/14/2023
Last Amend: 4/13/2023
Status: 6/8/2023-Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
Location: 6/8/2023-S. THIRD READING
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: The Santa Clara Valley Water District Act creates the Santa Clara Valley Water District and authorizes the district to levy ad valorem taxes or assessments in the district to pay the general administrative costs and expenses of the district, to carry out the act’s objects or purposes, and to pay the costs and expenses of constructing or extending works within the district. The act additionally authorizes the district to levy taxes or assessments upon all property or all real property within a portion of the district for specified purposes. The act authorizes the district to issue bonds for specified purposes, and requires that the bonds be paid by revenue derived from those tax levies and assessments, except the ad valorem taxes or assessments. This bill would additionally authorize the district to use the revenues from the ad valorem taxes or assessments to pay for the bonds.
Position
SB 3 (Dodd D) Discontinuation of residential water service: public water system.
Current Text: Amended: 6/15/2023 html pdf
Introduced: 12/5/2022
Last Amend: 6/15/2023
Status: 6/21/2023-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (June 20). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Location: 6/21/2023-A. APPR.
Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Desk Policy Fiscal Floor Conf.
Conc. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered1st House 2nd House
Summary: Current law authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board to provide for the deposit into the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund of certain moneys and continuously appropriates the moneys in the fund to the state board for grants, loans, contracts, or services to assist eligible recipients. This bill would require the board to, upon appropriation by the Legislature, expend moneys to provide training statewide to community water systems with between 15 and 200 service connections to meet compliance with the Water Shutoff Protection Act.
Position
Total Measures: 69
Total Tracking Forms: 69
I I
2023 Q2 Legislative Action Summary
Below is a summary of the actions that were taken during 2023 Q2 as they align with the City of Santa Clara’s 2023 Legislative Advocacy Positions (LAPs), guiding principles for legislative advocacy, approved City policies (e.g. City Council Goals and Priorities), and/or Council action. The letters and bill analysis are attached to this document.
April 4, 2023 Council Approval
• April 14, 2023 Letter of Support to Assembly Member Evan Low RE: ACA 5
Housing LAP
• June 22, 2023 Letter of support to Assembly Member Ash Kalra RE: AB 1469 – Valley Water - Assisting Unsheltered People
Public Safety LAP
• May 15, 2023 League of California Cities Letter to Assembly Leadership RE:
action needed on fentanyl and substance use-related legislation
Legislative Guiding Principle: “Protect and/or increase local government discretion”
• June 28, 2023 Letter of support to State Senator Ben Allen, Chair of Senate Committee on Environmental Quality RE: AB 1594 – Medium- and heavy-duty zero emission vehicles: public agency utilities
• June 28, 2023 Letter of opposition to State Senator Aisha Wahab RE: AB 1637 – Local government: internet websites and email addresses
Multiple Legislative Priorities
• B ill analysis for April 13, 2023 Cities Association Legislative Action Committee Meeting
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possib le
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
April 14, 2023
The Honorable Evan Low
California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Room 6110
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Support for ACA 5 – Marriage Equality
Dear Assemblymember Low,
The City of Santa Clara is pleased to support Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 5, which would amend the California Constitution relating to marriage equality.
According to the 2020 census, California has the most same -sex couples living together than any state, almost 135,900, of which roughly 85,100 are married. In addition, with Senate Bill 179 (Chapter 853, Statutes of 2017) allowing for the third gender cate gory of non -binary to be added to legal documents in the state since 2019, it is important to expand the legal definition of marriage within our constitution beyond that of only the union between man and woman.
LGBTQ+ individuals are already subjected to many forms of discrimination and marginalization, leading to heightened rates of mental illness, suicidality, hate crimes, homicides, homelessness, poverty, and more. In addition, since 2022, the LGBTQ+ community has remained the target of over 300 bills introduced across the country, intending to strip them of their rights and visibility.
A recent decision by the federal government creates uncertainty in the future for California’s equality measures. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court published its decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, which overturned the court’s previous rulings in Roe v. Wade and Casey v.
Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania. If the Supreme Court rules to overturn the precedents set in Obergefell v. Hodges, same-sex marriages in California could be at risk.
The City of Santa Clara has long recognized the contributions of LGBTQ+ members to our community.
There are many LGBTQ+ households within the City, and LGBTQ+ individuals have served and continue to serve as City employees, Commissioners, and Councilmembers. For years, the City has celebrated Pride month each June through events hosted by the City library and by holding an annual Pride flag raising event. The City’s Code of Ethics and Values recognizes that a significant aspect of ethical behavior is to extend equal opportunities to all members of our community, and it would be unconscionable to withhold one of the most important rights in our Constitution from LGBTQ+ individuals.
ACA 5 would amend the California Constitution relating to marriage equality to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ Californians.
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara supports ACA 5.
·~ l
....... .,..~~
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of wh;:,t's Possible
The Honorable Evan Low
Support for ACA 5 – Marriage Equality
April 14, 2023
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
June 22, 2023
The Honorable Ash Kalra
Member, California State Assembly
State Capitol, 1020 O Street, Suite 4610
Sacramento, CA 95814
Sub
ject: AB 1469 (Kalra) Valley Water – Assisting Unsheltered People – SUPPORT Dear Assemblymember Kalra:
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I would like to express our strong support for AB 1469, which makes changes to the Santa Clara Valley Water District Act to allow the agency to do more to assist unsheltered people living along creeks and streams, including providing housing or improved outcomes for unsheltered individuals.
Santa Clara County is currently experiencing unprecedented increases in the number of unhoused people taking refuge along waterways that run through neighborhoods, parks, and open spaces, as well as through commercial districts and industrial areas. As the regional agency responsible for water supply, flood protection, and the environmental stewardship of creeks and streams, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) owns hundreds of miles of property along waterways as well as other public lands.
These locations are a preferred refuge for unsheltered people because of their proximity to surface water and the sheltering effects of riparian vegetation, canyons, and creek banks. Valley Water estimated in February 2023 that more than 2,000 unsheltered people were taking refuge on the agency’s properties and easements.
AB 1469 (Kalra) would provide Valley Water with the statutory authorization to use its land and a portion of its general tax revenue to humanely assist unsheltered people living along waterways to provide outreach, transitional housing, or other supportive services through contracts with cities, the County, or non-governmental organizations. The goal is to bring more resources to the table to facilitate solutions to serious environmental and operational impacts of large numbers of unsheltered people living alo ng creeks and streams.
The City of Santa Clara strongly supports AB 1469 because it will enable Valley Water to do more to assist unsheltered people taking refuge along waterways, provide more resources to support the efforts of cities, the County, and n on-governmental organizations to address the homelessness crisis in our region, and will give Valley Water the tools it needs to improve water quality and protect sensitive, threatened, and endangered species. We urge the Legislature and the Governor to enact this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
·~ l
....... .,..~~
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of wh;:,t's Possible
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
May 15, 2023
The Honorable Anthony Rendon
Speaker, California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 8330
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable James Gallagher
Republican Leader, State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 4740
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Action Needed on Fentanyl and Substance Use-Related Legislation
Dear Speaker Rendon and Assembly Republican Leader Gallagher,
The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) requests to participate in the upcoming informational hearing on fentanyl and urges the Legislature to take further action this year to address the fentanyl crisis.
Cities are committed to enacting legislative solutions that strike an appropriate balance between community justice and public safety. However delaying additional legislative action another year will undoubtably result in many more lives lost.
Constituents throughout California are relying on their legislators to act swiftly.
Fentanyl poisonings and the rising death toll illustrate a complex issue that requires a multi- faceted and collaborative approach. Cal Cities supports additional funding and resources to address the substance use crisis through appropriate prevention and intervention efforts, educational awareness campaigns, and increased access to life-saving overdose treatment aids such as naloxone.
Cities not only welcome increased collaboration with our state and federal partners, but we truly require it in order to meaningfully address the fentanyl crisis facing our communities.
For these reasons, Cal Cities calls on the Legislature to thoughtfully deliberate on and provide solutions for one of the most pressing issues of our time. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact Elisa Arcidiacono at [email protected] or Caroline
Cirrincione at [email protected].
Sincerely,
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
Claudia Frometa Anthony Otero Jim Ellis
Mayor, Downey Mayor, La Mirada Mayor, Bishop
Juanita Martin Joe Vinatieri Phil Dupper
Mayor, Santa Fe Springs Mayor, Whittier Mayor, Loma Linda
Stephanie Oddo Austin Lumbard Marty Simonoff
Mayor Pro Tem, Laguna Niguel Mayor, Tustin Mayor, Brea
Fred Jung David John Sawver Dale Reynolds
Council Member, Fullerton Mayor, Stanton Council Member, Blythe
Valerie Vandever Brenden Kalfus Dr. Lisa DeForest
Council Member, San Jacinto Council Member, Temecula Mayor, Murrieta
Jessica Alexander Michael Vargas Kevin Bash
Council Member, Temecula Mayor, Perris Mayor Pro Tem, Norco
Bill Zimmerman Crystal Ruiz Adele Andrade
Mayor, Menifee Mayor Pro Tem, San Jacinto Mayor, Alhambra
Ross J. Maza Katherine Lee Gary Boyer
Vice Mayor, Alhambra Council Member, Alhambra Mayor, Glendora
Jeffrey K. Maloney Sasha Renée Pérez H. Manuel Ortiz Council Member, Alhambra Council Member, Alhambra Mayor, Irwindale
Mendell Thompson Michael Allawos Bill Hussey
Mayor Pro Tem, Glendora Council Member, Glendora Mayor, Grand Terrace
Karen Davis David Fredendall Bill Velto
Council Member, Glendora Council Member, Glendora Mayor, Upland
Robert Gonzales Jason Gibbs Konstantine Anthony
Mayor, Azusa Mayor, Santa Clarita Mayor, Burbank
Michael Dacquisto Lisa Kaplan Kris Deiters
Mayor, Redding Council Member, Sacramento Mayor, Red Bluff
Siri Pulipati Patrick Hurton Rosario Rodriguez
Council Member, Council Member, Red Bluff Mayor, Folsom Rancho Cordova
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
Danny Cartwright Robert Mitchell Rich Lozano
Mayor, Loomis Mayor, Tehama Council Member, Galt
Jay Vandenburg Denise Conrado Trinity Burruss
Mayor, Galt Council Member, Colusa Mayor, Colfax
Linda Budge Sergio Robles Ken Broadway
Mayor, Rancho Cordova Council Member, Elk Grove Mayor, Rocklin
Bill Halldin Alice Dowdin Calvillo Greg Watkins
Council Member, Rocklin Mayor, Auburn Mayor, Shasta Lake
Mike Gallagher Bob Branstrom Bruce Houdesheldt
Mayor, Anderson Council Member, Grass Valley Mayor, Roseville
Tom Sandoval Eddie Flores Frank Gonzalez
Mayor, Pomona Council Member, San Francisco Mayor, Sanger
Daniel Martinez Michael Montelongo James Horn
Mayor Pro Tem, Sanger Council Member, Sanger Mayor, Coalinga
Travis Praden Luis Chavez Lynne Ashbeck
Mayor, Hanford Council Member, Fresno Mayor, Clovis
Silvia Renteria Pam Foley Cindy Silva
Council Member, Firebaugh Council Member, San Jose Mayor, Walnut Creek
Loella Haskew Cindy Darling Brigit Bennington
Mayor Pro Tem, Walnut Creek Council Member, Walnut Creek Mayor, Hesperia
Matt Francois Kevin Wilk Mark Armstrong
Council Member, Walnut Creek Council Member, Walnut Creek Vice Mayor, San Ramon
Carl Anduri Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft Lisa Gauthier
Mayor, Lafayette Mayor, Alameda Mayor, East Palo Alto
Frank Navarro Bruce Barrows Rebeca Armendariz
Mayor, Colton Mayor, Cerritos Council Member, Gilroy
Michael Colantuono Kim Trupiano Steve Jones
City Attorney, Grass Valley Council Member, Clayton Mayor, Garden Grove
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
Lori Ogorchock Tim Flaherty Zak Schwank
Council Member, Antioch Mayor, Pleasant Hill Mayor, Temecula
Dan Goldstein Jaime Patino Jan Arbuckle
Council Member, Hayward Council Member, Union City Mayor, Grass Valley
Laura Nakamura Gabe Quinto Nancy Young
Council Member, Concord Council Member, El Cerrito Mayor, Tracy
Melanie Bagby Emma Sharif Anna M. Velazquez
Council Member, Cloverdale Mayor, Compton Mayor, Soledad
Lisa Diaz Nash Scott Bauer Laura Bettencourt
Deputy Mayor, San Mateo Council Member, Eureka Mayor, Palmdale
Porsche Middleton Maria de Pilar Avalos Jean Josey
Mayor, Citrus Heights Mayor, South Gate Council Member, Dublin
Brian McCarthy Dave Potter Scott Donaldson
Council Member, Marina Mayor, Carmel-by-the-Sea Mayor, Del Rey Oaks
Bob White Mike LeBarre Bill Peake
Mayor, Greenfield Mayor, King City Mayor, Pacific Grove
Kimbley Craig Ian Oglesby Laura Hoffmeister
Mayor, Salinas Mayor, Seaside Mayor, Concord
Chaps Poduri Yvette Brooks Jen Cavenaugh
Council Member, Pacific Grove Council Member, Capitola Mayor, Piedmont
Kris Deiters Rita Xavier Tami Trent
Mayor, Red Bluff Council Member, San Pablo Mayor, Fortuna
Scott Perkins Deborah B. Penrose Oscar Flores
Council Member, San Ramon Mayor, Half Moon Bay Mayor, Lynwood
J Francisco Zermeño C Kathy Watanabe Inga Miller
Council Member, Hayward Council Member, Santa Clara Mayor, Orinda
Elizabeth Mackay Kelly Schellong Juan Gonzalez
Council Member, Blue Lake Council Member, Crescent City Mayor, San Leandro
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
Janani Ramachandran Pa'tanisha Pierson Marie Blankley Council Member, Oakland Council Member, Brentwood Mayor, Gilroy
Xouhoa Bowen Mike McCorriston David Torres
Council Member, San Leandro Vice Mayor, Dublin Mayor, Montebello
Alicia Weintraub Justin Massey Ray Pearl
Mayor Pro Tem, Calabasas Mayor Pro Tem, Hermosa Beach Mayor, Westlake Village
Larry Weber Richard Montgomery Chris Anstead
Council Member, Hidden Hills Mayor, Manhattan Beach Mayor, Agoura Hills
Michael Kemps Lauren Meister Doug Stewart
Council Member, Council Member, Council Member,
Palos Verdes Estates West Hollywood Malibu
Laura McCorkindale John Heilman Kelly Honig
Council Member, Council Member, Council Member
Hidden Hills West Hollywood Westlake Village
Chelsea Lee Byers Ed Albrecht John Cruikshank
Council Member, Council Member, Mayor Pro Tem
West Hollywood Calabasas Rancho Palos Verdes
Illece Buckley Weber Raymond A. Jackson Brianne Zorn
Mayor Pro Tem, Agoura Hills Mayor, Hermosa Beach Mayor, Martinez
Paul Grisanti Valerie Arkin Jon Froomin
Council Member, Malibu Council Member, Pleasanton Mayor, Foster City
Tessa Rudnick Susan Candell Rick Denison
Mayor Pro Tem, El Cerrito Council Member, Lafayette Mayor, Yucca Valley
Debbie Ruddock Flor Nicolas Andrew White
Council Member Mayor, Chief of Police
Half Moon Bay South San Francisco Martinez
Evert Wolsheimer Mary K. Bier John Dutrey
Vice Mayor, Monte Sereno Council Member, Pacifica Mayor, Montclair
Sam Hindi Leslie Marden Ragsdale Lisa Motoyama
Council Member, Foster Council Member, Hillsborough Mayor, El Cerrito
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
Al Royse Daniel Furtado Stacey Mattina
Council Member, Hillsborough Council Member, Campbell Mayor, Lakeport
Steve Woehleke Chris Pimentel Lula Davis-Holmes
Council Member, Moraga Mayor Pro Tem, El Segundo Mayor, Carson
Lance Giroux Carol Pirsztuk Drew Boyles
Council Member, El Segundo Council Member, El Segundo Mayor, El Segundo
Ryan Baldino Albert Vera Julian A. Gold
Council Member, El Segundo Mayor, Culver City Mayor, Beverly Hills
Göran Eriksson Beatriz Dieringer Gleam Davis
Council Member, Culver City Council Member, Rolling Hills Mayor, Santa Monica
Damon L. Alexander John M. Erickson Phil Brock
Council Member Council Member, Council Member,
San Bernardino West Hollywood Santa Monica
Dan O'Brien Barbara Ferraro David Shapiro
Council Member, Culver City Mayor, Rancho Palos Verdes Mayor, Calabasas
Steve Napolitano Brad Halpern Sirley Cuevas
Council Member, Council Member, Mayor Pro Tem
Manhattan Beach Westlake Village Lawndale
James R. Bozajian Marianne Riggins Lula Davis-Holmes Council Member, Calabasas Council Member, Malibu Mayor, Carson
Rhonda Hofmann Gorman Pat Kearny Alex Vargas
Council Member, Lawndale Council Member, Lawndale Mayor, Hawthorne
Lili Bosse Sharona R. Nazarian Robin Grundmeyer
Council Member, Beverly Hills Council Member, Beverly Hills Mayor, Norco
Jeremy Wolf Angie Reyes English Linda Evans
Council Member, Agoura Hills Mayor Pro Tem, Hawthorne Mayor, LA Quinta
Bernadette Suarez William Uphoff Joseph DeConinck
Council Member, Lawndale Mayor Pro Tem, Lomita Mayor, Blythe
David Bradley Paul Seo Joe Kalmick
Council Member Council Member Council Member
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes Seal Beach
John Mirisch Lester Friedman Janet Jernigan
Council Member, Beverly Hills Vice Mayor, Beverly Hills Mayor, Needles
Wes Speake Jackie Peterson Debra Jones
Council Member, Corona Council Member, Hemet Mayor, Victorville
Timothy J Sheridan Linda Krupa Steve McLean
Council Member, Lake Elsinore Council Member, Hemet Mayor, Jackson
Jan Pye Ted Weill Elena Baca- Santa Cruz
Council Member Council Member Council Member
Desert Hot Springs Rancho Mirage Moreno Valley
Colleen Wallace Steve Sanchez Frank Garcia
Mayor Pro Tem, Banning Council Member, LA Quinta Mayor, Maywood
Kathleen Fitzpatrick Waymond Fermond Robert Mitchell Council Member, LA Quinta Council Member, Indio Mayor, Tehama
Deborah McGarrey John Peña Betty Celano
Council Member, LA Quinta Council Member, LA Quinta Treasurer, Tehama
Hilary Hodge Bob Branstrom Scott Nassif
Vice Mayor, Grass Valley Council Member, Grass Valley Mayor, Apple Valley
Tom Ivy Haven Caravelli Felipe Perez
Council Member, Grass Valley Council Member, Grass Valley Mayor, Firebaugh
Jim Bacquet Karen Hammers Terry A. Sayre
Council Member, Tehama Council Member, Tehama Mayor, Tulare
Hurschell Himes Dennis A. Mederos Hung Wei
Council Member, Tehama Council Member, Tulare Mayor, Cupertino
Stephen C. Harrell Elizabeth Orona Paula Perotte
Council Member, Tulare Mayor Pro Tem, Solvang Mayor, Goleta
Michelle Shoresman Eric Friedman Eli Beckman
Council Member, Council Member, Council Member,
San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Corte Madera
Billy Summers Diana Rich Kate Colin
Council Member, St. Helena Council Member, Sebastopol Mayor, San Rafael
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
Paul Dohring Tina Arriola Cat Moy
Mayor, St. Helena Council Member, Vallejo Mayor, Fairfield
Stephen Zollman Eric Hall Jim Wickham
Council Member, Sebastopol Vice Mayor, St. Helena Mayor, Mill Valley
Peter Bregenzer Rachel Farac Kevin McDonnell
Council Member, Vallejo Council Member, Novato Mayor, Petaluma
Barbara Coler David Hagele Steve Burdo
Vice Mayor, Fairfax Vice Mayor, Healdsburg Mayor, San Anselmo
Dennis Pocekay Samantha Rodriguez Beth Painter
Council Member, Petaluma Mayor, Rohnert Park Vice Mayor, Napa
Holli Their Walt Stanish Ariel Kelley
Council Member, Tiburon Vice Mayor, Rio Vista Mayor, Healdsburg
Sandra Lowe Chance Cutrano Becky A. Shevlin
Mayor, Sonoma Mayor, Fairfax Mayor, Monrovia
Steve Martin Carrie Broggie Lily Mei
Mayor, Paso Robles Council Member, Fillmore Mayor, Fremont
Teresa Cox Teresa Keng Aaron Tiedemann
Vice Mayor, Fremont Council Member, Fremont Mayor, Albany
Raj Salwan Jesse Arreguin Victor Gordo
Council Member, Fremont Mayor, Berkeley Mayor, Pasadena
Marisol Rubio Mark Turner Eduardo Montesino
Council Member, San Ramon Mayor, Morgan Hill Mayor, Watsonville
Vanessa Quiroz Scott Funk Jay Vandenburg
Council Member, Watsonville Mayor Pro Tem, Gonzales Mayor, Galt
Derek Timm Andrew Sandoval Paul Sandhu
Council Member, Scotts Valley Council Member, Salinas Vice Mayor, Galt
Kevin Papineau Rich Lozano Shawn Farmer
Council Member, Galt Council Member, Galt Council Member, Galt
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
L. Dennis Michael Eunice M. Ulloa Karen Goh
Mayor, Rancho Cucamonga Mayor, Chino Mayor, Bakersfield Naresh Solanki Lynda P. Johnson Janelle Osborne
Mayor Pro Tem, Cerritos Council Member, Cerritos Mayor, Lompoc
Chuong Vo Frank Aurelio Bob Woten
Council Member, Cerritos Council Member, Cerritos Mayor, Live Oak
Karen Bright Natalia Alarcon Jeramy Chapdelaine
Mayor, Grover Beach Council Member, Carpinteria Vice Mayor, Live Oak
Heather Moreno John Hamon Robert Pullen-Miles
Mayor, Atascadero Mayor Pro Tem, Paso Robles Mayor, Lawndale
Isaiah Wright Ray Altman Tasha Cerda
Mayor, Crescent City Council Member, Crescent City Mayor, Gardena
Kevin McNamee Ashley Hernandez James T. Butts, Jr.
Mayor, Thousand Oaks Council Member, Live Oak Mayor, Inglewood
Lakhvir Ghag Rodney Tanaka John Moreno
Council Member, Live Oak Council Member, Gardena Mayor, Calexico
Eric Alegria Paulette Francis Gloria D. Gray
Council Member, Mayor Pro Tem, Council Member
Rancho Palos Verdes Gardena Inglewood
Mark Henderson Wanda Love Tracy Martinez
Council Member, Gardena Council Member, Gardena Mayor, Del Mar
Alex Padilla Eloy Morales, Jr. Esther Sanchez
Council Member, Inglewood Council Member, Inglewood Mayor, Oceanside
Mike Donovan Michelle Metschel Bill Wells
Council Member, Coronado Council Member, El Cajon Mayor, El Cajon
Michelle Metschel Ron Morrison John Minto
Council Member, El Cajon Mayor National City Mayor, Santee
Alexander Pedersen Donna Lind John McCann
Council Member, Capitola Council Member, Scotts Valley Mayor, Chula Vista
Mike Nelson Ray Barragan Matthew Serratto
Mayor, Atwater Mayor, Chowchilla Mayor, Merced
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
Michael Restuccia Pat Nagy George Carr
Mayor, Ripon Mayor, Gustine Mayor, Hughson
Sonny Dhaliwal Lisa Craig Gary Singh
Mayor, Lathrop Mayor Pro Tem, Lodi Mayor, Manteca
Cherilyn Bairos Michael Clauzel Charlie Goeken
Mayor, Oakdale Mayor, Patterson Mayor, Waterford
Casey Graham Konstantine Anthony Dan Brotman
Mayor, Newman Mayor, Burbank Mayor, Glendale
Debra L. Garnes Keith Mashburn Tami Trent
Mayor, Rio Dell Mayor, Simi Valley Mayor, Fortuna
Chad Givens John Irish Goodwin Monica Malano
Mayor, Shafter Vice Mayor, Colma Mayor, Artesia
Ana Valencia Rich Rollins Sarah Schaefer
Mayor, Norwalk Mayor, Port Hueneme Mayor, Arcata
Randall Putz Javier John Dutrey David Pittman
Mayor, Big Bear Lake Mayor, Montclair Mayor, Oroville
Eric Smith Nancy Santana Madison Davis
Vice Mayor, Oroville Council Member, Live Oak Mayor, Brisbane
Shawn Webber Tracy Johnstone John Franklin
Council Member, Oroville Council Member, Oroville Mayor, Vista
Krysi Riggs Valerie Munoz Charlie Klinakis
Council Member, Oroville Mayor Pro Tem, La Puente Mayor, La Puente
David Argudo Nadia Mendoza Karla Brown
Council Member, La Puente Council Member, La Puente Mayor, Pleasanton
Gabriel Quinones Martine Watkins John Marchand
Council Member, La Puente Council Member, Santa Cruz Mayor, Livermore
Jeff Nibert Melanie Burkholder Michael Hannon
Council Member, Pleasanton Council Member, Carlsbad Mayor, Newark
Brian Pepin Gil Rebollar George Nava
Council Member, Poway Council Member, Brawley Mayor, Brawley
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
Jewel Edson Katie Burnworth Santos Garcia
Council Member, Solana Beach Mayor, Imperial Mayor, Madera
Gilberto Manzanarez Blanca Mendoza-Navarro Susan Harvey Council Member, Calexico Council Member, Selma Mayor, Cotati
Bruce Deutsch Lisa Gillmor Jose A. Moran
Council Member, Dunsmuir Mayor, Santa Clara Mayor, Livingston
Eric Knight Ben Ford Paul Joiner
Vice Mayor, Yountville Council Member, Cotati Mayor, Lincoln
Michael E. Silva Sonia Carter Scott Robertson
Council Member, Vacaville Council Member, El Centro Mayor, Selma
Camilo Garcia Kevin Lincoln Mark Salinas
Council Member, Calexico Mayor, Stockton Mayor, Hayward
LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
June 28, 2023
The Honorable Ben Allen
Chair, Senate Committee on Environmental Quality
1021 O Street, Room 3230
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: AB 1594 (E. Garcia) Medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles:
public agency utilities – Support
Dear Senator Allen,
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I write in support of AB 1594 (Garcia). AB 1594 (Garcia) is a narrowly tailored solution that will ensure that our city-owned fleet which includes publicly owned electric, water, and wastewater utilities have a pathway to procure zero-emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles everywhere feasible, while maintaining our ability to rely on our fleets to provide reliable service and respond to emergencies.
Our agency relies on highly specialized medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to respond to emergencies, restore service, and prevent disruptions. One example is the mutual aid that the City’s electric utility, Silicon Valley Power (SVP), provided to the City of Redding during the Carr Fire in July 2018. It is important for the language to reflect the operational realities under which POUs, water agencies, and other essential public service providers operate. Utility crew members may be swapped out but the vehicles remain and continue to be used for the next shift of workers. 70% of SVP’s fleet are MD-HD vehicles, those types of vehicles are used for restorative power operations during fires, storms, and other emergency events.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), pursuant to Governor Newsom’s issued Executive Order N-79-20, recently adopted a rule that requires publicly owned utilities to purchase increasing volumes of medium- and heavy-duty ZEVs starting next year. The rule intends to contain reasonable accommodations for publicly owned utilities where the utility can show with evidence that there is no ZEV commercially available or capable of meeting the utility’s needs.
However, publicly owned utilities can only access accommodations for replacement vehicles that are 13 years or older. This is problematic because due to their high use, many utility vehicles need to be replaced every 7-10 years. Without providing reasonable flexibility, the rule hampers the ability of publicly owned utilities to reasonably compare the service capabilities of a ZEV to the vehicle being replaced, which impacts a utility’s ability maintain service, respond to emergencies, and provide mutual aid assistance when needed.
AB 1594 (Garcia) will help the state meet its ZEV goals in a manner that accounts for the essential services agencies like ours provide to our communities. The bill would ensure that regulations such as the CARB rule referenced above recognize the diversity of fleet size, terrain, and climate, and authorize public agency utilities to purchase replacements for ·~ l
....... .,..~~
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of wh;:,t's Possible
AB 1594
June 28, 2023
traditional utility specialized vehicles that are at the end of life when needed to maintain reliable service and respond to major foreseeable events, including, but not limited to, severe weather, wildfires, natural disasters, and physical attacks. Specifically, the bill will authorize a public agency to determine whether a comparable ZEV is available for purchase without regard to the model year of the vehicle being replaced and in consideration of daily usage capabilities and foreseeable emergency response and mutual aid assistance needs. Local agencies should have the discretion and flexibility to determine how to replace its fleet based on availability and need.
For these reasons, the City of Santa Clara supports AB 1594 (Garcia). Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
cc: The Honorable Eduardo Garcia, Chair, Assembly Committee on Utilities & Energy The Honorable Lena Gonzalez, Chair, Senate Committee on Transportation
1500 Warburton Avenue ● Santa Clara, CA 95050 ● Phone: 408-615-2200 ● Fax: 408-241-6771 ● SantaClaraCA.gov Mayor
Lisa M. Gillmor
Councilmembers
Kathy Watanabe, District 1
Raj Chahal, District 2
Karen Hardy, District 3
Kevin Park, District 4
Suds Jain, District 5
Anthony J. Becker, District 6
June 28, 2023
The Honorable Aisha Wahab
State Senator, 10th District
1021 O Street, Suite 7330
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: AB 1637 (Irwin) Local government: internet websites and email addresses - OPPOSE
Dear Senator Wahab,
On behalf of the City of Santa Clara, I write in opposition to AB 1637. The bill requires local governments to ensure that their public-facing internet websites and email addresses use a ".gov" or ".ca.gov" domain name no later than January 1, 2026. While our City’s website and email addresses are already compliant with this bill, our municipally-owned electric utility, Silicon Valley Power (SVP) utilizes a “www.siliconvalleypower.com” address. The utility made the conscious decision to utilize a “.com” domain to encourage residents and businesses to see SVP as a service provider as opposed to another government authority.
SVP prioritizes the safety and security of our assets and users with measures to protect everyone from nefarious cyber actors. We've taken a proactive approach to address cyber security and online threats on our platforms. For example, SVP’s website already uses Secure Socket Layers (SSL) on the public facing website regardless of which domain it is using.
We understand the Legislature’s concerns regarding the potential benefits of using a “.gov” or “.ca.gov” domain. While the utilization of a “.gov” or “ca.gov” domain may provide some local agencies with a specific advantage, there are also numerous issues and costs associated with migrating to a new domain such as reviewing all marketing collaterals, program materials and documents, network/domain authentications within the organization before the transition can be made. In addition, the conversion would require significant and costly efforts to re-establish certificate programs and authentication with other partner agencies that would also be going through this change.
In our view, AB 1637 is duplicative for public utilities under the Federal Government's North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) jurisdiction. The Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), which we are a member of, chairs the Compliance Committee at the NERC.
Their leadership in the Compliance Committee is a testament to our commitment to ensuring regulations are met, standards are upheld, and cybersecurity remains robust.
NCPA and publicly owned utilities have established clear NERC guidelines that we strictly adhere to. While federal cybersecurity regulations are already in place, it is important to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and ensure that any additional measures are delivered thoughtfully and effectively.
·~ l
....... .,..~~
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of wh;:,t's Possible
AB 1637
June 28, 2023
While we appreciate the intended goal of this measure and are mutually sensitive to cyber vulnerabilities, a website domain such as “.gov” does not, in itself, provide any unique benefit or protection. True cybersecurity resilience is only accomplished through implementing multiple layers of security to protect a webpage or domain’s sensitive data which is available to all domain types.
It's important to recognize that local agencies are in the best position to determine how to allocate resources when it comes to cybersecurity and should have the discretion to make these decisions at the local level. What works for one local agency may not work for another.
For these reasons, the City opposes AB 1637. We appreciate your consideration on this issue and recommend allowing local agencies’ transition to a “.gov” or ".ca.gov" domain name to remain voluntary and keeping the decision-making at the local government level.
Sincerely,
Lisa M. Gillmor
Mayor
City of Santa Clara
1 April 13, 2023 Cities Association
Legislative Action Committee – Bill Analysis
Legislative Action Committee Meeting
Item 2. Continue Discussion on Valley Water Bills
Bill Number Summary Recommended
Position
Legislative Priority Alignment
AB 939
(Pellerin)
This bill would authorize
Santa Clara Valley Water
District to utilize revenue
from ad valorem taxes or
assessments to help pay
for bonds issued by the
District. Additionally, the
bill would allow the District
to repay bonds from net
revenues, as opposed to
gross revenues, of its
water system. The bill
also makes additional
changes to the District’s
enabling act related to
borrowing limits, extending
existing director
compensation levels, and
other minor changes.
Support Water Supply and Conservation
LAP: Support efforts to
establish alternative funding
sources for water infrastructure
and improved water quality
projects.
AB 1469
(Kalra)
This bill would authorize
Santa Clara Valley Water
District to assist
unsheltered people living
along streams, in riparian
corridors, or otherwise
within the district’s
jurisdiction, in consultation
with cities and Santa Clara
County, to provide
solutions or improve
outcomes for unsheltered
individuals.
Support Housing LAP: Support
legislation and efforts that
provide increased access to
resources to address the needs
of the most vulnerable residents
through shelter, supportive
housing, and homelessness
prevention services.
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-805 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD
SUBJECT
Delegating Authority to the City Manager for City/Executive Director for Santa Clara Stadium Authority/Contract Administrator for Sports and Open Space Authority/Executive Director for Housing Authority for Council recess from July 19, 2023 through August 21, 2023
BACKGROUND
The City Council is scheduled for an official recess from July 24, 2023 through August 18, 2023, during which time, no City Council/Santa Clara Stadium Authority/Sports and Open Spaces Authority/Housing Authority meetings will take place. The City Council is scheduled to meet on July 18, 2023 for the Council and Authorities Concurrent for the last meeting before the scheduled recess and will reconvene on August 22, 2023 Council and Authorities Concurrent meeting following the recess.
In prior years, the Council has delegated authority to the City Manager/Executive Director/Contract Administrator or their designee through resolution (Attachment 1) to approve contracts and take other administrative actions as necessary during the Council recess on items vital to the function of the City. The Delegation of Authority to the City Manager/Executive Director for Santa Clara Stadium Authority/Contract Administrator for Sports and Open Space Authority/Executive Director for Housing Authority will be from July 19, 2023 through August 21, 2023. A report summarizing any actions taken by the City Manager/Executive Director/Contract Administrator will be presented to the City Council in September 2023.
DISCUSSION
The City’s Municipal Code Section 2.105.300 provides cases for emergency procurement by the City Manager where an emergency is defined as, “a situation where immediate action is required to preserve the public peace, health and safety and/or to avoid severe degradation of City property or a facility.” If contracts arise during the recess that were not previously anticipated, the City Manager will only act should they meet the above criteria.
The City Manager and City departments have reviewed items that will be crucial to execute during the recess, including but not limited to the following:
i. Accepting grants and donations on behalf of the City and approving associated budget amendments
ii. Approving grant applications
iii. Approving purchase agreements within existing budgetary appropriations City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
23-805 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
iv. Approving amendments to agreements to ensure projects are not delayed and service is not interrupted
Beyond those listed above, there may be other items that require action by the City Manager or his designee during the Council recess. If such is the case, the City Manager will use the authority delegated to them by the City Council to take the necessary steps. This authority will be used only in cases where inaction would result in project delays, interruption of services and operations, adverse fiscal impact or in the event of an emergency. The goal of this delegation of authority is to ensure that the City of Santa Clara and public continues to receive uninterrupted services.
FISCAL IMPACT
The approval of Agreements, Amendments, Change Orders, and Award of Contracts is anticipated to be within the Council approved budget amounts for the projects.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with all other departments as necessary.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council/Stadium Authority Board/Sports and Open Space Authority/Housing Authority:
Adopt a Joint Resolution delegating authority to the City Manager for City/Executive Officer for Santa Clara Stadium Authority/Contract Administrator for Sports and Open Space Authority/Executive Director for Housing Authority to approve project related documents during the period from July 19, 2023 through August 21, 2023 and requiring the City Manager/Executive Director/Contract Administrator to submit a report on actions taken during the Council recess at a City Council/Stadium Authority/Sports and Open Space Authority/Housing Authority meeting in September 2023.
Prepared by: Maria Le, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Delegation of Authority During 2023 Council Recess Rev: 7/11/23
RESOLUTION NO.
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA, SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, SPORTS
AND OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
("COUNCIL AND AUTHORITIES") DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO
THE CITY MANAGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL AND AUTHORITIES DURING THE
RECESS BETWEEN JULY 19, 2023 THROUGH AUGUST 21, 2023
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, SANTA CLARA STADIUM
AUTHORITY, SPORTS AND OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara's City Council, Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority, and Housing Authority ("Council and Authorities") have specific purchasing policies or ordinances, and all other agreements and actions not specifically delegated by the City Code or other formal action must be considered and approved by Council or Boards of the Authorities;
WHEREAS, the Council and Authorities do not have any meetings scheduled between July 19, 2023 and August 21, 2023; and,
WHEREAS, specific actions will be needed in order to ensure projects will stay on schedule and services will not interrupted.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY CITY OF SANTA CLARA, SANTA
CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, SPORTS AND OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the City Manager, Executive Director, and Contract Administrator or designee is hereby authorized to consider, approve, and execute contracts and other administrative matters needed for the on-going operation of the City within existing budgetary appropriations during the scheduled recess between July 19, 2023, and August 21, 2023.
Resolution/Delegation of Authority During 2023 Council Recess Rev: 7/11/23
2. That the City Manager, Executive Director, and Contract Administrator shall provide a report to the City Council regarding the actions taken under this Resolution at a City Council Meeting in September 2023.
3. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, SANTA CLARA STADIUM
AUTHORITY, SPORTS AND OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
ATTEST:
NORA PIMENTEL, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-776 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Action on a Resolution Authorizing the Use of City Electric Forces for New Dark Fiber Installations at Various Locations
COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure
BACKGROUND
Section 1310 of the City of Santa Clara Charter (entitled “Contracts on Public Works”) states, in part, “that every contract involving an expenditure of more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the construction or improvement (excluding maintenance and repair) of public buildings, works, streets, drains, sewers, utilities, parks and playgrounds shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder.” The section further states that “the City Council may declare and determine that, in its opinion, the work in question may be performed better or more economically by the City with its own employees, and after the adoption of a resolution to this effect by at least four affirmative votes, it may proceed to have said work done in the manner stated, without further observance of the provisions of this section.”
In 2014, Silicon Valley Power (SVP) created an in-house position called Fiber Splicing Technician to primarily perform maintenance and repairs to the fiber optic network, including, basic splicing and distribution changes to fiber optic cables. The technician can also perform duties such as pulling, laying, aligning and positioning fiber optic equipment for new connections to the fiber network. At this time, SVP employs two Fiber Splicing Technicians.
DISCUSSION
Currently, the SVP fiber optic network serves SVP, other City departments, and various commercial customers. As the work is specialized, the position of Fiber Splicer Technician performs a variety of activities from maintenance and repair to new or re-spliced interconnections to the SVP Fiber Enterprise. Each interconnection can be unique involving different hours of labor depending on the number of fibers required to be spliced and the particular location within the network. Technician time is tracked hourly and not on a per fiber basis.
Large or extensive projects involving extending fiber cable being laid along new paths or great distances or adding conduit or related infrastructure are done using an existing public works contract with a private construction contractor. SVP spends up to $1 million per year on this contract for new fiber network construction and certain maintenance and repair activities.
Staff believes that the Fiber Splicer Technician work (described below) is best and most efficiently performed with City forces based upon the following factors: (1) the work is limited in size and scope; City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-776 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
(2) City forces have knowledge and training in operating and maintaining and repairing the fiber optic network to more economically perform this work; and (3) bidding out the work and contracting with a private entity would not likely result in a lower overall cost or time savings. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council make a finding that City forces can better perform the fiber optic work as further described below.
Estimate Number: FWM#01571
Location: 1380 Rosalia Avenue
Type of Service: Rerouting Existing Fiber Path
Description of Work: Splice, terminate and test fibers to reroute fiber network going to 1380 Rosalia Avenue for a fiber lease customer.
Estimated Cost: $7,365
Appropriation: Electric Utility Capital Fund (591) Project 2004 - Fiber Development Design & Expansion
Source of Revenue: Developer Contribution
Estimate Number: FWM#01572
Location: 1095 Dunford Way
Type of Service: New Business
Description of Work: Splice, terminate and test fibers for a new school at 1095 Dunford Way for a fiber lease customer.
Estimated Cost: $7,365
Appropriation: Electric Utility Capital Fund (591) Project 2004 - Fiber Development Design & Expansion
Source of Revenue: Developer Contribution
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff recommends that the City Council determine that the actions being considered are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to the following sections of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations: (1) Section 15302(c) (Class 2 - Replacement or Reconstruction) as the proposed work involves the replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving negligible expansion of capacity, and (2) Section 15303 (d) (Class 3 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as the proposed work involves the construction of a limited number of small fiber utility facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT
The funds to support the staff time for work performed by SVP and related construction materials for the work detailed in this report, totaling $14,730, are included in the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Capital Budget, Fiber Development, Design, and Expansion project in the Electric Utility Capital Fund. All referenced work will be performed with City Electric Forces (SVP staff). Some work associated with encroachment permits may be performed by the Department of Public Works (DPW). DPW costs are recovered through payment of permit fees.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-776 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Determine the proposed action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to sections 15302(c) and 15303 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations and adopt a Resolution authorizing the use of City Electric Forces for work detailed in this Report to Council located at 1380 Rosalia Avenue and 1095 Dunford Way.
Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution - Use of City Electric Forces
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Use of City Electric Forces Page 1 of 2
Rev: 03-09-18
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF CITY ELECTRIC FORCES
PURSUANT TO CHARTER SECTION 1310
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara’s Charter section 1310 requires all contracts involving an expenditure of over $1,000 for the construction or improvement (excluding maintenance and repair) of a public works project to be let to the lowest responsible bidder; WHEREAS, Charter section 1310 permits the City of Santa Clara (“City” or “City of Santa Clara”) to use its own employees if the City Council, by motion passed by at least four affirmative votes, determines that the public works may be done better or more economically by the City’s own employees and, upon such determination, the City may proceed to have the public works project completed without further observance of Charter section 1310; WHEREAS, the City’s Electric Department desires to perform certain public works, as set forth in the Report to Council, dated July 11, 2023, by its own employees; and, WHEREAS, the City’s Electric Department has presented evidence supporting that the work in question may be performed better or more economically by the City with its own employees.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council of the City of Santa Clara does hereby declare and determine that the public works project set forth in the 23-776 Report to Council, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, may be performed better or more economically by the City with its own employees.
///
///
Resolution/Use of City Electric Forces Page 2 of 2
Rev: 03-09-18
2. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
ATTEST: ______________________________
NORA PIMENTEL, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference: July 11, 2023, Report to Council #23-776.
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-765 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD
SUBJECT
Action on the Carryover of FY 2022/23 Stadium Authority Capital Projects and Approve Related Budget Amendments
BOARD PILLAR
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium
BACKGROUND
On March 15, 2022, the Stadium Authority Board approved the Santa Clara Stadium Authority Fiscal Year 2022/23 Operating, Debt Service, and Capital Budget (FY 2022/23 Budget). As highlighted in Attachment 1, the Budget included the following three approved capital expense (CapEx) projects:
· Aesthetic Improvements - Premium Areas/Special Event Spaces for $1,050,000 · Bowl Camera Upgrade/Refurbishment for $141,750
· Communication Equipment - Console for $84,000
The projects were needed to either upgrade the Stadium space or replace equipment that have reached the end of their useful life. The purpose of the Aesthetic Improvements project was to renovate and refresh the premium club spaces in the Stadium by replacing the carpet and paint in the BNY Clubs, Fii Club, United Club, Yahoo Club and special event spaces. The Bowl Camera Upgrade/Refurbishment and Communication Equipment - Console projects were approved to replace the Stadium’s bowl cameras and the Police Departments’ MCC 7500 IP Dispatch Console equipment, respectively.
It was anticipated that these projects would be completed by the end of FY 2022/23 so their corresponding budgets were not requested to be carried forward to the FY 2023/24 Operating, Debt Service, and Capital Budget (FY 2023/24 Budget). However, these projects were not completed as anticipated due to delays from the vendors. Additionally, as approved in the FY 2023/24 Budget, the Stadium Manager carried forward $10,248 less than what was unused in the FY 2022/23 Budget for the Aesthetic Improvements project. Staff is requesting approval to amend the FY 2023/24 Budget to include unspent funds from the FY 2022/23 Budget for these projects.
DISCUSSION
On June 15, 2023, the Stadium Manager notified staff that they did not carry forward an additional unspent amount of $10,248 for the Aesthetic Improvements CapEx project during the FY 2023/24 Budget process. The Stadium Manager anticipates using the full budget amount that was approved in the FY 2022/23 Budget to complete the project and is requesting for a budget amendment to include the additional unspent amount.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-765 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
During FY 2022/23, the Stadium Manager received 26 of the 75 replacement cameras for the Bowl Camera Upgrade/Refurbishment CapEx project. The Stadium Manager expected to receive the remaining order before the end of FY 2022/23 so they did not request to carry over the remaining budget for the project. The order was inadvertently delayed, and the Stadium Manager received 48 of the remaining 49 cameras in FY 2023/24. The Stadium Manager is requesting for a budget amendment to carry over the remaining unspent funds of $100,263 from the FY 2022/23 Budget to the FY 2023/24 Budget.
The procurement of equipment for the Communication Equipment - Console CapEx project was not completed before the end of FY 2022/23. This equipment allows dispatcher integration capabilities that will enhance public safety communication. The current equipment is at the end of its useful life and the Police Department would like to complete the project in FY 2023/24. Staff is requesting for a budget amendment to carry over the remaining unspent funds of $84,000 from the FY 2022/23 Budget to the FY 2023/24 Budget.
The table below summarizes the unspent FY 2022/23 Budget for the three projects and the requested carry over amounts:
Project Name Approved
Unspent FY
2022/23 Budget
Carried Forward
Request Amount for
FY 2023/24 Budget
Aesthetic Improvements - Premium
Areas/Special Event Spaces
$10,248 $10,248
Bowl Camera Upgrade/Refurbishment $100,263 $100,263
Communication Equipment - Console $84,000 $84,000
Total $194,511 $194,511
These projects were not included in the FY 2023/24 Budget request and budget amendments would be required to complete these projects in FY 2023/24.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Aesthetic Improvements - Premium Areas/Special Event Spaces CapEx project is included in the FY 2023/24 Budget and was approved for $989,000. A budget amendment of $10,248 will need to be approved by the Board to add the project. These funds will be offset by a decrease in the Stadium Authority Capital Expense Reserve.
The Bowl Camera Upgrade/Refurbishment CapEx Project is not part of the FY 2023/24 Budget, and the Board will need to approve a $100,263 budget amendment to add the project. These funds will be offset by a decrease in the Stadium Authority Capital Expense Reserve.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-765 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
The Communication Equipment - Console CapEx Project is not part of the FY 2023/24 Budget, and the Board will need to approve a $84,000 budget amendment to add the project. These funds will be offset by a decrease in the Stadium Authority Capital Expense Reserve.
The table below summarizes the budget amendments discussed above:
CapEx Project Adopted
Budget
Increase/
(Decrease)
Amended Budget
Bowl Camera
Upgrade/Refurbishment
$0 $100,263 $100,263
Communication Equipment -
Console
$0 $84,000 $84,000
Aesthetic Improvements -
Premium Areas/Special Event
Spaces
$989,000 $10,248 $999,248
Capital Expense Reserve $6,142,651 ($194,511) $5,948,140
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Executive Director’s and Stadium Authority Counsel’s Offices.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve a budget amendment for the Aesthetic Improvements- Premium Areas/Special Event Spaces CapEx project in the FY 2023/24 Budget in the amount of $10,248 from the Stadium Authority Capital Expense Reserve;
2. Approve a budget amendment to include the Bowl Camera Upgrade/Refurbishment CapEx project in the FY 2023/24 Budget in the amount of $100,263 from the Stadium Authority Capital Expense Reserve;
3. Approve a budget amendment to include the Communication Equipment - Console CapEx project in the FY 2023/24 Budget in the amount of $84,000 from the Stadium Authority Capital Expense Reserve.
Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Treasurer
Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, Executive Director
ATTACHMENTS
1. Adopted FY 2022-23 Capital Expenditure Budget
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
33 Item Type
Electrical
Electrical
General Building
General Building
General Building
General Building
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget
SC SA Description
R,equested
Distribution - High Voltage (Primary Main Switch Gear Transformer , $ Battery & 12KV Main Circuit Breakers )
The project replaces a bad Control Power Transformer (CPT) on the Primary Main Switch Gear (PMSG) The faulty CPT was identified during preventative maintenance, inspect ion and testing of the PMSG earlier this year. The project will replace 1he current CPT, CPT drawer and CPT drawer r ails with new like-in-kind equipment. Additiona lly , the switch gear inspection and testing identified that the PMSG, Primary Switch Gear A (PSGA)and Primary Switch Gear B (PSGB) are in need of replacement This project will replace the current batteries with new like-in-kind batteries , which were origina l from the time of construction. Finally , the electrica l testing company and contractor recommended purchas ing two custom 12KV main circuit breakers which will be maintained as spare stock and can be used in either the PMSG, PSGA or PSGB in the event of a future breaker failure. The lead time for the 12KV breakers can be as long as 12-16 weeks. Purchasing these spare 12KV breakers as spare stock ensures that the stadium can quickly recover in the event of a breaker failure to PMSG equipment, which is critical to the operation of the stadium.
Distribution - High Voltage (12KV Electrical Power Study, Assessment and Replacement at Primary Switch Gear at Quadrant Substations)
The project will test, inspect and assess primary electrical 12KV switchgear equipment located in, or associated with, the four stadium quadrant electric al substations. The assessment will provide a report and recommendation for necessary replacement and modific ations necessary to maintain full and safe electrical operation at the stadium. The project includes an allowance for any necessa ry replacements and / or enhancements identified during the assessment. Replacements and / or modification s are dependent upon the results of the assessment Additiona lly, the project will establish a baseline for this electrical equipment and may determine the need and frequency of future test and inspection of electrical equipment
Levi's Naming Rights Signage Refurbishment
The project refurbishes the current four (4) Levi's Naming Rights signs located above the North and South Scoreboards , west side of the suite tower , and on the east side of the grandstands. The current signs continue to experience lighting failures despite repeated attempts to repa ir the signs.
Levi's Naming Rights Existing Signage Lighting and Driver Repair The project repairs lights and drivers in the current four (4) Levi's Naming Rights signs localed above the North and South Scoreboa rds, west side of the suite tower , and on the east side of the grandstands The current signs continue to experience lighting failures , despite the emergency repair in 2021. The project will repair LED lights and drivers for all four (4) signs The project will provide a temporary solution for the signs New Seating - Bowt Padded Seat Replacement Project - Lower and Mid Level Club Seating Bowl
The approximately 9 ,500 existing padded seats in the lower seating bowl and middle seating bowl levels will be replacement in this project. The existing padded seats are orig inal from construction and have reached end of life. The upholstery material on nearly every seat has faded, torn or cracked due to sun and heat exposure . Minor repairs and spot replacements can no longer keep up with the amount of damaged seats found in these locations. This project will also evaluate the opportunity to replace the existing padded seats with a differe nt breathable elastomeric mesh sealing project, which may provide a cooler experience on hot days This project is necessary to provide the expected level of experience to patrons attending Levi's Stadium.
Aesthetic Improvements - Premium Areas / Special Event Spaces This project will renovate and refresh the premium club spaces in the stadium by replacing carpet and paint in the BNY Clubs, Fii Club, United Club, Yahoo Club and special event spaces. These club spaces are used for numerous events throughout the year. The high traffi c experienced in these spaces have worn on finish es and caused the carpet to near the end of life. This project will enhance these premium spaces and ensure Levi's Stadium remains an attractive destination for any and all events.
Cost Contingency Total Cost
(5%)
200,000 $ 10,000 $ 210,000
400,000 20,000 420,000
1,200,000 60,000 1,260,000
400,000 20,000 420,000
3,370,000 168,500 3,538,500
1,000,000 50,000 1,050,000
34 Item Type
General Building
General Building
Security
Security
Security
Site
Site
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget {Cont.)
SC SA Description
R,equested
Overhead Doors, Motors, Sensors and Track Replacements
This project will furnish and install a replacement gate and necessary ancillary equipment at the 200 Level of the exterior ramp location at the south end of the stadium. The· original overhead roll gate is damaged and is unable to be repaired. The original gate was installed as part of the stadium construction to assist in the flow of pedestrian traffic at the ramp location. Stadium Operations staff have used operational procedu res to substitute for the non-functional gate. However, replacing the gate will restore the original operational intent of the gate at the ramp Miscellaneous
Renewal and replacement of general building items to include, but not limited to, architectural finishes, fixtures, coatings , equipment, etc.
Security Control Situation Room Enhancements
This Project purchases equipment and technology necessary to utilize the Secur ity 24/7 Control Situation Room as a Secondary Command Post Location in the event of an emergency situation. Multifunctional use of the space will utilize the equipment to hold daily security briefings , daily security officer administrative duties, ongoing security office r training, and can readily be converted into an Auxiliary Command Post Situation Room, on an as needed basis . New equipment and technology enhancements for this room will include new monitors, wor1<spaces, radios , and video wall Enhancing this room provides Security a multifunctional space that can be used both during daily operations , as well as in an emergency situation. This technology aids in our compliance with the Department of Homeland Secur ity Safety Act requirements.
Security - Electrical / Data Distribution Expansion - Security Screening Locations
Department of Homeland Sec urity requires exterior screening of all patrons entering the facility. This scope of work will add electrical and data distribution to exterior screen ing locations . The new electric al and data allows stadium security staff to utilize critical security screening technology and avoids the use of temporary extension cords, which are prohibited in a permanent locatio n by building and fire code . Specificall y, this project adds new electrical and data to the exterior portion of the stadium on level 100 in Quadrant D. This project aids in compliance with OHS Safety Act requirements.
North East Lobby Security Desk Enhancements
The scope of this project will enhance security in the east stadium lobby on major non-event days and for private events. This security checkpo int will screen everything entering the stadium at this location. These enhancements will add electrical and data connections necessary to support security screening equipment at the point of entry , which doesn't curre ntly exist at this location today . The new electrical infrastructure allows Security to position secur ity desk and equipment closer to entrance . This project is necessary to maintain compliance with Department of Homeland Secur ity Safety Act requirements.
Concrete Replacements
The Project will address the conc rete at the Northwest stairwell landing on the 700 Level North Plaza area . The railing at the stairwell has been compromised in the past. This project will restore the handrail and conc rete at the stairwell, as well as improve the condition by strengthening the reinforcing at the stairwell railing. The project will require demolition of the existing conc rete, potentially patch the waterproofing layer of the structural slab, add reinforcing steel, pour concrete, apply lymtal coting and re-install the existing handrail at the stairwell. The improved and additionally reinforced slab will improve safety and prevent future damage from carts and other equipment that are used in the nearby area LED Retrofit Project - Exterior Luminaire Light Fixtures - Gold Lot 4 , Gold Lot 5 , Bill Wal sh Way and Other Exterior Poles
This project is phase 2 of the exterior lighting replacement in Gold Lot 4 and Gold Lot 5 par1<ing lot are·as. This project replaces the existing HID lighting with new LED lighting to enhance and improve the exterior lighting during stadium event load in and load out. This lighting improves safety conditions for stadium personnel and provides energy cost savings with more effic ient fixtures. ProIect replaces exterior HID lighting that is near or has reached end of life and replaces the lighting with new energy effic ient LED lighting. Project lighting includes light poles located in Gold Lot 4, Gold Lot 5, Bill Walsh Way and other exterior locations around the stadium.
Cost
100,000
100,000
62,000
50,000
30,000
150,000
200,000
Contingency
(5%)
5,000
5,000
3,100
2,500
1,500
7,500
10,000
Total Cost
105,000
105,000
65,100
52,500
31,500
157,500
210,000
35 Item Type SCSA
Requested
Description Cost Contingency
(5%)
Total Cost
Site Perimeter Enhancements 300,000 15,000 315,000 Project will evaluate, design, furnish, deliver and install bollards, barriers and/or vehicle deterrent devices where necessary along the perimeter of the site in order to comply with the Department of Homeland Security Safety Act Best Practices.
Site Private Lactation S
paces 120,000 6,000 126,000 The project will provide new lactation spaces for guests at the stadium. The project will fund the purchase, delivery and installation of private lactation pods to be used by guests pump or breastfeed milk in private. The private lactation space(s) will include a secure door, seating, lighting, counter, mirror, coat hook and electrical outlets. While these spaces are not required at stadium yet, they are required at other major assembly areas in the State of California, such as airports, colleges, county jails, community colleges, and state colleges. Providing these spaces allow breastfeeding guests a private location to express milk and still attend and enjoy events at the stadium.
Subtotal New CapEx Construction Costs 7,682,000 $ 384,100 $ 8,066,100$ Life Safet
y / Fire Smoke Evacuation System - Fire Smoke Curtain Replacement 50,000$ 2,500 $ 52,500 $ This project replaces an existing Elevator C6 Smoke Curtain and miscellaneous life safety / fire equipment which has been identified for replacement during preventative maintenance. The current smoke curtain experienced issued with the control box and fuses. A temporary repair was performed, but a full replacement of the smoke curtain is required. This project will remove the existing curtain and reinstall a new fire and smoke rated curtain.
Public Safet
y - Fire PPE Replacement (Nomex Tops) 5,750 288 6,038 x Projected replacement/additions of Stadium battle dress uniform tops for the team.
Public Safet
y - Fire PPE Replacement (Nomex Bottoms) 3,260 163 3,423 x Projected replacement/additions of Stadium battle dress uniform bottoms for the team.
Public Safet
y - Fire Lifepak CR2 AEDs Replacement 20,000 1,000 21,000 x The current AEDs are at the end of their 7-year service life and are no longer supported.
Public Safet
y - Fire Rope Rescue Equipment 2,000 100 2,100 x Miscellaneous rope software, hardware, and bags used by the Fire Department Stadium Team. This equipment will be added to the current Rope Rescue cache at the stadium to make it identical to what is carried on Fire Department apparatus.
Public Safet
y - IT Replacement of end of life Network equipment 105,000 5,250 110,250 x Network equipment was originally installed several years ago and is now end of life and not supported. This replacement costs include, equipment, shipping/tax and installation.
Public Safet
y - IT Replacement of end of life End User equipment 15,916 796 16,712 x Replace 4 Precision Desktops that are end of life. This also include1 laptop and 2 monitors replacement that are no longer under warranty, in case of failure. Costs include equipment, taxes, shipping, and deployment costs.
Public Safety - Police Communication Equipment - Police Radio Hand Packs 437,500 21,875 459,375 x Replace Motorola police radio hand packs purchased in 2013 that are at the end of the 10-year useful life.
Public Safety - Police Communication Equipment - Console 80,000 4,000 84,000 x Replace MCC7500 Console communication equipment purchased in 2013 that is at the end of the 10-year useful life.
Public Safety - Police Levi’s Stadium Blast Analysis 125,000 6,250 131,250 x Engage a consultant to provide a technical blast analysis of certain areas of the stadium. This analysis would be provided to the Department of Homeland Security and the Safety Act Office.
Public Safety - Police Body Worn Cameras (BWCs) for Special Event Officers (SEO) 90,000 4,500 94,500 x Body worn cameras, worn by police officers, improve police accountability and lower reports of misconduct. Body worn cameras provide visual and audio evidence that can independently verify events. Body worn cameras are issued to all Special Event Officers (SEO’s) working stadium events.
The current agreement expires in September 2022. This estimated yearly cost, subject to change pending final negotiations, would continue the current BWC program.
Public Safety - Police Observation Platforms on SAP Tower 75,000 3,750 78,750 x Design and install a safe and secure platform for Santa Clara Police Department and Public Safety Officers above the roof on the SAP tower / NRG Solar Terrace.
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget (Cont.)
36 Item Type
Security
Security
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget (Cont.)
EM ~~~oo
Requested
Mobile Security Closed Circuit Television (CCTV ) Pop Up Trailers This project will purchase five (5) additional units in order to enhance video coverage and audio messaging to remove locations The Mobile CC1V Pop Up Trailers provide fiexibility to our security operation.
Security has the ability to deploy the CCTY units to various locations given current demand. The CCVT units can be used to direct law enforcement to different areas on an as needed basis. They an also be used on both even or non-event days in the occurrence at stadium CC1V camera goes down for maintenance or other video coverage is required. These CC1V Pop Up Trailers will aid in maintaining compliance with the Department of Homeland Security Safety Act require ments
Security 24/7 Gate C Employee Entrance Booth
Purcha se and install new pre-manufactured Security Guard Booth at Gate C employee and guest entrance . The new booth will provide cover, power, lighting and storage for the security staff at Gate C. The booth will include a canopy for the Security walk through magnetometer and search table II will be used on both event and non-event day. The security checkp oint is necessary to screen all people entering the stadium grounds . This booth provides necessary operational support to our Security staff performing critica l screening operations required by the Department of Homeland Security Safety Act require ments.
Subtotal New CapEx Equipment Costs
Total New CapEx Project Costs
$
$
Cost Contingency Total Cost
(5%)
235,000 11 ,750 246,750
25,000 1,250 26,250
1,269,426 $ 63,472 $ 1,332,898
8,951,426 $ 447,572 $ 9,398,998
37 Item Type
Electrical
Electrical
General Building
General Building
General Building
General Building
General Building
General Building
General Building
General Building
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget Carryover
EM ~~~oo
Requested
Broadcast Booth Power (2019/20 Carryover)
The project shall design supp lemental lighting power and control s in the Broadcas t Booth (Room 04 50 02) The existing lighting grid in the ceiling has inadequate lighting and are currently contro lled with a dimmer switch near the door of the room. The Architect shall evaluate the power needs and provide a solution for better contro l methods for the broadc ast lighting power in the room .
Concessions Cart Cabling for Portable Carts (2019/20 Carryover ) Install code rated low voltage cabling (CAT6) to portab le concess ion carts .
This will provide Internet Protocol (IP) based access to the IPlV menu boards and Point of Sale (PO S) systems for cred it card transactions , as well as deliver an emergency signage to be displayed a t the concess ion stands .
Updated Stadium Wayfinding Signage (2020/2 1 Carryover) Design , furnish and install new wayfinding and information signage to include, but not limited to, new premium /club wayfind ing, suite wayfinding , smoking section signs, no smoking signs for around the main and upper concour ses, section numbers/fioor decals, ADA acce ssibility signs, Tunnel signs that "no photos/no autographs" , etc .
Stadium Event Signage (2019/20 Carryover)
The design, furnish and install of new stadium even signage including, but not limited to, tunne l awnings , accessib le seating reference areas , lower bowl sections placards , security , mobile signage , and additiona l fire and building code signage
Command Post Communication Equipment (2019/20 Carryover ) Purcha se and install public safety screens , monitors , and projection devices used in monitoring stadium and security operations to help improve situational awareness and response .
Women's Locker Room (2019/20 Carryover)
Convert a portion of the auxiliary locker room area to accommodate a larger private space for female athletes , performe rs, officials , and other female event day sporting and enterta inment professionals visiting or working events at Levi's Stadium. The pro1ect will include the design , permitt ing and con struction of alterations necessary to accom modate these new designated space s necessary to provide equal accommodations .
Automatic Logic Control Building Engineering System (2019/20 Carryove r)
Install an automatic logic contro ller system upgrade to monitor the building 's HVAC in all quadrants simultaneously . This updated system will enable graphic interface and help the system to operate more efficient ly with time clock manageme nt and assist in potentia l lighting contro l energy savings.
Club Space Flooring (2019/20 Carryove r)
Strip , resurface , and/or rep lace hardwood fiooring surfaces in the BNY East & West and Levi's 501 spaces . These spaces are among the most utilized spaces in the bu ilding and get a large amount of foot traffic . This work will help extend the usefu l life of these spaces as well as reduc ing sli s and ialls from worn fioors .
General Areas / Coatings Main Deck (2021/22 Carryover)
Replace and recoat lymtal traffic deck coating at the lower seating bowl and on the 300 and 700 Level Concourses , which are currently showing signs of wear The deck coating serves as a secondary waterproofing system for the occupied spaces below these areas and also protects and extends the life o f the concrete . Periodic replacement and recoa ting of this system is necessary to maintain current waterproofing system and maintain the expected life of the structure .
Field Turf Track Replacement (2021/22 Carryover )
The current turf track carpet is worn , buckled and compacted from use over the past five years and has reached its end of life . This project addresses the uneven grade of the current turf track carpet This project will remove the existing tra ck and rebuild it using a compacted stone base and shock layer with new carpet on top. Add ition ally , the project scope perman ently addresses the sun grade issues we experien ce with our current track by stabilizing the base to support the extreme loads it comes under during concerts and dirt events . Finall y , the new turf track will eliminate slipping hazards and improve overall safety and appea rance . $
Cost Remaining Total Cost
Contingency
16,190 $ 810 $ 17,000
50,000 2,500 52 ,500
250,000 12,500 262 ,500
138,000 6,900 144,900
58,000 2,900 60,900
353,333 17,667 371,000
27,61 9 1,381 29,000
85,000 4,250 89,250
2,450,000 122,500 2 ,572 ,500
325,714 16,286 342 ,000
38 Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget Carryover (Cont.)
Item Type SCSA Description Cost Remaining Total Cost
R,equested Contingency
General Building Additional Gate and Fence at Gate D (2016/17 Carryover) 75,000 3,750 78,750 Add ition of gate and fence in the Quadrant D to assist in the contro l of peop le movement and screen ing operations . Study will take place to ensur e the gate and fence meet all operational and regulatory compliance .
Material will be furn ished and installed . ProIectg originally approved in FY 2016/ 17 but was not completed.
Gene ral Building Miscellaneous (2016/17 Carryove r) 100,000 5,000 105,000 General renewa l and replacement of flooring , carpeting, millwork, tiles, masonry , granite counters , stainless steel pane ls and counters , cladding , wall acoust ic pane ls etc . throughout the building as items reach their end of life. Project originally approved in FY2016/ 17 but was not completed .
Plumbing Plumbing (2020/21 Carryove r) 87,61 9 4,381 92,000 Project addesses general renewa l and replacement of necessary plumbing equipment in the stadium to include, but not limited to, replacement of Pressure Reducting Valves (PRV) and other parts on domestic and recycled water systems
Security Enhance Stadium Security Coverage (2020/21 Carryove r) 330,000 16 ,500 346,500 Evaluate and replace existing cameras with techno logically advanced multi- lens panoramic /360/multi-dire-ctional cameras . Design locatio ns and camera styles have created visual obstructions and gaps in coverage.
Height locations with fixed lens cameras create the inability to adjust fie ld of views Installation of television monitors/signag e near camera mounts have created field of view obstructions . Due to high volume of club space usage for large scale, and smaller events, request for video investigations become frequent. Low lighting situations are consta nt with event type needs , and enhanced technotogy from newer cameras will enable greate r video quality. Club Space Enhancements : Club spaces which need to be evaluated include, but are not limited to: BNY Mellon East and West Club , Yah oo Club, United Club, Fil Club, 501 Club, Citrix Owners Club, Entry Gates , and Perimeter fences .
Security Enhance Stadium Security Access Contr ol (2020/21 Carryove r) 235,000 11,750 246 ,750 Install card readers on manual doors to increase access control features and security . Based on operat ional demands , doors have been identified via staff request and event activity in orde r to improve opera tional awareness and enhance the access contro l abilities by automating the doors. This also increases secu rity to areas deemed by staff to hold sensitive or high value assets . The access contro l enhancements include Verlx/Mercury upgrade, EvoE400 /Mercu ry upgrade , and various doors with access control upgrade or enhancement requ irements .
Site Security Fencing - Main Lot (2020/21 Carryover) 150 ,000 7,500 157,500 Remove and replace approxi mately 1,000 linear feet of 4-foot high security fencing in Main Lot per request of City _ The removal of existing fence and the installation of the new fence is included in a permit package that is currently under review at the City Planning and Building Departments as part of a larger project in the Main Parking Lot Site Stationary Electric Pressure W ashers (2020/21 Carryover ) 49,524 2,476 52 ,000 Install one (1) to two (2) demo stations on the 300 concourse If these are effective , we would look to replace all gas-powered press ure washe rs with electrically powered ones .
Site Asphalt (2018/19 Carryover) 170 ,952 8,548 179,500 The project will evaluate the current pavement status and provide asphalt overlay and/or seal coat at the visito r parking on Tasman, Gold 4 & 5 parking lots and South Access Road . Design services will be engaged to evaluate the current conditio n of pavement and recommend the correct application . Proper overlay and crack fill seals the pavement and prevents the infiltratio n of water which prevents pavemt failure .
Site Stadium Event Power U pgrade s & Switchgear Electrical (2019/20 35,238 1,762 37 ,000 Carryover)
The project will study , design , install and enhance remote visibility to the 12KV PMSG (primary switch gear) to main electrical panel using the Schneider Powe r Monitoring Expert system. The proIect will establish capabi lity to monitor and report the Switch Gear Event Mode Status through the building Schneider Power Monitoring E xpert (PME) sy stem for remote monitoring The plans and spec ifications required will include any electrica l and communication wiring , as well as any contro ls upgrades necessary to complete the project.
Site Bridge - Pedestrian (2018/19 Carryover) 30,000 1,500 3 1,500 The project will seal walkways and paint bridges to enhance public safety access areas and extended the useful life of the bridges . Project origina lly approved in FY2018/19 but was not compelted
Subtota l Carryover CapEx C onstruction Costs $ 5,017,189 $ 250,861 $ 5,268,050
39 Item Type
AudioN isual
AudioN isual
Furniture, Fixtures
& Equipment
Furniture, Fixtures &
Equipment
Food and Beverage
Food and Beverage
Food and Beverage
HVAC/Mechanical
HVAC/Mechanical
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget Carryover (Cont.)
EM ~~~oo Cost Remaining Total Cost
Requested
Radio Booth Cabling (2019/20 Carryover)
The project will install fiber optic cabling to increase the low voltage cabling backbone This installation will accommodate the expanding requests received for booth usage during stadium events and will help the stadium keep up with emerging trends. The project will install fiber optic between multiple booths located on the 800 level suite tower location and lhP. hrnRrl rnsl r Rtc.h rRnP.I (Roo m 01 fl~ 08) nP.Rr lhP. loRrlino rlor.k on lhP. exterior south end of the stadium. Fiber design shall include TAC-12 and DT-12, or better. Design will consider new fiber termination panels in each booth. Design shall investigate and determine if additional conduit and raceway is necessary during the installation phase
Crestron Control & Building Operating System Upgrades (2019/20 Carryover)
Project shall evaluate and reco mmend a Crestron Control system upgrade and/or installation options to monitor HVAC, Lighting, Electrical, and Fire Alarms T he comprehensive system shall enable all of these items to interface with one another for stadium engineers to see a real time view of the building's systems.
Guest Service Booths (2018/19 Carryover)
Add two additional guest services booths on the main conco urse for better enhanced customer service touchpoints. New booths will provide increased operational space for guest service representatives on game day.
Replace Furniture for BNY Field Clubs, United, Levi's 501 & Yahoo clubs and Special Event spaces (2019/20 Carryover)
Purcha se replacement furnitur e for clubs (BNY, United, Levi's 501 and Yahoo) and special event spaces to enhance areas and meet client expectations. These spaces are amongst the most utilized in the entire stadium. The current furniture has been in place since the building opened in 2014 and is aging due to normal wear and tear as a result of numerous events in the stadium over the last eight years.
Beverage Distribution System (2020/21 Carryover)
Equipment to assist with the distribution of beer and sodas throughout the stadium concession areas and bars. This project includes general renewal and replacement of beverage distribution system lines, CO2 and glycol dispensing equipment
CO2 Monitoring & Sensors for Code Compliance (2020/21 Carryover) The project will design and install remote CO2 monitoring equipment utilizing the existing Automatic Logic Controller (ALC) system. The current CO2 monrtoring has a local alarm three stage alarm, but is not connected to any Building Management System for remote monitoring A recent CO2 assessment was performed that found the system the current monitoring system is compliant with all requirements , but the assessment recommended this remote monitoring upgrade as a best practic e for safety. This project will evaluate, recommend and design remote CO2 monitoring system CO2 monitoring for enhanced safety for stadium staff per Authorities having Jurisdiction. All Beer Cooler locations and Concession Soda Box Locations shall be monitored by the remote monitoring system.
Main Kitchen Equipment (2016/17 Carryover)
General renewal and replacement of kitchen servce equipment in the Main Kitchen . Project will include any necessary design, permit, purchase and installation of aging kitchen equipment that is near or at the end of life Pro1ect originally approved in FY2016/17 but was not c ompleted Cooling Towers (2020/21 Carryover)
General renewal and replacement of stadium cooling tower internal parts and systems. This includes, but is not limited to, motors, fans, fill, controls, and pipinq which support the mechanical coolinq functions for the HVAC system.
Variable Frequency Drive(s) (2020/21 Carryover)
General renewal and replacement of Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) units for cooling tower, boilers and other mechanical e quipment due to life expectancy issues. These system support the mechanical heating and cooling functions for the stadium.
$
Contingency
562,857 $ 28,143 $ 591,000
3,810 191 4,001
70,000 3,500 73,500
1,543,810 77,191 1 ,621,001
50,000 2,500 52,500
192,381 9,619 2 02,000
350,000 17,500 3 67,500
43,810 2,191 46,001
126,667 6,333 133,000
40 Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget Carryover (Cont.)
Item Type SCSA Description Cost Remaining Total Cost
Requested Contingenc y
HVAC/Mechanical Install New Kitchen Exhaust Fans Throughout the Building (2019/20 266,667 13,333 280,000 Carryove r)
Install variable frequency drive (VFD) Units on kitchen exhaust fans for soft start (slow ramp up) capabilities. Kitchen exhaust fans currently operate 100 percent of the time Installing VFD units will modulate the power and save energy whenever the fan is in use. Soft start extends the life of the equipment and saves energy .
Information Financial Management Information System Project (2020/21 75,000 3,750 78,750 Technology Carryover )
Proc ure a new cloud-based financial management system for the Stadium Authority that would allow greater visibility in to Non-NFL Events and Shared Stadium Expenses. The management company that handles Non- NFL events would use the financial management system for all transactions related to Non-NFL events and Shared Stadium Expenses, as well as store supporting documentation for the transactions (Including invoices). The costs include software license/subscription , hosting fee and a consultant for implementation and process improvement There will be ongoing software license costs and possibility for additional staff time for implementation. *Subject to subsequent court rulings on cost allocation.
Public Safety - Fire Mass Casualty Incident (MCI) Trailer (2020/21 Carryover) 120,000 6,000 126,000 X The fire department currently has equipment to treat 25 patients during a large-scale emergency The MCI Trailer would allow the first responders to treat between 500-1000 people during a large-scale emergency by allowing quick access to on-board equipment and supplies.
Public Safety - Police Kawasak i Mute (2021/22 Carryover) 25,000 t ,250 26,250 X Purch ase new Kawasaki Mule for Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) team. Cost includes unfitting the Kawasaki Mule with Police labels and markings , lighting and locking storage boxes. The EOD team does not currently have a dedicated vehicle and are currently walking with canines and EOD gear during response calls for suspiciou s packages and drone payloads. The EOD team is first on scene sweeping the stadium for safety issues and the last to leave. Shifts can extend past 10 hours . Purchase of a vehicle would reduce fatigue for officers and canine s and reduce response time.
Public Safety - Police Kawasak i Mule (2021/22 Carryover) 20,000 1,000 21,000 X Purcha se new Kawasaki Mule for Special Response Team (SRT) Cost includes unfitting the Kawasaki Mule with Police labels and markings , lighting , equipment storage boxes and Type 3 IME box that is approved by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearm s (ATF) to transporVstore breacher explosives. The SRT equipment is currently in a standard size vehicle that upon deployment would not easily maneuver the stadium or crowds of attendees; the team would be required to go to the vehicle to retrieve the required equipment extending response time. The vehicle may also be deployed to City issues and the equipment would not be readily available for use. The SRT does not currently have a dedicated vehicle.
Purchase of a vehicle would allow the SRT to mobilize needed equipment and will reduce response time.
Public Safety - Police Onsite Conex Storage (2021/22 Carryove r) 4,000 200 4,200 X Locking onsite Conex Storage container to store 3 Police Kawasaki Mules, including the requested EOD and SRT mule purchase The Conex Storage container will be housed in a parking lot dedicated for police parking with the secured footprint of the Stadium.
Public Safety - Police 2-Way CAD/24-7 Link (2020/21 Carryover ) 82,000 4,100 86,100 X All stadium personnel operate on the 24/7 dispatch system. SCPD and SCFD operate on the CAD system When public safety personnel are sent on calls, the call must be generated by hand in both systems This causes e)!ra work for dispatchers , however, more importantly this creates delays in reporting and responses to public safety incidents . A 2-way link would allow both systems to "talk" to each other and automatically create incidents in each other's system. Additionally , without this link, we cannot log officers on which creates an officer safety issue as well as an issue when it comes to management of personnel
41 Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget Carryover (Cont.)
Item Type SCSA Description Cost Remaining Total Cost
R,equested Contingency
Public Safety - Police Pedest rian Safety Fencing (2019/20 Carryove r) 100,000 5,000 105,000 X Raised fencing is requested for installation on Tasman Drive from Centennial Boulevard to Calle Del Sol. This is approximately 0.4 miles ,and would be adjacent to the VTNUght Rail tracks . This fencing is required to guarantee the safety of patron s as pedestrians on Tasman Drive.
Currently , pedestrians regularly jump temporary construction barrier s and cross eastbound Tasman Drive and cross live/active VTA light rail tracks .
In addition, during events the traffic flow is reversed and pedestrians will not expect cars coming from that direction This poses a clear danger for pedestrians and mobile personne l are not always available to prevent this regular attempt by pedestrians. Raised fencing will guarantee this dangerous situation stops The cost is an estimate based on the Fencing on Tasman project
Public Safety - Police GPS Software for Tracking Personnel (2019/20 Carryover) 25,000 1,250 26,250 X Live tracking of law enforcement personnel is critical in providing an accurate picture of public safety coverage . This technology and software will allow the Command Post to know where our personnel are at all limes and make necessary assignment ad1ustments on the go II is desired that the software also be capable o f retaining data for historical analysis. The requested funding of $25,000 is the initial purchase price for approximately 100 devices and the software. There is a monthly operating cost of $30/month each ; $36,000 total annually .
Public Safety - Police Fencing on Tasman & Lafayette(2019 /20 Carryover) 70,000 3,500 73,500 X Fencing to prevent stadium event pedestrian traffic from crossing unsafely between Lafayette St and the Tasman St overcrossing
Public Safety - Police Radios (2020/21 Carryover ) 79,000 3,950 82,950 X New radios are required for equipping additional staff in our public safety deployment. These radios allow for communication to the command post and between public safety partners working our events. W ithout these critical radios, personnel would not be able to function in their capacity and as expected to provide public safety services including emergency response. The department is currently waiting on Silicon Valley Regional I nleroperability Authority to upgrade their radio infrastructure to comptete these new radio purchase s. There is a yearly operating cost; requesting quote.
Public Safety - Police Radio Chargers (2020 /21 Carryover) 3,000 150 3,150 X Our radio equipment is critic al and, therefore, their serviceability must be maintained . Each new radio will require a charging port. These three charging stations each have a 6-radio capac ity and three are needed to maintain radios at their peak power and usability . Having these three charging stations will ensure all radios are ready for use by public safety without the risk of personnel being without this crucia l equipment in a functional state.
Public Safety - Police Dispatch Monitors (2020/21 Carryover ) 8,000 400 8,400 X Our public safety dispatchers utilize several screens at their work stations in order lo facilitate their duties The necessary upgrading of our latest public safety communications center's CAD and associated software will require larger screen area to effectively manage the new information .
These 16 replacement 22" larger monitors are needed to optimize the use and intended application of the latest public safety dispatching software .
The larger screens are required to view the additional windows from the CAD system and are expected to last five years . The prior monitors were purchased six years ago and are 19" monitors. The cost includes estimated installation for three workstations
Public Safety - Police Staff Scheduling Software (.2019/20 Carryover) 16,250 813 17,063 X The Stadium requires SEOs to operate safely. Notifying and communicating with our SEOs is critical in properly planning our staffi ng needs. We currently use an out of date version of "Game Day Staffi ng." Public Safety - Public Street Signage (2017 /18 Carryover) 1,000,000 50,000 1,050,000 Works X This item was brought before the SCSA Board and approved in the 2017/18 budget Working with the Dept of Public Works, the Executive Director's office and the Chief of Police's office to identify appropriate locations on surrounding city streets (Great America Parkway , Tasman Drive, etc .) to place signage to better protect , inform and serve patrons visitng Levi's Stadium, non-event day traffic , community even advisories and emergency public safety and traffi c advisories.
Security Software Upgrade to Genetec 5.8 (2020 /21 Carryover ) 35,000 1,750 36,750 Upgrade to Genetecs newest firmwa re version 5.8. This would improve overall system performance and stability, and add new features that will help in operator training and utilization of software. Customizable live dashboards assist in monitoring alarms and events in real-time.
42 Item Type
Security
Security
Security
Security
Security
Security
Vertical Transport
SCSA
Requested
Santa Clara Stadium Authority
2022/23 CapEx Budget Carryover (Cont.)
Description
Video Analytics (2020/21 Carryo ver)
Add video analytics to assist with video investigations Video investigations take several hours/days to complete using traditi onal playback methods Adding video analytic s will greatly decrease man-hours spent in video review process, as well as aid in investigations using newer techno logy.
Parking Lot Camera Upgrades (2020 /21 Carryover)
Replace Great America parking lot cameras with techno logically advanced multi- lens panoramic/360/multi-directiona l cameras . New camera techno logy would provide better overall coverage of the main parking lot.
Sun baked cameras with fixed angles have created gaps in coverage With more video incident request coming from ingress/egre ss incidents, new technology would assist in these investigations . Install cameras in Gold lot 4i5 where there is very limited coverage .
Bowl Camera Upgrade /Refurbishment (2020/21 Carryover ) The project will replace or refurbish several seating bowl cameras . The bowl cameras have become sun baked and provide poor/obscured coverage of bowl seating. Maintenance has become an issue due to the cost and time required to erect scaffo lding to reach ca mera boxes each time the cameras require maintenance . The project will evaluate the opportunity to re-engineer the camera housing by relocating housing closer to stadium infrastructure, if possible.
License Plate Reader at Vehicle Entry Gates (2020/21 Carryover) Add six (6) Licen se Plate Reader cameras on entry/exit lanes of all vehicle gates (Post 1,2, and 3) to document and trac k vehicles entering and exiting the stadium. The LPR cameras provide additional visibility of all parties entering and existing that stadium.
Install Stadium Camera Booths Card Reader s (2019/20 Carryover) Install card reader for north and south camera booths to secure the spaces that enter into/from general public access areas Drone Detection (Antenna System) (2021/22 Carryover)
Drone intrusions are happening more frequently . W e need a detection and deterrent system in place for the Security of our venue and events.
This technology will assist Stadium Security and Law Enforcement in identifying any threats and to take measures to mitigate the threat.
Elevator Door Replacement (2019/20 Carryover)
The project replace the vestibule door frame, doors, hardware and equipment at the 200 level elevator lobby doors in the stadium The current door system does not allow the necessary door swing radius to nagivate larger Jannorial and operational equipment into the elevator lobby . The current door system was damaged due to the limitations in design and thus must be completely replaced to restore and establish ultimate operational function
Subtotal Carryover CapEx Equipment Costs
Total Carryo ver CapEx Project Costs
Cost Remaining
Contingency
35,000 1,750
40,000 2,000
135,000 6,750
45,000 2,250
84,000 4,200
55,000 2,750
20,000 1,000
$ 5,286,252 $ 264,314 $
$ 10,303,441 $ 515,175 $
Total Cost
36,750
42,000
141,750
47,250
88,200
57,750
21,000
5,550,566
10,818,616
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-186 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement Report and Ordering the Cost of Abatement to be a Special Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein
COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure
BACKGROUND
The Weed Abatement Program of Santa Clara County, Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency administers the contract for weed abatement with the City of Santa Clara, in accordance with an agreement established on February 23, 1976, between the City and County.
On January 31, 2023, per Title 8, Chapter 15 of the Santa Clara City Code (SCCC), the City Council declared weeds a nuisance and ordered the nuisance to be abated. A public hearing was held on February 21, 2023, to consider objections to the proposed destruction or removal of the weeds.
Property owners who objected to being added to the County Weed Abatement list and the associated inspection costs levied against their properties were directed to the County Weed Abatement Manager by the Fire Department to hear the specifics of their appeals. Once the above steps had been taken, the County Weed Abatement Program instructed its contractor to abate weeds on the respective lots and parcels of land within Santa Clara. That work has now been completed. The County has since informed the property owners of the costs of destroying and removing weeds outlined in Exhibit A. A representative from the County Weed Abatement Program will be present at the public hearing with the records of weed abatement that have taken place if there are any specific questions.
DISCUSSION
Santa Clara County, Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency, Weed Abatement Program Manager has prepared the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report (“Weed Assessment Report”) listing the respective lots or parcels of land within Santa Clara upon which the County conducted weed abatement services and associated costs to be assessed. In accordance with SCCC 8.15.090, this Public Hearing provides the public with an opportunity to present objections to the County’s report and allows the Council to confirm the County’s report and assessment list. In accordance with SCCC 8.15.080, notice of this Public Hearing was published and posted together with a copy of the County’s Weed Abatement Assessment Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Santa Clara contracts with the County of Santa Clara for the performance and implementation of the weed abatement program within the City. The County of Santa Clara has City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
23-186 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
determined the Weed Abatement Program to be Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Guideline 15308.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City of Santa Clara administers the weed abatement program with Santa Clara County, Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency with minimal staff time. The County’s cost for inspection or abatement services, including administrative fees, will be assessed upon the respective lots or parcels of land. The assessments identified in Exhibit A, totaling $105,043.94, will be imposed as liens on the properties listed and will not be borne by the City. All charges for the weed abatement services are included as a special assessment on the following year's Property Tax statement. In accordance with the 2022 Amended and Restated agreement, if the tax assessments are insufficient to cover the program's costs, the County will invoice the participating jurisdictions/agencies for their pro-rata share of the program’s shortfall in December. If a shortfall occurs, the Fire Department would absorb the City’s pro-rata share costs in its Community Risk Reduction Division’s Operating Budget.
Currently, there is no fiscal impact to the Fire Department’s budget.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
The City Clerk has published the required notice of this hearing in the Santa Clara Weekly. The cost report by the County Weed Abatement Program has been posted on the bulletin board outside the City Council Chambers at City Hall located at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050, on the bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall; and at the entrance of the Fire Department, located at 777 Benton Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050.
A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
, or at the public information desk at any
City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution confirming the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and Assessment List pursuant to SCCC 8.15.090.
Reviewed by: Ruben Torres, Fire Chief
Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Confirming the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and Assessment
2. Exhibit A - 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report, Santa Clara County, Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/ Confirming the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and the Assessment. Page 1 of 3 Rev: 11/17/2017
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
CONFIRMING THE 202 3 WEED ABATEMENT REPORT AND
ORDERING THE COST OF ABATEMENT TO BE A SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT ON THE RESPECITVE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED
THEREIN
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.15.080 of "The Code of the City of Santa Clara, California," ("SCCC") the Fire Chief duly published and posted a Notice to Destroy Weeds on January 31, 2023, giving notice to the designated property owners to remove all weeds from their property and in alleys, if any, behind their property, and between lot lines as extended, or weeds would be destroyed or removed, and the nuisance abated by City authorities;
WHEREAS, the Notice to Destroy Weeds also advised that if the City is required to perform weed abatement, the cost of the destruction or removal, including an administrative fee, will be assessed upon the lots or lands from which weeds have been destroyed or removed, and such costs shall constitute a lien upon said lots until paid or will be collected upon the next tax roll upon which general municipal taxes are collected;
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 21, 2023, to consider all objections to the proposed destruction or removal of such weeds, and at the hearing, the City Council did, by Resolution No. 23-9194, order the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency to abate nuisances designated under SCCC Chapter 8.15 or cause the same to be abated by having the weeds destroyed or removed by cutting, mowing, or any other method;
WHEREAS, affected property owners have been requested to destroy or remove the weeds at the property owner's expense and removal of weeds w ere required to have taken place prior to the inspection of the County Weed Abatement Program or its authorized representatives; WHEREAS, following said inspection, which revealed that property owners had failed to remove Resolution/ Confirming the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and the Assessment. Page 2 of 3 Rev: 11/17/2017
the weeds, the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency can direct the weeds to be removed;
WHEREAS, the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency, Weed Abatement Program Manager sent the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report to the City and filed the report with the City Clerk referring to each separate lot or parcel of land by description sufficient to identify it, together with the costs proposed to be assessed against it; WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Section 8.15.080, the City Clerk timely posted the report and published the Notice of Hearing on the report, which includes an assessment of weed abatement services and an opportunity to object;
WHEREAS, the Notice of Hearing on the report and assessment for weed abatement further specified the day, hour, and place as July 11, 2023, for when the assessment list and report would be presented to the City Council for consideration and confirmation, and that any persons interested who have an objection to the report and assessment list may appear at the designated time and place to be heard; and,
WHEREAS, the hearing has been held, and the report has been considered by the City Council along with any other statements by staff, and all objections or protests have been heard and duly considered.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. That all protests or objections of every kind and nature to the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and Assessment List are hereby overruled.
2. That the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report from the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency, Weed Abatement Program Manager, attached herein as Exhibit A is hereby confirmed.
3. That the list of the properties on the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report shall be assessed in the amount listed with the property description on the report.
Resolution/ Confirming the 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report and the Assessment. Page 3 of 3 Rev: 11/17/2017
4. That pursuant to the provisions in SCCC Chapter 8.15, if the cost assessed against each of the properties is not paid with applicable property taxes, a lien shall be placed on the property. The lien shall continue until the assessment and any or all interest or penalties is paid, or until it is discharged of record.
5. The City Manager or their designee and the Chief of the Fire Department, are hereby directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the County Consumer & Environmental Protection Agency, Weed Abatement Program Manager of the County of Santa Clara, California, who shall enter the amount on the County Assessment Records opposite the description of the particular property and the amount shall be collected together with all other taxes against the property.
6. E ffective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE ___ DAY OF _________, 2023 , BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
ATTEST: ______________________________
NORA PIMENTEL, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. Exhibit A – 2023 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS
TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
18201 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine 92612 7000Tasman East Parcel 57 Owner Llc $611.00Calle De Luna22201 097-05-057 898 Washington St #500 VANCOUVER WA 98660-3536 7000Nash-holland Calle De Luna $611.00Calle De Luna22002 097-05-058 3000 Executive Py 450 SAN RAMON 94583 7000Lafayette Cdm Apartments Llc $92.00Calle Del Mundo23333 097-05-110 1861 Nelson Dr SANTA CLARA 95054 7000Dillon Kathleen A $1,116.00Nelson18614 097-19-040 450 Sansome St Ste 500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 7000Gs Tasman East Subsidiary Llc $92.00Calle Del Mundo22325 097-46-027 44 Montgomery St Ste 1300 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 7000Tasman Asl Propco Llc $92.00Calle De Luna23506 097-46-031 44 Montgomery St Ste 1300 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 7000Rcr Tasman I Llc $92.00Calle De Luna23007 097-46-032 44 Montgomery St Ste 1300 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 7000Rcr Tasman I Llc $92.00Calle Del Sol51508 097-46-033 1533 Silver Ranch Ln SAN JOSE 95138-0000 7000Nguyen, Nguyen Hoang And Hang Le $92.00Haig35909 101-07-002 3563 Macintosh St SANTA CLARA 95054-2246 7000Wang, Zihang $92.00Macintosh356310 101-07-043 3542 Macintosh St SANTA CLARA 95054-2245 7000Wlaschin, Robert A And Chan, $611.00Macintosh354211 101-07-059 1368 Botticelli Bnd CHICO 95928-3846 7000Nokleby, James D And Elsa M Trustee $92.00Macgregor353912 101-08-019 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 7014Union Pacific Co $10,610.00013 104-01-077 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 7029Innovation Commons Owner Llc $611.00Old Ironsides485014 104-04-064 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 7029Innovation Commons Owner Llc $611.00Democracy295015 104-04-065 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 7029Innovation Commons Owner Llc $611.00Patrick Henry480516 104-04-111 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 7029Innovation Commons Owner Llc $611.00Patrick Henry485517 104-04-112 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 7029Innovation Commons Owner Llc $611.00Democracy305018 104-04-113 525 Golden Gate Av 10th Fl SAN FRANCISCO 94102 7029San Francisco City And County Of $10,669.40Patrick Henry019 104-04-121
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS
TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
950 Tower Ln Ste 870 FOSTER CITY 94553 70293055 Patrick Henry Development Llc $3,269.15Patrick Henry305520 104-04-136 433 Airport Bl Ste 426 BURLINGAME 94010 7029Innovation Commons Owner Llc $611.00Democracy300521 104-04-143 4995 Patrick Henry Dr SANTA CLARA 95054-1823 7029Innovation Commons Owner Llc $611.00Tasman294522 104-04-151 900 Birch Av SUNNYVALE 94086-5139 7014Carter, Scott D And Yu, Yee L $92.00Silveria233623 104-05-112 636 Hamilton Av MILPITAS 95035-3512 7014Sitlani, Manisha K $2,026.70Fillmore024 104-10-077 13091 War Bonnet St SAN DIEGO 92129 7014Su, Junjie And Zhong, Xiao Hua $92.00Davis435225 104-11-020 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 7014Union Pacific Co $10,738.70Bassett026 104-11-082 859 Alisal Ct MILPITAS 95035-4501 7014Maruti Builders Llc $611.00Cheeney027 104-12-025 859 Alisal Ct MILPITAS 95035-4501 7014Maruti Builders Llc $611.00Cheeney028 104-12-026 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 7014Union Pacific Co $5,912.45Bassett029 104-12-154 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 7014Union Pacific Co $611.00Bassett030 104-12-162 258 Alameda De Las Pulgas REDWOOD CITY 94062 7014Lai, Weinong And Wang, Ying $92.00Agnew211031 104-12-198 3209 17th Ave W SEATTLE 98119 7014Lba Rv-company Xii Lp $92.00Thomas350032 104-14-125 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 7014Union Pacific Co $5,600.60033 104-14-145 101 Montgomery St Ste 200 SAN FRANCISCO 94104 7014Terreno Middlebrookllc $92.00Thomas366034 104-14-171 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 7014Union Pacific Co $3,170.15Bassett035 104-38-001 450 Sansome St Ste 500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 7029Freedom Circle Venture Llc $611.00Freedom036 104-40-021 450 Sansome St Ste 500 SAN FRANCISCO 94111 7029Freedom Circle Venture Llc $611.00Freedom392537 104-40-036 2125 Quinn Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1838 7014Adl-tabatabai, Ali $92.00Quinn212538 216-11-017
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS
TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
2473 Elliot St SANTA CLARA 95051-1864 7014Adiseshan, Mamtha $611.00Elliot247339 216-11-064 2516 Parkland Ct SANTA CLARA 95051 7079Shen Hua And Tian Tian $92.00Parkland251640 216-16-026 2086 Silence Dr SAN JOSE 95148-1918 7014Suthar, Tushar K And Snehal T $92.00Amethyst230541 216-17-006 2552 Painted Rock Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-1124 7079Toorans, Sue M $611.00Painted Rock255242 216-19-035 35828 Ashton Pl FREMONT 94536 7079Sv Ventures Usa Llc $92.00Painted Rock249243 216-19-041 3619 Impresario Wy SAN JOSE 95127-0000 7079Pham, Alexander Tuan Trustee $611.00Meadowbrook262544 216-19-077 923 Oakdell Pl SAN JOSE 95117-2538 7014Wentz, Dee Trustee $92.00San Juan303645 220-22-053 3121 Santa Maria Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1619 7014Lamachy, Barbara J $611.00Santa Maria312146 220-22-124 2129 Ventura Pl SANTA CLARA 95051-1623 7014Minell, Christina L $92.00Ventura212947 220-24-001 2148 Santa Cruz Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1646 7014Kwan, Wilson $92.00Santa Cruz214848 220-24-032 3040 Santa Maria Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1647 7014Young, Melanie J $611.00Santa Maria304049 220-24-060 2132 Bowers Av SANTA CLARA 95051-1830 7014You, Zeyu $92.00Bowers213250 220-26-012 188 Twin Oaks Dr LOS GATOS 95032 7000Witkin Properties Lp $2,185.10Lafayette275551 224-04-062 1840 Century Park East Ste LOS ANGELES 90067 7000Martin Avenue Properties Llc $92.00Martin65152 224-04-071 12395 Columbet Av SAN MARTIN 95046 7000Haro, Estanislao T And Martha S $92.00Walsh61453 224-04-075 14573 Big Basin Wy SARATOGA 95070-6013 7000Pelio 650 Walsh Llc $92.00Walsh65054 224-04-077 'po Box 345 SANTA CLARA 95052-0345 7000Kahn, William E Trustee $92.00Richard177155 224-06-149 13155 Noel Rd Fl 12 Lb 71 DALLAS 75240 7000Owens Corning Insulating $4,467.05Central96056 224-07-099 2347 Warburton Av SANTA CLARA 95050-4033 7014Ng, Ellen Ying $92.00Warburton234757 224-13-006
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS
TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
1754 Los Padres Bl SANTA CLARA 95050-4022 7014Prabhakar, Sunil And $92.00Los Padres175458 224-13-072 2382 Warburton Av SANTA CLARA 95050-4061 7014Al-hemyari, Kadhair $92.00Warburton238259 224-14-107 'po Box 450 KINGSBURG 93631 7014Oakland Realty Loanservice $92.00El Camino Real227760 224-15-034 2252 Cabrillo Av SANTA CLARA 95050-3616 7014Kalashnikov, Max $92.00Cabrillo225261 224-19-053 1591 Carmel Dr SAN JOSE 95125-1863 7014Lemmon, Galen L Trustee & Et Al $92.00Cabrillo225562 224-19-108 10074 Dona Neely Wy ELK GROVE 95757 7000Kaur, Daljit $1,551.50Main192263 224-23-011 1918 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050 7000Monaco, Lewis F Et Al $92.00Main191864 224-23-013 1975 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050-3808 7000Le, Duc $611.00Main197565 224-23-051 3410 Geary Bl Ste #343 SAN FRANCISCO 94118 7000Luk, Amy P H Trustee $92.00Main187166 224-27-089 1611 Main St SANTA CLARA 95050 7000Cheng, Tai-enn And Lo, Vickie $611.00Main161167 224-28-010 'po Box 348060 SACRAMENTO 95834 7000Ragingwire Data Centers Inc $92.00Walsh116068 224-58-003 555 Twin Dolphin Drive Ste # Redwood City 94065 7000Dp Ventures Llc $92.00De La Cruz229069 230-03-092 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 7000Union Pacific Co $611.00070 230-03-094 10031 Foothills Blvd ROSEVILLE 95030 7000Union Pacific Co $611.00071 230-03-095 2101 Cedar Springs Rd Ste DALLAS 75201 7000C1-santa Clara Llc $611.00De La Cruz260072 230-03-105 1999 Bascom Av S 250 CAMPBELL 95008 7000Kapital Alameda Llc $611.00The Alameda265573 230-12-012 1154 Madison St SANTA CLARA 95050-4757 7000Rawls, Tamlyn V $611.00Madison115474 269-13-034 535 Middlefield Rd Ste 190 MENLO PARK 94025 7000Kilig 1031 Llc $92.00Lafayette117575 269-16-056 1945 Murguia Av SANTA CLARA 95050-6933 7014Maverick, Muriel E Trustee $611.00Murguia194576 269-31-014
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS
TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
884 Bernardo Av S SUNNYVALE 94087-1527 7014Brown, Jennifer Nicole $92.00Moreno68977 269-31-056 18845 Devon Ave SARATOGA 95070-4607 7014Gupta, Abhinav And Pandey, Shalu $92.00Murguia197478 269-32-028 584 Winchester Bl N SANTA CLARA 95050-5720 7014Conforti, James M Trustee $92.00Winchester58479 269-33-036 2013 Stanley Av SANTA CLARA 95050-5718 7014Driskell, Jeffrey $611.00Stanley201380 269-39-021 860 Pedro Av BEN LOMOND 95005-9409 7014Padula, Thomas J And Cardone, $92.00Maria31181 269-45-014 2790 Newhall St Ste A SANTA CLARA 95050 7014Ranch Realty Llc $92.00Winchester44482 269-45-093 2245 Newhall St SANTA CLARA 95050 7000De Sousa Pinto Joao Moreira $611.00Newhall224583 269-58-014 454 Raquel Ln LOS ALTOS 94022-2138 7014Blaine Properties Llc $92.00El Camino Real353084 290-01-114 2323 Bascom Av S CAMPBELL 95008 7014Matusich, William Trustee & Et Al $92.00El Camino Real357085 290-01-117 1700 Space Park Dr SANTA CLARA 95054 7014Linda Allen $1,685.15El Camino Real086 290-02-087 2525 Camelback Rd E Ste 500 PHOENIX 85016 7014Us Alliance Holden Of $611.00El Camino Real224087 290-10-090 2525 Camelback Rd E Ste 500 PHOENIX 85016 7014Us Alliance Holden Of $611.00El Camino Real223288 290-10-091 1118 Las Palmas Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3922 7014Tobacco, Richard J $611.00Las Palmas111889 290-14-095 1355 Buchanan Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3950 7014Guinasso, Edwin A Trustee $92.00Buchanan135590 290-14-150 1177 White Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-3933 7014Foster, Joseph A Et Al $92.00White117791 290-14-180 1304 Crowley Av SANTA CLARA 95051-3806 7014Mcnutt, Cordie E Et Al $92.00Crowley130492 290-16-011 62772 Sand Lilly Wy Nw BEND 97703 7014Gee, Gail J Et Al $92.00Orthello291193 290-17-078 3012 Orthello Wy SANTA CLARA 95051-3758 7014Oprica, Dan $611.00Orthello301294 290-18-006 2932 Orthello Wy SANTA CLARA 95051-3768 7014Yamaichi, Russell J Trustee $611.00Orthello293295 290-18-010
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS
TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
1055 Blaney Av S SAN JOSE 95129 7014Xiong, Chengyu And Deng, Xianmin $92.00Orthello285296 290-18-014 3100 Orthello Wy SANTA CLARA 95051-3760 7014Wheaton, Martin D And Tepmongkol, $92.00Orthello310097 290-19-047 3000 Sandhill Rd Bldg 1-250 MENLO PARK 94025 7014Sbh Homestead Propsllc $92.00Homestead352198 290-23-053 2645 Admiral Cl HAYWARD 94545 7014Chigozie Llc $92.00White97099 290-30-010 1857 Harris Av SAN JOSE 95124-1014 7014Gipson, Galen R And Janice D $92.00White940100 290-30-015 2551 Patricia Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5326 7014Aguilera Ralph D And M C $2,819.49Patricia2551101 290-31-002 2557 Patricia Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5326 7014Hoffman, James H And Linda E $92.00Patricia2557102 290-31-003 78 Robleda Dr ATHERTON 94027 70142513 Hayward Drive Llc $92.00Hayward2513103 290-31-052 1014 Las Palmas Dr SANTA CLARA 95051-5309 7014Enyedi, Robert And Daniela Trustee $611.00Las Palmas1014104 290-31-054 1078 Blackfield Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-5301 7014Lin, Marian Chung-hui Trustee $92.00Blackfield1078105 290-32-009 2891 Homestead Rd SANTA CLARA 95051 7014Apex Fund Llc $92.00Homestead2891106 290-39-080 1224 Block Dr SANTA CLARA 95050-4411 7014Dionisio, John R And Nahurski $1,502.00Block1224107 290-42-076 617 Flannery St SANTA CLARA 95051-5544 7014Recharla, Venkata Naga Suresh And $92.00Flannery617108 293-18-049 623 Malarin Av SANTA CLARA 95050-6958 7014Mcreynolds, Marilyn L Trustee $1,546.55Malarin623109 294-07-024 635 Malarin Av SANTA CLARA 95050-6958 7014Schekall, Stanley And Regina $92.00Malarin635110 294-07-027 2257 Forbes Av SANTA CLARA 95050-5631 7014Souza, Allan C Et Al $611.00Forbes2257111 294-08-054 735 Los Olivos Dr SANTA CLARA 95050-5526 7014Gebing, John And Cecile Trustee $611.00Los Olivos735112 294-15-070 2728 Forbes Av SANTA CLARA 95051-6249 7014Lam, Laisz D Trustee $611.00Forbes2728113 294-26-021 2615 Maplewood Ln SANTA CLARA 95051-6235 7014Francisco, Christina $92.00Maplewood2615114 294-29-021
TRA
2023 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT REPORT
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Situs APN OWNER ADDRESS
TAX ROLL
AMT
Exhibit A
5917 Armaga Sprig Rd Unit E RCH PALOS VERDA 90275-4844 7006Thodiyil, John A And Fu, Bo Ling $92.00Gibson3502115 296-18-011 3472 Gibson Av SANTA CLARA 95051-6649 7006Brannan, Jim $1,655.45Gibson3472116 296-18-015 3524 Elmhurst Ave. Santa Clara 95051 7006Sareeta Simanchala Panda And Jeff $92.00Elmhurst3524117 296-19-021 150 Elmhurst Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-6647 7006Mehta, Yatrik H And Minal Y $1,526.75Elmhurst150118 296-19-022 1656 Channing Av PALO ALTO 94303-2804 7006Li, Wenhua And Wang, Xiangzhou $611.00Elmhurst3472119 296-19-027 367 Cypress Av SANTA CLARA 95050-6435 7014Chace, Nancy L $92.00Cypress367120 303-06-061 977 Wood Duck Ct SANTA CLARA 95051-4516 7014Campbell, Jean T Trustee $1,625.75Wood Duck977121 313-19-032 1 Kaiser Plaza 15th Fl OAKLAND 94612 7014Kaiser Foundation Hospitals $611.00Homestead3800122 316-09-044 1 Kaiser Plaza 15th Fl OAKLAND 94612 7014Kaiser Foundation Hospitals $611.00Homestead3800123 316-09-045 $105,043.94TOTAL
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-592 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Responses to City Council Questions Regarding the Cleanup Campaign Alternatives and Community Survey Results Presentation from the April 18, 2023 City Council Meeting (File# 23-1171) and Action to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Amendment to the Exclusive Franchise Agreement with Mission Trail Waste Systems to add More Disposal Days at the Mission Trail Transfer Station
COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure; Promote Sustainability and Environmental Protection
BACKGROUND
On May 25, 2021 the City Council directed staff to hire a consultant to identify potential alternatives to the current Cleanup Campaign (CUC) format, conduct a survey of customers, and draft a final report.
The City hired R3 Consulting Group (R3) to:
· analyze program types actively used by other cities
· estimate costs of each potential alternative
· identify the advantages/disadvantages of each alternative program · survey the community on preferences and needs to collect hard-to-dispose-of items The Department of Public Works (DPW) presented information on the potential CUC alternatives and community survey results to the City Council on April 18, 2023 (see Attachments 1 - 3). The conclusion was that the City’s current hybrid approach that includes pick-up (CUC and Mission Trail Waste Systems on-call collection) and drop-off options (disposal days at Mission Trail Transfer Station) is optimal.
Following the presentation, Council members asked questions and staff was directed to present the responses at a future meeting.
DISCUSSION
The responses to Council’s questions from the April 18th meeting are included in Attachment 4. The initial report identified adding more disposal days at the Mission Trail Transfer Station (MTTS) in Santa Clara as a low-cost option to provide more opportunities for all residents to dispose of unwanted items. Based on the Council discussion at the meeting, more information has been provided below about increasing drop off events at the MTTS.
Mission Trail Waste Systems (MTWS) already provides residents with two free disposal days at the MTTS. These events are held in January and September of each year at no additional charge to the City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-592 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
City as part of the MTWS exclusive franchise agreement. City staff has talked to MTWS about the possibility of having more drop off events for residents and MTWS was willing to consider it. The preliminary cost estimate for MTWS to add a single disposal day at the MTTS is approximately $15,000. Council would need to direct staff to negotiate an amendment to the agreement with MTWS to add more disposal days at the MTTS.
Additional disposal days would be scheduled on weekends and appointments would be required similar to the current program. The cost for additional drop-off events would be incorporated into monthly solid waste rates, so residents would not receive an additional charge each time they utilize a drop-off event. Based on the initial estimates, it is anticipated that if two additional days are added the increase to each customer rate would be about 0.1 percent to each monthly cart and bin garbage rate. If approved, the increase would be incorporated into proposed FY 2024/25 garbage rates.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of California Environmental Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has not potential for resulting in either a direct change in the environment, or as a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it has been determined that the activity qualifies for an Exemption pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of CEQA guidelines.
FISCAL IMPACT
If approved by the City Council and factoring in timing to negotiate and execute an amendment, one additional day would be added in FY 2023/24. The estimated cost of $15,000 would be absorbed in the existing FY 2023/24 Solid Waste Fund budget. The cost to add two additional disposal days at the MTTS is approximately $30,000, which would result in an increase of 0.1 percent to the monthly cart and bin garbage rate. This increase would be incorporated into proposed FY 2024/25 garbage rates.
COORDINATION
This report has been prepared by the Department of Public Works.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected]
or at the public information desk at any
City of Santa Clara public library.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Amendment to the exclusive franchise agreement with Mission Trail Waste Systems, in a final form approved by the City Attorney, to add two more disposal days at the Mission Trail Transfer Station per year increasing the drop-off events to four per year, funded by the Solid Waste Fund.
2. Take no action, the number of drop-off events at the MTTS will remain at two.
3. Provide other direction to staff regarding the number of drop-off events.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-592 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Amendment to the exclusive franchise agreement with Mission Trail Waste Systems, in a final form approved by the City Attorney, to add two more disposal days at the Mission Trail Transfer Station per year increasing the drop-off events to four per year, funded by the Solid Waste Fund.
Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. File 23-1171 Report to Council
2. Clean up Campaign Program Survey
3. 23-1171 Post Meeting Material
4. Responses to Questions from Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
..Title
Cleanup Campaign Alternatives and Community Survey Results
..Report
COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure; Promote Sustainability and Environmental Protection
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
R3 Consulting Group (R3) was hired to identify and analyze alternatives to the Cleanup Campaign (CUC) and gauge the community’s interest in the alternatives. On-call collection programs, drop-off programs, and debris box drop-off events were identified as alternatives for hard-to-dispose-of items like bulky waste. An analysis was conducted for each alternative program that considered bulky item program types used by other cities, costs, community access, outreach needs, and advantages and disadvantages of other program types.
Following three community meetings to discuss alternatives to the CUC, a survey was conducted to gauge public opinion on other program types as well as the current programs offered by the City (CUC, city-wide garage sales, household hazardous waste drop-off events). Feedback from the community meetings and 86 percent of survey responses supported the current CUC format. Based on that information, the majority of residents prefer a hybrid approach, similar to what is provided today. This approach offers both single-family and multi-family homes multiple programs with collection and drop-off opportunities.
BACKGROUND
The Cleanup Campaign (CUC) has been conducted since 1961 and helps residential households dispose of 5,000 - 6,000 tons of unwanted debris annually. The primary mission of the current program is to remove unwanted debris (set out by residents) from the street as safely and swiftly as possible.
The City provides solid waste services to approximately 23,561 residential customer accounts that are comprised of 47,000 households. Approximately 14,000 of those households are not included in the CUC because there is inadequate space for setting out material and/or collection activities, and therefore do not pay for the service.
Residents that do not have access to the CUC program are still provided opportunities to dispose of many of these same items through other programs, including two disposal days (no extra cost) at the Mission Trail Transfer Station, the on-call collection program offered by Mission Trail Waste Systems, two citywide garage sales and two Environmental Days (no extra cost) at the Recology facility.
On May 25, 2021 the City Council directed staff to hire a consultant to identify potential alternatives to the current CUC format, conduct a survey of customers, and draft a final report. The City hired R3 Consulting Group (R3) to:
• analyze program types actively used by other cities
• estimate costs of each potential alternative
• identify the advantages/disadvantages of each alternative program • survey the community on preferences and needs to collect hard-to-dispose-of items
DISCUSSION
Current Cleanup Campaign
Under the current CUC format, the City is divided into four collection areas, each being serviced during a one-week period in May. Residents who are part of the program are able to place debris on the street for collection in accordance with the CUC guidelines.
The size of setouts is unlimited, although $25 per cubic yard is charged for setouts of construction/demolition debris over one cubic yard. The City and its contractors remove the debris and sweep each street during its respective collection week. Over 90 percent of the material collected is transported to Newby Island Landfill for disposal.
The CUC does generate some material that is not set out in compliance with CUC guidelines, such as household hazardous waste (paint, oil, batteries, pesticides etc.), loose construction/demolition debris on the street (concrete, dirt, etc.) and lightweight trash. Due to concerns that these materials can potentially be conveyed into catch basin inlets via run-off or wind, the City has undertaken past efforts to help mitigate the concerns. These mitigation measures include operating the CUC during the dry season, involving the County to collect illegally set out HHW, and requiring construction/demolition debris to be placed in bulk bags.
The CUC program is very labor intensive. DPW is only able to perform very limited non- emergency street, storm drain, traffic striping, and grounds maintenance activities during the CUC because approximately 30 employees are needed to fill the daily CUC roster.
Other Communities Providing Similar Service to Santa Clara A small number of communities provide a similar annual cleanup program, but all are much smaller versions with setouts limited to certain sizes. • City of Campbell has an annual program in which residents can set out a maximum of 70 pounds of material in 32-gallon bags or 8 cubic feet boxes.
Loose items, construction/demolition debris, electronic waste, and large appliances are not accepted
• Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority provides two community cleanups annually in which residents can dispose of up to fourteen 32-gallon garbage bags or equivalent in items with no single item weighing over 50 pounds or longer than 4 feet.
• City of Citrus Heights coordinates three setout days per year and notifies residents via door hanger one week prior to each pick-up day. Residents may set out up to 10 cubic yards of material and construction/demolition debris is prohibited.
• City of Inglewood has a program in which residents can set out up to 15 bags or 10 bundles of unwanted bulky items up to 60 pounds each, twice per year.
Cost Estimates
The current City of Santa Clara CUC program costs approximately $2.5 million per year and is funded by participant charges of $6.28 per household per month.
Advantages
• Access to transportation not necessary
• Low outreach effort required
• High program satisfaction rate
• Less illegal dumping
• Lower cost alternative
Disadvantages
• Others outside the City dumping
• Material in street
• DPW staff reprioritized for the month
• One event per year
Bulky Waste Collection Programs Used in Other Cities
Bulky waste collection programs used throughout the Bay Area and the State of California have been profiled as examples that could be considered in Santa Clara.
Program types used by other municipalities can generally be broken down into on-call pickup programs where items are picked up in front of residents’ homes, and drop-off programs where residents bring items in for free disposal. These collection programs are typically tailored to the specific needs of each community and primarily fall into three categories:
• On-call Collection Programs
• Drop-off Programs
• Debris Box Drop-off Events
While these program types all have the potential to improve aspects of the current CUC program, they also provide their own challenges, costs, and limitations.
On-call Collection Programs
On-call collection programs are one of the most popular models throughout California, as they are convenient for residents to use. Each single-family account typically has access to at least two scheduled pickups annually and in some cities, this can be as high as six annual pickups. Setouts are limited to certain sizes or number of items, unlike the current CUC format where setouts are unlimited.
Mission Trail Waste Systems (MTWS) offers a version of on-call collection to all residential customers at a rate of $148.51 per pick-up, which is paid by the customer.
Upon request, MTWS will drop off two 2-cubic yard heavy-duty bags to customers and return with a flatbed truck and a crane to lift the filled bags and up to three loose bulky items onto the vehicle. Electronic waste or appliances are also accepted as part of the three bulky items. The heavy-duty bags allow residents to contain multiple items of various sizes for disposal and ensure they do not become litter or end up in the storm drain. MTWS has provided bulky item collection services to 145 customers over the initial two years of the program.
An on-call collection program can be accessed year-round at the customer’s convenience as opposed to once a year as designated by the City. Participation can range anywhere from 30-80 percent of customers. On-call collection programs still present some implementation challenges. First, residents still need adequate space to set out their items for collection by the hauler. Additionally, such programs may not be feasible for implementation in areas that are not currently served by the CUC program; for example, in larger, denser homeowner associations (HOAs). HOAs and other high- density dwelling areas often have private streets that do not provide access for collection vehicles and may require the permission of the HOA to enter. HOAs may also have aesthetic concerns about decorative stone being damaged by collection trucks, have limited parking/common areas for material setouts, or concerns that the setout site will turn into a dumping ground for everyone. MTWS has proactively reached out to 106 HOAs, but only five have authorized onsite bulky item collection.
Other Communities Providing On-call Collection Service
Some other local communities that provide on-call collection services include: San Jose, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Milpitas, Los Altos, South Bayside Waste Management Agency, Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority, Oakland, San Francisco, Fairfield, Vallejo, and San Rafael.
Cost Estimates
It is estimated that if an on-call collection program was established in lieu of the current CUC, the collection costs would be approximately $148.51 per pickup. Participation levels have the largest impact on program costs. If the program were offered to the current 33,000 CUC customers whose participation rates are estimated between 80 - 90 percent, the monthly cost could range between $10.00 to $11.20 per month for each household. At a lower participation rate of 40 to 45 percent, it is estimated that the service could cost $5.00 to $5.60 per month. Staff would need to spend time working with MTWS to determine exact fees.
Advantages
• Access to transportation is not necessary
• Less illegal dumping
• Available all year
• Lower impact to DPW staffing
Disadvantages
• HOA permission needed
• Potential for higher costs
Drop-off Programs
Drop-off programs are a convenient local option where residents can drop off a set amount of material at a local waste facility at no cost. Residency is usually verified at the facility. An expansion of the City’s current drop-off program in Santa Clara would likely use the Mission Trails Transfer Station (MTTS), where the City of Santa Clara currently holds its Rubbish Disposal Days. The City currently offers two disposal days (no extra charge) at the MTTS each year through the agreement with MTWS.
Appointments are required to attend a free disposal day. On average, 206 residents attend each free disposal day. The City would need to enter into a separate agreement with MTWS or amend the current exclusive franchise agreement with them to expand this service.
Other Communities Providing Drop-off Programs
Oakland, Fairfield, Vallejo
Cost Estimates
Drop-off programs are the cheapest alternative for bulky item disposal. Depending on participation, monthly costs could range from $1.50 with a 40 percent participation rate to $4.90 with a 90 percent participation rate per household account, with the ability to dispose up to seven cubic yards at a time. These costs are estimates only, staff would need to negotiate this type of program with MTWS and amend the current contract.
Advantages
• Program is accessible to all residents, including higher density multi-family dwellings
• Less illegal dumping
• Available throughout the year
• Lowest cost
• Low impact to DPW staffing because residents deliver materials themselves
Disadvantages
• Residents need to transport their waste to the drop-off site themselves, which potentially limits their ability to dispose of larger items due to physical constraints or not having access to reliable transportation
• Additional effort to outreach customers to participate
Debris Box Drop-off Events
Debris boxes can be strategically placed in neighborhoods or at a single designated location for a set amount of time. Debris box drop-off events require residents to load, transport, and unload bulky items. Residents would need transportation to access these events and would have to be physically capable to empty their own vehicles. It is often difficult to find adequate space to host these events in high-density areas, where a service like this could have the most value.
Other disadvantages to these events are that they are very time consuming to organize and often require more staff resources because each debris box is typically overseen by an employee. A substantial amount of public outreach is required in advance of each event. Debris box drop-off events are usually scheduled on a weekend to make them accessible to more residents which also increases labor costs.
It should be noted that the City of San Jose once had a robust neighborhood debris box program but is shifting to unlimited on-call scheduled junk pick-ups at individual residences, which are funded outside of their solid waste program. Additionally, most communities that provide debris box drop-off events also provide other options for bulky item disposal.
Other Communities Providing Debris Box Drop-off Events
Milpitas, San Jose, San Francisco, San Rafael, Berkeley
Cost Estimates
Debris box drop-off events can be scaled based on frequency. If a neighborhood was provided an event once every five years, the average cost per month per household (at an 80 to 90 percent participation rate) would range from $3.50 - $3.90. If a neighborhood was provided an event annually (again at an 80 to 90 percent participation rate) the monthly cost per household would range from $17.30 – $19.50.
These cost estimates include modest assumptions regarding DPW staff time which would be necessary to schedule and promote each event; however, actual costs may be higher due to overtime costs to help staff them. Debris box drop-off events were the most expensive bulky item disposal program option analyzed.
Advantages
• Program is accessible to all residents, including higher density multi-family dwellings
• Less illegal dumping
Disadvantages
• Residents need to transport their waste to the drop-off site themselves, which potentially limits their ability to dispose of larger items due to physical constraints or not having access to reliable transportation
• Limited availability of events
• High impact to DPW staffing because staff will have to spend significant time scheduling, outreaching, and staffing each event
• Highest Cost
Benefits and Characteristics Comparison
The table below compares characteristics of each bulky item collection program discussed previously, including the current CUC.
Characteristics On-call
Collection
Drop-off
Program
Debris Box
Event
Cleanup
Campaign
Program Program
(offered
annually)
(current)
Transportation limitations No Yes Yes No
Easily available to high-
density dwelling residents
No Yes Yes No
Minimizes illegal dumping
from non-residents
Yes Yes Yes No
Available year-round Yes Yes No No
Commonly used in other
jurisdictions
Yes Yes No No
Monthly Cost (at 80% to
90% participation)
$10.00 to
$11.20
$3.00 -
$4.90
$17.30 -
$19.50
$6.28
Outreach needed to
maximize participation
Medium Low High Low
Impacts on current DPW
staffing*
Low Low High High
*DPW Staffing for these events is funded through the solid waste program so there is no cost to the general fund
Community Engagement
Three Community Meetings were hosted on April 20, 2022 (at 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.) and April 25, 2022 (at 6 p.m.) to give presentations outlining the various bulky item collection program types described above. The meetings were promoted on social media and advertised on the City’s website. Approximately 65 residents attended the three events.
Residents were provided the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback on the other bulky item collection program types. The majority of residents at each meeting were supportive of the current CUC format and voiced concerns about the City moving away from it.
The City did not receive any negative feedback on scavenging during the CUC in the form of participants scavenging useful items from neighbors’ piles and taking pride in setting out items that get scavenged. This was surprising to DPW staff because scavenging related issues are some of the most received complaints each year.
Feedback from the community meetings was incorporated into a statistically valid survey that was developed and conducted by R3’s subconsultant, SCI Consulting Group (SCI). This included leading the development of questions to measure participants feelings about scavenging.
Survey
In September 2022, surveys were mailed to all 23,561 accounts, which encompassed all households in the City that either currently participate in the CUC or could potentially be eligible to participate in an alternative program. Survey participants had the option to submit the survey by mail or online. A total of 5,169 surveys were completed, representing a response rate of 21.9 percent. This was a good response rate and exceeded the consultant’s expectations of 10 percent. A full summary of the survey questions and responses is included in Attachment 1.
The survey questions measured residents’ familiarity with the CUC program and participation rates in the current CUC program, as well as participation in Citywide garage sales, Recology’s Environmental Days, and the Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program. The survey also queried the community about which of the four collection/disposal options they preferred. The final survey question measured the level of satisfaction with the current CUC program.
When asked whether the respondent was familiar with the CUC program, 94 percent indicated “yes.” Most respondents (87 percent) participate in the CUC Program annually. Approximately 9 percent participate less often, and approximately 4 percent have never participated. Respondents indicated they use the current CUC program to dispose of the following items:
• 90% - Small items
• 78% - Bulky Items
• 60% - Yard trimmings
• 34% - Construction and demolition waste
Additionally, the survey produced data on the usage of other opportunities provided by the City to dispose of waste. Participation rates were as follows:
• 12% - Twice-a-year City-wide Garage Sales
• 19% - Recology’s Environmental Days
• 60% - Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program
Residents that currently participate in the CUC ranked the four collection program options for bulky items and yard trimmings as follows:
1. Participate in a City-organized pre-scheduled collection at my property (current CUC format)
2. Schedule an on-call collection at my property throughout the year when needed
3. Schedule an appointment for drop-off at City-designated location when needed
4. Participate in a pre-scheduled drop-off event at City-designated location
Residents that don’t currently participate in the CUC ranked their preferences as follows:
1. Schedule an on-call collection at my property throughout the year when needed
2. Participate in a City organized pre-scheduled collection at my property (current CUC format)
3. Schedule an appointment for drop-off at City-designated location when needed
4. Participate in a pre-scheduled drop-off event at City-designated location
The overall satisfaction rate for participants in the current CUC program was 86 percent.
The survey also found that 29 percent of respondents’ salvage materials that are set out by other residents and 82 percent of respondents did not mind that scavenging occurred. The survey provided participants with an opportunity to submit additional comments as well. R3’s final report noted that a total of 1,905 comments were received which is much higher than normally seen on this type of survey. Positive comments outnumbered negative comments by a ratio of 3:1.
Conclusions
There is not a single bulky item collection program that can be provided which addresses all the preferences of the community. Based on feedback received, a hybrid approach that includes both pick-up and drop-off options would be the best approach to meet the resident’s needs. The City currently provides multiple pick-up and drop-off opportunities for residents to dispose of unwanted items, including the CUC.
The on-call bulky item collection program offered by MTWS is a good compliment to the CUC. Residents can utilize this program year-round and it is accessible to community members that don’t have access to transportation to utilize drop-off events. Participation can be increased by working with MTWS to promote the program through outreach and marketing efforts. Additionally, MTWS and staff can actively engage with higher-density areas to enable bulky item collection on private property.
The City could also potentially add more free disposal days at the MTTS. This would require negotiating an amendment to the current franchise agreement and would add costs to implement, which could result in increased garbage rates. Increasing promotion of the additional free disposal days could expand community awareness of the new opportunities. Council would need to provide direction to Staff to enter into discussions with MTWS to add additional drop-off events.
The existing Environmental Day and Citywide Garage Sale events provide the community additional options to recycle or reuse unwanted items. DPW promotes the availability of these events though print, our website, and social media. DPW will look for opportunities to promote these programs at future City sponsored events to increase awareness.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of California Environmental Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has not potential for resulting in either a direct change in the environment, or as a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
COORDINATION
This report has been prepared by the Department of Public Works. Meetings were held with the public on April 20 and 25, 2022. Also, surveys were distributed to all residential solid waste account holders.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
..Recommendation
Note and file the Report.
..Staff
Reviewed by: Craig Mobeck, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Office of the City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Clean-Up Campaign Program Survey and Other Program Types Report
FINAL REPORT
City of Santa Clara
Submitted electronically: January 18, 2023
Cleanup Campaign Program
Survey and Other Program Types
City of
Santa Clara
Th Cent r of What'8 Po881bl
r) :::2-._ CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
K----' RESOURCES. RESPECT· RESPONSIBILITY
405 14th Street, Suite 350, Oakland, CA 94612 | p 916.782.7821 | f 916.782.7824 | www.r3cgi.com January 18, 2023
Mr. Dave Staub, Deputy Director of Public Works
City of Santa Clara
1700 Walsh Ave, Santa Clara, CA, 95050
submitted via email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Final Report – Cleanup Campaign Program Survey and Other Program Types Dear Mr. Staub,
R3 Consulting Group (R3) is pleased to submit this Final Report to the City of Santa Clara (City) detailing our statistically valid survey of residential opinion regarding the City’sCleanup Campaign (CUC) program and a description of other similar program types.
The survey focused on single family, multi-family, and high-density dwelling units – including those not currently eligible for participation in the CUC program – and gauged public opinion on other program types. This report presents the results of community engagement and surveying and describes comparable program types used in other communities.
The objectives of the project were to:
Analyze other program types actively used by other cities.
Identify the advantages and disadvantages of those other program types.
Analyze the public educational needs, community access, costs, and waste diversion potential of other program types.
Survey the community on residential preferences and needs to collect hard-to-dispose-of items.
The types of programs used frequently in other communities include on-call collection of bulky items and waste and free drop-off of waste materials to the local transfer stations or at local community events. Survey results demonstrated great overall satisfaction, awareness of and participation in the CUC program. The survey provided valuable feedback on what program elements are desired by Santa Clara residents.
* * * * *
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Santa Clara. Should you have any questions on our Final Report, please don’t hesitate to reach out directly.
Sincerely,
Alex Soulard | Sr. Consultant Garth Schultz | Principal R3 Consulting Group, Inc. R3 Consulting Group, Inc.
707.888.8693 | [email protected] 510.292.0853 | [email protected] n ~ CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
t<.....~ RESOURCES· RESPECT· RESPONSIBILITY
))
))
))
))
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report TOC
1. Executive Summary
page 1
2. Background
page 2
3. Alternative Program Options
page 4
4. Comparative Program Analysis
page 11
5. Statistically Valid Survey
page 14
6. Conclusions
page 17
Attachments
1. Summary of Survey Results
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 1o f 1 7 R3 was retained by the City to conduct community engagement and surveying regarding the Cleanup Campaign (CUC) program and to review other program types based on how other jurisdictions provide bulky item collection services to their residential customers. This report details how neighboring Bay Area municipal programs work, as well as examples from throughout California, and how those communities supplement each program to best serve their communities.
Other Program Types
Bulky waste collection programs used throughout the Bay Area and the State of California have been profiled as examples of program types that could be considered in the City of Santa Clara. Other types of programs that are used by other municipalities can generally be broken down into on-call pick-up programs where items are picked up in front of residents’ homes, and drop-off programs where residents bring items for free disposal.
Such collection programs are typically tailored to the specific needs of each community and primarily fall into three categories:
On-call Collection Programs
Drop-off Voucher Programs
Debris Box Drop-off Events
These different program types all have the potential to improve aspects of the CUC program, but also provide their own challenges, costs and limitations.
On-call Collection Programs are by far the most-used model throughout California, as they are convenient for residents to use if needed. However, with such programs, residents need adequate space to set out their items for collection by their hauler. Additionally, such programs may not be feasible for implementation in areas that are not currently served by the CUC program; for example, in larger, denser homeowner associations (HOA’s). HOA’s and other high-density dwelling areas often have private streets that are not adequate to provide access to large collection vehicles necessary for such programs and may require the permission of the HOA to enter. HOA’s also may have aesthetic concerns about potential damage to landscape or hardscape by large collection vehicles, have limited parking/common areas for material set out, and concern that one set out will turn into a dumping ground for everyone.
Drop-off Voucher Programs and Debris Box Drop-off Events require residents to transport and load and unload bulky items. Not all residents have transportation or the physical ability to participate in these types of programs. Drop-off Events are typically not available year-round and require transportation unless locations are very close to high density areas. Space to host events is often unavailable in high- density areas, where a service like this could have the most value.
Community Engagement and Statistically Valid Survey
Presentations regarding other program types were offered at three community meeting hosted on April 20, 2022 (at 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.) and April 25, 2022 (at 6 p.m.). An average of 20-25 participants attended each meeting for a total attendance of approximately 65 residents. Feedback from the community meetings was incorporated into a statistically valid survey was conducted by SCI Consulting Group. 23,561 households were sent surveys with a response rate of 21.9% (5,169 completed surveys).
Responses indicated a very high level of participation and satisfaction with the CUC program.
Survey results indicated that 86% of respondents were satisfied with the CUC format. A similar majority of respondents (87%) participate in the CUC program annually. Survey results revealed an overwhelming community support for the CUC program. Changes to the program design were viewed as concerning to long-term residents who have come to expect the CUC every spring. The survey also indicated community concern that additional programs may take away funding or resources from the CUC format. ))
))
))
2. BACKGROUND
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 2o f 1 7 Current CUC Format
The City of Santa Clara has held the CUC since 1961, assisting almost 33,000 households annually with disposal of unwanted materials. The City, in partnership with R3 and SCI, conducted a survey following the 2022 CUC to look at other program types that could improve accessibility, encourage diversion of reusable, recyclable and compostable items, discourage illegal dumping and promote the proper disposal of household hazardous wastes.
Under the CUC format, the City is divided into four collection areas, each being serviced during a one- week period. Residents can place an unlimited amount of debris on the street in front of their home for collection. The City and its contractors remove the debris and sweep the street during the collection week. Over 90% of the material collected is transported to Newby Island Landfill for disposal. The total volume of material collected typically averages between 5,000 – 6,000 tons. The primary mission of the current program format is to remove debris from the street as safely and swiftly as possible and does not emphasize landfill diversion.
■ Week1 ■ ■ Week2 Week3
Questions?
Visit SantaClaraCA .goy/CleanUg
Call 408-615-3080
Week4
Email Environment a,SantaCla_r CA.,gov
Week 1- Set out materials no earlier
than Saturday, April 30 and no later
than 7 a.m., Monday, May 2.
Note: Includes both sides of Monroe.
Week 2 - Set out materials no
earlier than Saturday, May 7 and no
later than 7 a.m., Monday, May 9.
Note: Includes both sides of
Homestead between San Tomas and
Lawrence.
Week 3 - Set out materials no earlier
than Saturday, May 14 and no later
than 7 a.m., Monday, May 16.
Note: Includes both sides of Newhall
between Saratoga and Winchester,
both sides of Saratoga between
Scott and Pruneridge , and north side
of Pruneridge between Saratoga and
Lawrence.
Week 4 - Set out mater ials no
earlier than Saturday, May 21 and no
later than 7 a.m., Monday, May 23.
Note: Include s the south side of
Pruneridge between Saratoga
and Lawrence and both sides of
Pruneridge west of Lawrence and
east of Saratoga.
Background
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 3 of 17 The CUC format generates significant amounts of illegally set out hazardous waste, loose construction and demolition debris on the street, and lightweight trash that unfortunately can be conveyed into catch basin inlets via run-off or wind. The City has undertaken many efforts to prevent contamination from entering the stormwater system. The CUC is now operated only during the dry season, construction and demolition debris is required to be placed in bulk bags, and streets are swept after the event to pick up as much waste as possible. Even with these countermeasures, improper setouts remain an area of concern for the City.
Not all households are eligible for this program due to insufficient frontage or narrow streets. Residents that do not have access to this program for these reasons, are not assessed the Cleanup Campaign charge on their monthly utility bill. However, these households still have materials to dispose of. This can lead to materials being placed out for collection illegally during the CUC. There is a need to offer bulky item collection service to customers that don’t have access to the CUC,especially when residents are moving in or out of those locations. In addition, non-residents take advantage of this program by illegally dumping materials throughout the City during the campaign.
Communities Providing Similar Service
City of Campbell
The City of Campbell hosts an Annual CleanUp Program. A maximum of 70 pounds of material is collected and may be placed out in either a 32-gallon bags or 8 cubic foot boxes. All tree trimmings must be bundled. No loose items, Construction and Demolition Materials, E-Waste, Universal or Hazardous Waste, or refrigerators are accepted.
Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority (RecycleSmart) Two community garbage clean-ups per year. Customers are notified two weeks prior to event. Cleanup days are preceded by reuse days where donatable items are picked up by the garbage hauler.
Residents can dispose of up to 14, 32-gallon bags or the equivalent in items, with no single item or bag weighing over 50 lbs. each, or longer than 4 feet. No hazardous materials, tires, large furniture, refrigerators, or yard waste will be accepted. These residents also have one On-call Collection Program per year.
City of Citrus Heights
The City’s hauler coordinates three set-out days per year and notifies residents with a door hanger one week prior to each pick-up day. Residents may place out up to 10 cubic yards of material per pick up.
No boat or automotive parts, construction and demolition materials, or hazardous wastes are accepted.
City of Inglewood
“Operation Clean Sweep” is a twice per year program, which allows single and multi-family residents to set out up to 15 bags or 10 bundles of unwanted bulky items including furniture appliances, bags of trash, or bundled yard waste (not exceeding 4ft in length). Bags and bundles should not exceed 60 lbs. This program is supplemented with On-call Collection Program.
3. ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM OPTIONS
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 4o f 1 7 R3 has prepared a summary of other program types, including On-call Collection Programs, Drop-off Voucher Programs and Neighborhood Debris Box Drop-off Events. The analysis includes cost data, service level options in terms of frequency and what material types could be accepted. Each program’s potential advantages and disadvantages are stated along with public outreach needs.
Option 1: On-Call Collection Program
On-call pick-up programs are by far the most commonly available bulky item collection programs throughout California. Most on-call programs are available to single-family residential accounts that are subscribed to service. Additionally, high-density dwelling complexes may participate if they have adequate space to place items.
Each single-family account typically has access to at least two scheduled pick-ups annually and in some cities, this can be as high as six annual pick-ups. Mission Trail Waste Systems (MTWS) would be the provider of this service in Santa Clara, should the City choose to go this route. The City currently offers a version of this service through MTWS at a current rate of $148.51 per pick-up for all residences regardless of whether or not they participate in the CUC. Residents requesting this service are billed directly through MTWS. If this program were offered as a service to all residents and costs were incorporated into the garbage collection rate pricing would be lower than what is currently offered.
With this program MTWS would drop off two 2-cubic yard heavy-duty bags to customers, on request, and then return with a flatbed truck using a crane to lift those filled bags and up to 3 loose bulky items onto the vehicle. Those 3 bulky items can also be electronic waste or appliances. There is an additional charge if the appliance is a refrigerator or contains Freon.
The heavy-duty bags allow residents to throw out items of various sizes and have them contained so they do not end up in the storm drain. Participation in these programs can be anywhere from 30-80% of customers using this service annually. MTWS has provided bulky item collection services to 145 customers over the initial two years of the program.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Residents must be aware of on-call pick-up programs to use them, so the success of these programs is directly tied to how well they are promoted. The outreach should be developed in multiple languages and should be promoted several times per year. Unlike the CUC, which is visible in the community and its own advertisement, on-call programs are frequently underused by customers. Robust outreach can propel a program like this into a higher threshold of participation.
Alternative Program Options
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 5 of 17 When the community is aware of these programs participation rates can exceed 75%. Residents need to make an appointment to use the service. It is important that the hauler has bandwidth to make these pick-ups at the next scheduled pick-up day or within a week of the request.
Residents may be less inclined to use this service if the scheduled pick-up date is too far in the future.
The popularity of these programs can be influenced by social media and its use has greatly increased participation in some areas. If the system is overloaded and residents must wait multiple weeks for a pick-up, it is good to have an alternative drop-off program that a resident can use immediately.
The ability of these programs, however, to serve high-density dwelling unit residences is limited. High- density dwelling areas that have HOA’s with private streets require the permission of the HOA to enter.
These HOA’s have narrow streets, may have concerns about potential damage to landscape or hardscape by large collection vehicles, limited parking/common areas for material set out, and fear that one set out will become a dumping ground for everyone. MTWS has proactively reached out to 106 HOA’s, but only 5 have authorized onsite bulky item collection.
Potential Opportunities
Most communities using an on-call pick-up program also use their outreach to direct residents to reuse and outside recycling opportunities that already exist in the community. Pointing those residents to a reuse opportunity can extend the useful life of collected items and is the highest and best use of the material. The City of Santa Clara already currently does this for its CUC outreach and should continue to promote reuse before any other bulky waste disposal program.
As described in the section above, MTWS currently offers an on-call bulky item collection program which could be promoted with additional educational materials so that residents are fully aware that this is an option to them.
Cost Estimates
MTWS currently offers on-call bulky item collection to residents at a fee of $148.51 per pick-up. If implemented to the whole CUC service area at a participation rate of 80% to 90% (consistent with current CUC participation rates) this service will cost from $10.00 to $11.20 per ratepayer per month. At a lower participation rate of 40% to 45%, the service would cost $5.00 to $5.60 per ratepayer month.
The estimated costs for providing this service only to the 14,000 residences not in the current CUC area are the same as shown above, yielding total estimated annual costs of $1.66 million to $1.87 million assuming 80% to 90% participation (consistent with CUC participation rates) and $830,000 to $935,000 assuming lower 40% to 45% participation.
Communities Providing On-Call Collection Programs
On-Call Collection Programs are the most common bulky item collection programs used by municipalities in the state and are considered a best practice in the industry. This list of local municipalities is only a small representation of the total number of jurisdictions that use On-Call Collection Programs.
Cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale
On-Call Bulky Waste Pick-Ups are currently available to these Cities’ residents twice annually. This is supplemented by extra dumping weekend events, held in both spring and fall at the local Recycling Center (SMaRT Station). The costs for these services are bundled into residents’ solid waste rates.
South Bayside Waste Management Agency
Residents have access to two On-call Bulky Item Pick-Ups per year. High-density dwelling unit residences must coordinate through their property manager to get access to this service. Additionally, SBWMA hosts local paper shredding and e-waste events throughout the year. The costs for these services are bundled into residents’ solid waste rates.
Alternative Program Options
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 6 of 17 Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Management Authority (RecycleSmart) Residents have access to one On-call Scheduled Bulky Item Pick-Up. This is supplemented by two communitywide Garbage Clean-Up events per year. The costs for these services are bundled into residents’ solid waste rates.
City of Milpitas
Single family residents in the City of Milpitas have four annual no fee On-Call Bulky Item Pick-Ups (with the costs for these services being bundled into residents’ solid waste rates). High-density dwelling unit complexes can schedule a pick-up for a fee of $163.51, with additional fees for major appliances and bulky items. No single items above 75-pounds are accepted. These pick-ups are supplemented with neighborhood clean-up events.
City of San Jose
The City of San Jose has unlimited on-call junk pick-ups available to their residents funded by solid waste rates. This was a recent change in service away from San Jose’sprior Neighborhood Clean-up Events.
This program is provided by the City’s Environmental Services Department through Integrated Waste Management Residential Garbage Contracts with GreenTeam and California Waste Solutions.
Franchised haulers are paid per pickup of up to 3 large items from single and multifamily residents.
Compensation for these services is almost $10 million annually. The cost per pickup compensation is detailed in Franchise Agreements with the City’s haulers.For some parts of the City, there are supplementary services including loose yard trimmings pick-up funded through solid waste rates.
City of Los Altos
City of Los Altos residents have access to two annual On-Call Bulky Item Pick-Ups. The costs for these services are bundled into residents’ solid waste rates.
City of Oakland
Oakland residents have access to an On-Call Collection Program. This is supplemented by a no fee bulky waste drop-off at the Davis Street Resource Recovery Complex in San Leandro. The costs for these services are bundled into residents’ solid waste rates.
City of San Francisco
Tenants in five or less unit buildings are entitled to two annual, no fee pick-ups per year; tenants in high- density dwelling unit (six units or more) are entitled to one, no fee pick-up per year; property managers/owners are entitled to one, no fee pick-up per year; and residential customers (buildings with five units or less) receive two curbside Bulky Item Recycling collections, per year, at no additional charge.
This is supplemented by their “Gigantic 3 Collection” events.The costs for these services are bundled into residents’ solid waste rates.
City of Fairfield
Fairfield residents have access to two On-Call Bulky Item Pick-ups annually. This is supplemented with a landfill voucher program for residents to drop off one load per year at the landfill. The costs for these services are bundled into residents’ solid waste rates.
City of Vallejo
Currently, the City of Vallejo has two on-call scheduled pick-ups for residents annually. They are also considering expanding this to four annual collections and supplementing this with a drop-off voucher for disposal at a local facility. The costs for these services are bundled into residents’ solid waste rates.
City of San Rafael
Single family residents in the City of San Rafael have two free annual On-Call Bulky Item Pick-Ups. A pilot program exploring free pickups at Multi-family dwellings (pre-scheduled pickup times) was also instituted in 2022. This is supplemented with a debris box drop-off event held monthly in the City. The costs for these services are bundled into residents’ solid waste rates.
Alternative Program Options
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 7 of 17 Option 2: Drop-Off Voucher Program
On-call drop-off programs are a local and convenient option where a resident can take material to a local waste facility and drop off a set amount of material for no fee. Residency is usually verified at the facility, or the program can also be provided through a voucher system – which allows the resident verified access to a no fee drop-off. Some communities have an on-call pick-up service and will allow one of those on-call pick-ups to be swapped to a drop-off voucher. A voucher program for Santa Clara would use the conveniently located Mission Trails Transfer Station (MTTS), where the City of Santa Clara currently holds its Free Rubbish Disposal Days.
The City currently offers two (2) free disposal days at the MTTS each year through the agreement with MTWS. The MTTS is permitted to accept no more than 250 appointments per day so additional drop-off days usually need to be added to accommodate demand. On average, 206 residents attend each free disposal day.
Advantages and Disadvantages
On-call drop-off programs are available to residents when they have a need to get rid of bulky waste. This is also the only alternative assessed that will be available to all residents with space constraints or a lack of street frontage necessary for the current CUC.
Drop-off vouchers do not require any HOA common area or street frontage use and are a convenient solution for those who cannot have pick up service at their residence. A drop-off voucher can also be an alternative solution for a resident who cannot wait for a pick-up to be scheduled or an annual campaign to occur.
Residents need access to a vehicle to haul these wastes and access drop-off sites. Depending on how far the drop-off sites are from a resident may be discouraged participation. Drop-off programs typically have a 5-15% participation rate if properly promoted. A drop-off program could be used in combination with the current CUC setup or an on-call pick-up program. Drop-off should not be the only option provided, as it will exclude those with no means of transporting large/bulky items.
Potential Opportunities
On-call drop-off programs have the potential to enhance other special collection programs offered by the City and highlight regional waste diversion and disposal options being provided through outreach at the event. The City could expand on the current free drop off days and promotion of those events or could institute a voucher program that would provide more flexibility for residents to drop off the material during regular facility hours. The City could also consider allowing small businesses to use these services.
Cost Estimates
Implementation of a drop-off voucher is a reasonable alternative analyzed for bulky item disposal. At a participation rate of 80%, the cost is around $3.00 per PRQWK per ratepayer. That cost increases to Mission Trail
Transfer Station
1313 MEMOREX OR
OPE TO THE P\JBl
Hours
6 ,_ TO~
MON THRU FRI o " 'ro•
SATURDAY - .
suN DAY 721-5365
(408)
Alternative Program Options
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 8 of 17
perPRQWK, if used at a 90% participation rate. These costs are proportional to the use of the program, so at an estimated participation of 40-45% the costs will range from $1.50-$2.PRQWKO\ The City could alternatively expand on free drop off days at the MTTS with even less additional cost to the ratepayers. Although this option was not negotiated with MTWS they previously provided an estimate of $45-$65 per load to provide this service.
In the current Agreement the City has up to 900 of these appointments included annually:
Two Sundays each calendar year, up to 225 appointments each, AND Up to 225 additional appointments scheduled after each event on successive Saturdays.
Altogether, this comes to 900 appointments included in the Agreement today.
An annual “price tag” on the allotment for this service, it would come to $58,500 per year.
Currently less than half of these are being used, at an average of 412 appointments per year. Enhanced outreach and public education to encourage more customers to schedule appointments for the existing free drop off days could lead to a doubling of the service provided to residents without a change in the service cost to the City.
Adding more Sunday events and serving an additional 225 residents per event, would result in an additional cost of approximately ~$15,000 per event. Dividing that cost over the total rate base of 47,000 residential units (CUC and non-CUC combined) is an additional monthly residential ratepayer cost of ~$0.03 (rounded up to nearest cent). If the roughly 2,000 businesses subscribed to bulk garbage service were included, the cost would be divided over 49,000 accounts, still yielding a rounded-up figure of $0.03 per month per ratepayer for each Sunday event that would be added.
If the City were to add 10 more events (making these events monthly instead of just 2x annually) the additional cost would be ~$150,000 per year, for a monthly ratepayer cost of about $0.27 per month (rounded up to nearest cent). If the City were to consider this option, it would need to explore MTWS’s actual ability to provide this service and discuss costing – figures included here are estimates only.
Communities Providing Drop-Off Voucher Programs
Cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale
Extra dumping weekend events are held in these cities, in both spring and fall, at the local Recycling Center (SMaRT Station®) to dispose of garbage, concrete, demolition materials, tires and other non- hazardous materials at no additional charge. This is supplemented by On-call Bulky Waste Pick-Ups available to residents twice per year.
City of Oakland
Residents of Oakland have a no fee bulky waste drop-off at the Davis Street Resource Recovery Complex in San Leandro. This is supplemented by an On-Call Bulky Item Pick-Up program.
City of Fairfield
The City of Fairfield provides a landfill voucher program for residents to drop off one load per year at the landfill. This is provided in combination with an On-Call Pick-Up program.
City of Vallejo
The City of Vallejo is examining instituting a landfill voucher program this year. The program will be supplemented by On-Call Bulky Item Pick-Ups.
))
))
))
))
Alternative Program Options
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 9 of 17 Option 3: Neighborhood Debris Box Drop-Off Events
Neighborhood debris box drop-off programs were analyzed with a frequency of once per neighborhood every year, three years and five years. Neighborhood Debris Box Events have a high cost, a small geographic service area, and do not provide a regularly reoccurring solution for bulky item disposal unless funded at very high levels. Events need to be staffed to prevent illegal dumping and improper disposal. Each neighborhood would likely only receive an event every several years due to cost and planning efforts. Residents would likely need transportation to access these events and would have to empty their own vehicles. Space to host events is often unavailable in high-density areas, where a service like this could have the most value.
Santa Clara has limited space for these types of events in high-density areas where they would otherwise have the greatest impact to residents that do not have other bulky item disposal option. If not conveniently located, residents would require transportation to use these programs. These programs also have a high cost of implementation and rarely are available to the same residents on an annual basis.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Neighborhood debris box drop-off events need to be made available in proximity to high-density dwelling unit housing and other areas that have issues with illegal dumping. If implemented in multiple different areas throughout the City at various times of the year, these events can be accessible options for residents who live close to an event location. Otherwise, residents will need transportation to access these sites.
These programs require staff to be present to help residents unload their vehicles, and place items in debris boxes, and prevent any contamination from entering the debris boxes.
These programs can also be expanded to be visible, highly promoted events that can combine a selection of services and can promote the Cities other recycling, composting and disposal programs. Drop-off sites are only available in a neighborhood if there is an event hosted nearby that year. Due to the high-density and lack of space in some areas of the City, these sites may be hard to strategically locate for residents who need a local drop-off option. Additionally, if the debris box drop-off events do not rotate through neighborhoods that need them, residents may only have access to the service locally once every few years.
Potential Opportunities
Neighborhood debris box drop-off events can be used as events to promote multiple diversion, recycling, composting and Household Hazardous Waste programs. In many areas paper shredding, electronic wastes, or other Universal Wastes are accepted for drop-off at the same time. These events are valuable to residents
Alternative Program Options
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 10 of 17 disposing of various items from their home. Events in the spring can be promoted as spring cleaning events and the proximity to tax time makes recycling and shredding old financial documents very appealing to the community. This is like the City of Santa Clara’s Environmental Day provided by Recology, which could be combined or expanded to help address bulky waste issues as well but would require an amendment to the agreement with Recology.
Cost Estimates
Drop-off events are costly but can be scaled to help address the community need. Implementing a drop- off event program for bulky items could cost between $2. and $1 per ratepayer monthly. On the
lower end of the spectrum this program would host a neighborhood drop off event in every neighborhood once every 5 years and would cost $
,000 annually and if every neighborhood had an
event hosted annually the cost could be as high as be $ . These cost estimates are based on
actual costs of Milpitas’ neighborhood cleanup eventsDQGYDU\EDVHGRQSDUWLFLSDWLRQUDWHVCommunities Providing Neighborhood Debris Box Drop-Off Programs City of Milpitas
Neighborhood Clean-Up events are starting this year and residents subscribe to an email list to see when they will be available.
City of San Jose
The City of San Jose has moved away from their Neighborhood Cleanup Program to Council District Beautification days. Each Council District receives an $18,000 annual beautification budget and can choose to allocate the funds for cleanup days, litter pick-ups, graffiti removal, public plantings, etc. This resulted in 73 events in FY 20/21. The City supplemented this service with unlimited scheduled Junk Pick-Ups at residences (referenced elsewhere in this Report) which are funded via solid waste rates.
City of San Francisco
“Gigantic 3 Clean-Up” events are hosted once monthly in different districts of the Cityof San Francisco.
They accept bulky items, yard trimmings, recyclables, electronics and universal wastes.
City of San Rafael
The City of San Rafael hosts Neighborhood Clean-Up events at various areas near sites where illegal dumping normally occurs. This service is only available to high-density dwelling unit customers. San Rafael has expanded this program to twelve events per year (consistent location and time) and is looking at ways to augment it to further reduce dumping.
City of Los Angeles
Five locations around the City of Los Angeles are used to host drop-off days 10 times per year for bulky items only. These events are held simultaneously at each of the five locations each occurrence.
City of Berkeley
Although currently on hold, the City of Berkeley has a community dumpster program in which a neighborhood can come together to request a bin for their local area.
City of San Diego
The Environmental Services Department hosts 50+ events per year by partnering with community groups resulting in 25 tons of disposal and 9 tons of recycling.
Event Frequency Low High
Every 5 Year Drop off Event 2.$
$
Tri-Annual NH Drop-off Event 4.10 $ $
Annual NH Drop-off Event 12.30 $
$
Monthly Per Ratepayer
4. COMPARATIVE PROGRAM ANALYSIS
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 11 of 17 Alternative programs are presented side by side in this section of the report to demonstrate how other communities address bulky item collection and how those programs compare to one another.
Figure 1 summarizes the bulky item programs used by in other neighboring jurisdictions. Figure 2, on the following page, outlines the benefits and characteristics of each bulky item program, including the current CUC format. Figure 3, on page 13, demonstrates the characteristics of each alternative program.
Figure 1: Programs Used by Neighboring Jurisdictions
On-Call Collection Program
x Mountain View
x Palo Alto
x Sunnyvale
x Milpitas
x San Jose
x Los Altos
x Oakland
x San Francisco
x Fairfield
x Vallejo
x San Rafael (residential and pilot for multi-family)
x South Bayside Waste Management
Agency
x Central Contra Costa Solid Waste
Management Authority (RecycleSmart)
Drop-Off Voucher Program
x Mountain View
x Palo Alto
x Sunnyvale
x Oakland
x Fairfield
x Vallejo
Debris Box Drop-Off Events
x Milpitas
x San Jose
x San Francisco
x San Rafael
x Los Angeles
x Berkeley
x San Diego
Hybrid Program Design
x Sunnyvale
x Mountain View
x Palo Alto
x Milpitas
x San Jose
x San Rafael
x San Francisco
x Los Angeles
Comparative Program Analysis
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 12 of 17 Figure 2: Matrix of Alternatives and CUC Characteristics Benefits/Characteristics
On-call
Collection
Program
Drop-off
Voucher
Debris Box
Event
Program
CUC
Program
Available Year Round XXX
Increases Recovery of
Materials X
Drop-Off / Pick-Up Service Pick-up Drop-off Drop-off Pick-up Available to CUC Customers X X X X
Available to High-density
Dwelling Residents XX
Discourages Illegal Dumping X X
Prevents Litter XXXX
Commonly Used by Other
Jurisdictions X X
Addresses Stormwater
Concerns XXXX
Collects Appliances X X X
Comparative Program Analysis
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 13 of 17 Figure 3: Characteristics of Proposed Alternative Programs On-call Collection Program
Accessibility
Can be made available to most city residents.
Benefits
Collection happens throughout the year, regulating flow of material and increasing diversion potential.
Promotion
Requires education to foster participation.
Opportunities
Usually made available twice per year per household and could be increased depending on participation.
Limitations
Requires set out space for items.
High-density Dwelling Needs
High-density Dwelling Customers may participate but would need HOA and/or property manager approval and sufficient space for collection. This type of program is not feasible for most high-density dwelling properties.
Drop-off Voucher Program
Accessibility
Can be made at time convenient for residents.
Benefits
No coordination of collection needed Residents deliver materials themselves.
Promotion
Requires education to foster participation.
Opportunities
Outreach can be sent out to residents along with voucher to promote other City Programs.
Limitations
Requires transportation, loading and unloading of vehicles.
Lower participation rate than other programs.
High-density Dwelling Needs
High-density dwelling customers can participate.
Debris Box Drop-off Events
Accessibility
Hosting events throughout City allows localized access to events.
Benefits
Impacts of program are contained to drop-off sites.
Promotion
Requires considerable outreach for the events.
Opportunities
Outreach can be provided to promote other City Programs.
Limitations
Not available year-round, residents must unload vehicles.
High-Density Dwelling Needs
High-density dwelling customers can participate locally.
5. STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEY
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 14 of 17 Community Engagement
Three Community Meetings were hosted on April 20, 2022 (at 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.) and April 25, 2022 (at 6 p.m.) to give presentations outlining the various bulky item collection program types described above.
Approximately 65 residents attended the three events. Residents were provided the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback on the other bulky item collection program types. The majority of residents at each meeting were supportive of the current CUC format and voiced concerns about the City moving away from it.
Survey Design
R3’s subconsultant, SCI developed a statistically valid survey designed to gather information to help the City understand residential preferences and needs to collect hard-to-dispose-of items.
Survey Participation
With assistance from City staff, SCI designed and mailed surveys to households within the City of Santa Clara on September 9, 2022. The project initially planned to mail 13,000 surveys with an expectation of receiving approximately 1,500 completed surveys, which would provide a margin of error of 2.5%.
However, it was later decided to mail surveys to all 23,561 accounts which encompassed all households in the City that are either currently eligible for Program participation or could become eligible in the future. This was done to raise awareness of the CUC program and generate interest in possible Program improvements.
A total of 5,169 surveys were received from the property owners, representing a response rate of
21.9%. Approximately 25% of the surveys were completed online. The statistical margin of error for the results presented in this report is about 1.21%. This margin of error means that there is a 95% certainty that the actual levels of support are ± 1.21% from the results presented in this report.
Survey Structure and Content
The survey recipients received a two-page survey which included 16 questions, and a postage-paid return envelope. Survey recipients were also given the option to respond to the survey online.
Residents were given five weeks to respond to the survey.
The survey provided a general statement about the CUC program. The questions were based on the familiarity of the CUC Program, the usage of the Program, costs and impacts to rates, the amount of time participating in the Program, and the number of items set out for collection.
The survey also tested the community’s preference for four alternate scenarios for collection/disposal options, as well as questions regarding on-call pick up program options. Questions regarding yard trimmings, salvaged materials, recycled materials, Citywide Garage Sales, Recology’s Environmental Days, Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program and the level of satisfactions with the CUC Program were also included on the survey.
The survey also provided space for write-in comments and a total of 1,905 comments were received.
Survey Results Overview
The following is an overview of survey results. More detailed survey results can be viewed in Attachment 1 (CUC Program).
Statistically Valid Survey
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 15 of 17 Familiarity
When asked whether the respondent was familiar with the CUC Program, 94% said “Yes.” This is not surprising since people unfamiliar with the Program would be less likely to participate in the survey.
However, this response helps define the universe of households to which the remaining results apply.
Utilization
The extent to which respondents use the program are as follows:
90% - Small items
78% - Bulky Items
60% - Yard trimmings
34% - Construction and demolition waste
Frequency
Most respondents (87%) participate in the CUC Program annually. Approximately 9% participate less often, and approximately 4% have never participated.
Other Regional Program Participation
Participation in related regional programs was also measured with the following results:
12% - Twice-a-year Citywide Garage Sales
19% - Recology’s Environmental Days
60% - Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program Overall Satisfaction
Overall satisfaction with the CUC Program was 86%.
Other Program Types
Respondents were asked to rank four other collection methods. For bulky, household and/or home improvement waste, the ranking was (from most to least desirable):
1. Participate in a City-organized pre-scheduled collection at my property
2. Schedule an on-call collection at my property throughout the year when needed
3. Schedule an appointment for drop-off at City-designated location when needed
4. Participate in a pre-scheduled drop-off event at City-designated location For extra yard trimmings, the ranking was the same as shown above.
Non-CUC Area Responses
The survey was also mailed to households that are not currently participating in the program that include higher density and multifamily housing areas of Santa Clara including a subset of the Rivermark
1 neighborhood. Notable results from that subset of respondents include the following:
1 The Rivermark neighborhood is comprised of 1,099 households, of which 133 responded to the survey. This represents a 12% response rate, which is about half that of the rest of the survey. However, this is understandable since that neighborhood is not currently served by the Program. The margin of error for this subset is much higher at 8.0%.
))
))
))
))
))
))
))
Statistically Valid Survey
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 16 of 17 CUC Program Familiarity
When asked whether the respondent was familiar with the Program, 58% said “Yes.” Although this is significantly lower than the rest of the respondents, it is somewhat higher than might be expected for a neighborhood that does not currently participate in the Program.
Desired Program Options
Respondents were asked to rank four other collection methods. The results differed from the main survey with the first two options reversed as shown below.
For bulky, household and/or home improvement waste, the ranking was (from most to least desirable):
1. Schedule an on-call collection at my property throughout the year when needed
2. Participate in a City-organized pre-scheduled collection at my property
3. Schedule an appointment for drop-off at City-designated location when needed
4. Participate in a pre-scheduled drop-off event at City-designated location For extra yard trimmings, the ranking was the same:
1. Schedule an on-call collection at my property throughout the year when needed
2. Participate in a City-organized pre-scheduled collection at my property
3. Schedule an appointment for drop-off at City-designated location when needed
4. Participate in a pre-scheduled drop-off event at City-designated location Other survey questions were not significant for households not currently served by the Program.
Write-In Comments
The option to write additional comments on the survey was popular. A total of 1,905 comments were received – much higher than normally seen on this type of survey. Of those, 1,592 were general comments on the overall survey (another 313 were targeted at specific questions). It is worth noting that these comments are purely anecdotal, and no numerical significance should be placed on the comments. However, a few common themes emerged and are noteworthy.
Of the 1,592 general comments:
The most common write-in comment expressed the desire to keep the program in place (33%).
Conversely, 1% recommended cancelling the Program.
The second and third most common write-in comments came under the recommendations category, a preference for on-call services (37%) and having the Program expanded to twice a year (19%).
Concerns about illegal dumping and scavenging made up 6% and 4%, respectively.
Scavenging was also mentioned another 37 times in reference to Question #11. Of those, only 7 were against scavenging.
Question #11 asked about scavenging, and 82% stated they did not mind that scavenging occurred.
Write-in comment notes: taking the time to write additional comments is typically motivated by negativity about the subject matter. In this case, general positive comments outnumbered the general negative comments by a ratio of three to one (6% to 2%).
))
))
))
))
))
))
6. CONCLUSIONS
City of Santa Clara | CUC Opinion and Alternatives Survey – Final Report 17 of 17 Strong Support for CUC
The majority of feedback was in support of the CUC program in its existing format. It would be very challenging to move away from the CUC format given its high participation rate and popularity with the community.
Viable Additional Services to Consider
Feedback on other program types demonstrated some support for augmenting current service for bulky item collection. Adding any additional collection methods would provide additional hybrid design elements that serve those that currently do not or are unable to participate in the CUC. This could include increased outreach or expansion of existing City programs or roll out of new services.
Enhanced Services and Promotion of Existing Programs
MTWS On-Call Collection (Pay to Use)
MTWS On-Call Collection existing Pay to Use Service currently is available to Santa Clara residents for a current cost of $148.51 per pickup. Enhancing promotion of this option may result in more residents using the service on their own without creating an alternate funding mechanism for additional services.
Additional MTTS Free Disposal Days
The City could also potentially add more free disposal days at the Mission Trails Transfer Station (MTTS). Enhanced promotion of the program, highlighting the additional opportunities could increase use of this program. This would require direction from the City Council and negotiation of an amendment to the current franchise agreement which would add some cost.
Environmental Day and Citywide Garage Sale
The existing Environmental Day and Citywide Garage Sale events provide the community additional options to recycle or reuse unwanted items. The Department of Public Works promotes the availability of these events though print, website and social media. DPW will look for opportunities to increase promotion of these events to increase awareness.
Potential New Services
Free On-Call Collection or Drop-Off Vouchers for either the non-CUC area or the entire residential service area are good on demand options that exist in many other communities and could provide augmented Bulky Item solutions for residents year-round. These options come with considerable cost increases that would need to be considered by the City Council.
City of Santa Clara
Special Collection Programs
Survey Results
PRESENTED BYSCI CONSULTINGGROUP
November 9, 2022
$77$&+0(17
Survey Objective
Conduct a statistically valid mailed survey to determine the following:
¾ Awareness of the CUC Program
¾ The usage and number of items set out for collection for the CUC Program for bulky items, other smaller items, yard trimmings and construction/demolition waste ¾ Method of payment for the Program fee
¾ Preference of four potential collection/disposal options for bulky, household and/or home improvement waste and extra yard trimmings
¾ On-call bulky item options
¾ Yard trimmings collection
¾ Determination of salvaged materials by residents and surrounding cities ¾ Determination of materials for reuse, recycled or donated through other providers ¾ Level of participation in Citywide garage sales, Recology’s Environmental Days and Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program
¾ Level of satisfaction of current format of the CUC Program $77$&+0(17
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Survey Methodology
¾ Mailed 23,561 surveys to households within the City of Santa Clara • Recipients received a two-page survey and a postage-paid return envelope • Option to complete the survey online
• 16 questions – written format
• 30 questions – online format
¾ Survey in the field for five weeks
¾ 5,169 of surveys returned, 21.93% return rate
• 3,873 of surveys completed in written format
• 1,296 of surveys completed online
• More than 2,000 comments
$77$&+0(17
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Survey Instrument – Page 1
$77$&+0(17CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Official Survey Regarding
Spec ial Collection Programs
This sLJ1Vey has been mailed to households within the City of Santa Clara to gather information. The information will help the City understand residential preferences and needs to get rid of hard to dispose of items. Please complete and return this survey as soon as possible. You may take the survey online or mail the completed survey in the postage pre-paid return envelope, Please respond by Friday, October 7, 2022.
Survey Instructions:
1. Read each question listed below.
2. Please use a pen to completely fill in the circles with your responses.
3. Mai your survey back in the postage pre-paid return envelope provided.
If you prefer to complete this sur-1ey online:
Visit www.inputlocal.com, enter SURVEY NAM E wSCSCPS • arid SURVEY CODE OR scao the QR CODE
with your smanphone and follow the iristructions. D
Under the cum,nt Cleanup Campaign Program ("CUC Program'), the City is divided into foor collection areas, each being serviced during a one-week period. Residents are able to place an unlim~ed amount of debris (appliances, carpets, fum~ re, mattresses, etc.) on the street for collection. The City and its contractors remove the debris at some point during the collection week.
For each of the statements below, please fill in the circle for your response.
1. Ale you aware the City of Santa Clara has a CUC Program? My community does not receive CUC services. 0
If your community does not receive CUC services, please skip to #6.
2. Does your household regularly use any of the following CUC Program categories? Bulky Items.·-·············
Other Smaller Items ......•.... _ ...............•....
Yard Trimmings •...................
Construction/Demolition Waste ..
3. Does your household pay the CUC Program monthly fee with your utility bill?.
4. How often does your household participate in the CUC Program? Yes
0 0
0 0
0 0
No
0 0
0 0
0 0
Annually O less than every 3 years O Eve!)' 2 to 3 years O Have never participated 0 I don't
know
0 0
0 0
0 0
5, How many items does your household set out for collection for each of these CUC Program categories? Please fill in the apprr!priate circles as your response.
Type of Items
Bulky
SCI ConsultingGroup
Public Fi nance Consu ltfng Servo<e t
Survey Instrument – Page 2
$77$&+0(17City of Santa Clara Official Survey Regarding Special Collection Programs
6. Please rank your preference for the following four potential scenarios for collection/disposal options. i Indicate with 1, 2, 3, or 4. 1 = most desirable, 4 = least desirable. Please use 1-4 one time in each column. bulky, household
extra yard Collec tion/Di sposal Options and/or home
improvement waste trimmings
Participate in a City organized pre-scheduled collection at my property Part icipate in a pre-scheduled drop-off event at City designated location Schedu le an on-call collection at my property throughout the yea r when needed Schedu le an appo intment for drop-off at City designated location when needed
7. If an on-<:all bulky item (couch, mattress, washing machine, etc.) pick up program was offered, how likely are you to schedule an appointment?
Likely Q Unlikely Q
8. If an on-call bulky item pick up had an option to set out up to 2 cubic yards of smaller items in contractor provided bulk bags, how likely are you to use the service to dispose of smaller items? LikelyQ Unlikely Q
9. Does your household generate large quantities of yard trimmings that do not fit in your green cart? Yes, in the spring 0 Yes, in the fall 0 Yes, in both the spring and fall O No 0
10. During the CUC Program, do you salvage materials that have been set out by other residents to be reused in your home?
Yes Q No Q
11. If your household participates in the CUC Program, do you mind d others salvage items that have been set out for collection?
Yes 0 No Q N/A - my community does not receive CUC services 0
12. Do you recycle materials through any other reuse, recycle or donation services throughout the year? (for example:
Goodwill, Salvation Army, thrift store)
Yes 0 No 0 I don't have reusable items to donate 0
13. Has your household participated in one of the twice yearly Citywide Garage Sales? Yes Q No Q Nol familiar with this program 0
14. Has your household participated in Recology's Environmental Days? Yes 0 NoQ Nol familiar with this program 0
15. Has your household participated in the Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program lo dispose of items such as batteries, cleaners, oil, paints, pesticides, etc.? Yes 0 No Q Nol familiar with this program 0
16. What is your level of satisfaction with the current formal of the CUC Program? Satisfied 0 Unsatisfied 0 N/A - my community does not receive CUC services 0 Please add anv additional comments on the Citv's current soecial collection nrnnrams or alternatives.
I I
I I
I I
JM.si.miyl:it'.ffVa:in:ft.aedOf~~!!lll'dpa.'tfOODe!liiS~r/ECly.Alntml.r""lanOO!afledi1rtll.'9Jlt'ICSp,oc~d Df!:iJlin,l,tlil'll?~C'l)''1~.tvm .
SCI ConsultingGroup
Pub II< Fi nance Consu ltfng Servo<e t
Question #1
Are you aware the City of Santa Clara has a CUC Program?
YES NO I DON'T
KNOW
Series1 94.08% 4.54% 1.38%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Awareness of CUC Program
My community does not receive CUC services = 6.76%
$77$&+0(17
+
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #2 Part 1 of 2
Does your household regularly use any of the following CUC Program categories?
YES NO I DON'T
KNOW
Series1 78.08% 20.56% 1.37%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Bulky Items
YES NO I DON'T
KNOW
Series1 89.60% 9.43% 0.97%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Other Smaller Items
$77$&+0(17
■ ■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #2 Part 2 of 2
Does your household regularly use any of the following CUC Program categories?
YES NO I DON'T
KNOW
Series1 60.06% 38.63% 1.31%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Yard Trimmings
YES NO I DON'T
KNOW
Series1 34.32% 62.46% 3.22%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Construction/Demolition Waste
$77$&+0(17
■ ■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #3
Does your household pay the CUC Program monthly fee with your utility bill?
YES NO I DON'T
KNOW
Series1 82.37% 1.84% 15.79%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Monthly Fee with Utility Bill
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #4
How often does your household participate in the CUC Program? A = Annually
B = Less than every 3 years
C = Every 2 to 3 years
D = Have never participated
ABCD
Series1 87.41% 3.00% 5.49% 4.10%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Level of Participation
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #5 Part 1 of 2
How many items does your household set out for collection for each of these CUC Program categories?
A = None
B = 1-2
C = 3-4
D = 5+
ABCD
Series1 15.35% 51.95% 21.22% 11.48%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Bulky
ABCD
Series1 6.81% 16.21% 24.58% 52.40%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Other Smaller Items
$77$&+0(17
■ ■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #5 Part 2 of 2
How many items does your household set out for collection for each of these CUC Program categories?
A = None
B = 1 cubic yd
C = 2 cubic yds
D = More than 2 cubic yds
ABCD
Series1 43.79% 32.39% 14.73% 9.09%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Yard Trimmings
EFG H
Series1 68.97% 21.19% 6.12% 3.71%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Construction and Demolition Waste
E = None
F = 1 bulk bag
G = 2 bulk bags
H = More than 2 bulk bags
$77$&+0(17
■ ■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #6 – Bulky, Household and/or Home
Improvement Waste Page 1 of 2
Please rank your preference for the following four potential scenarios for collection / disposal options. Indicate with 1, 2, 3, or 4. 1 = most desirable, 4 = least desirable. 1 = Participate in a City organized pre-scheduled collection at my property 2 = Schedule on-call collection at my property throughout the year when needed 3 = Schedule an appointment for drop-off at City designated location when needed 4 = Participate in a pre-scheduled drop-off event at City designated location $77$&+0(17
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #6 – Extra Yard Trimmings Page 2 of 2
Please rank your preference for the following four potential scenarios for collection / disposal options. Indicate with 1, 2, 3, or 4. 1 = most desirable, 4 = least desirable. 1 = Participate in a City organized pre-scheduled collection at my property 2 = Schedule on-call collection at my property throughout the year when needed 3 = Schedule an appointment for drop-off at City designated location when needed 4 = Participate in a pre-scheduled drop-off event at City designated location $77$&+0(17
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #7
If an on-call bulky item (couch, mattress, washing machine, etc.) pick up program was offered, how likely are you to schedule an appointment? Likely Unlikely
Series1 83.35% 16.65%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
On-Call Bulky Item - Schedule
Appointment
$77$&+0(17
[ ■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #8
If an on-call bulky item pick up had an option to set out up to 2 cubic yards of smaller items in contractor provided bulk bags, how likely are you to use the service to dispose of smaller items?
Likely Unlikely
Series1 68.09% 31.91%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
On-Call Bulky Item - Dispose of Smaller
Items
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #9
Does your household generate large quantities of yard trimmings that do not fit in your green cart?
ABCD
Series1 9.80% 10.14% 15.25% 64.81%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Yard Trimmings - Generate Large
Quantities
A = Yes, in the spring
B = Yes, in the fall
C = Yes, in both the spring and fall
D = No
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #10
During the CUC Program, do you salvage materials that have been set out by other residents to be reused in your home?
YES NO
Series1 29.48% 70.52%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Salvaged Materials for Reuse
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #11
If your household participates in the CUC Program, do you mind if others salvage items that have been set out for collection?
YES NO N/A*
Series1 14.77% 82.07% 3.16%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Salvaged Materials by Others
* N/A – my community does not receive CUC services
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #12
Do you recycle materials through any other reuse, recycle or donation services throughout the year? (for example: Goodwill, Salvation Army, thrift store) YES NO
I DON'T HAVE
REUSABLE
ITEMS
Series1 89.57% 8.10% 2.33%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Other Reuse, Recycle or Donation Services
$77$&+0(17
[ ■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #13
Has your household participated in one of the twice-yearly Citywide Garage Sales? YES NO
NOT
FAMILIAR
WITH THIS
PROGRAM
Series1 11.52% 69.53% 18.95%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Citywide Garage Sales
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #14
Has your household participated in Recology’s Environmental Days? YES NO
NOT
FAMILIAR
WITH THIS
PROGRAM
Series1 19.24% 31.47% 49.29%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Recology's Environmental Days
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #15
Has your household participated in the Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program to dispose of items such as batteries, cleaners, oil, paints, pesticides, etc.?
YES NO
NOT
FAMILIAR
WITH THIS
PROGRAM
Series1 59.60% 19.51% 20.90%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Household Hazardous Waste Program
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Question #16
What is your level of satisfaction with the current format of the CUC Program? YES NO N/A*
Series1 86.16% 9.27% 4.57%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Level of Satisfaction
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Keep the Program
Recommendations
& Requests
Service FeesIllegal Dumping Need More Information
Questions
Cancel the Program
General Subjects
Hazardous Waste Salvage - Scavenge
$77$&+0(17
Common Topics
Keep the Program Recommendations
/Requests Illegal Dumping General (Positive) Service Fees Hazardous Waste Salvage - Scavenge General (Neutral)
Series1 33% 20% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Common Topics
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Common Topics
Unkept
Neighborhoods Damages General
(Negative)
Need More
Information Questions Fines -
Reporting Yard Trimmings Cancel the CUC
Program Safety Concerns
Series1 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
3%
Common Topics
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
Common Topics – Recommendations/Requests
Preference for
On-Call Services
More than one
time a year General Other items for
disposal
Particular time
of year
Adding
neighborhood Free service Shredding
Series1 37% 19% 14% 14% 8% 4% 2% 2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Topics for Recommendations & Requests
$77$&+0(17
■
SCI ConsultingGroup
Publlc finance Con,u lr lng Servico,
1 2
April 18, 2023
• Background
• Current Cleanup Campaign
Item No. 2 - 23-1171
Cleanup Campaign
Alternatives and
Community Survey
Results
City Council Meeting
April 18, 2023
Item: No. 2 - 23-1171
• Bulky Waste Collection Programs in Other Cities
• Community Engagement and Survey Results
• Conclusions
POST MEETING MATERIAL 1
3 4
Background
• Solid waste services - 47,000 households (23,561 accts.) • Cleanup Campaign (CUC) conducted since 1961
-Approximately 5,000 - 6,000 tons collected annually
• 33,000 households participate in CUC
• 14,000 households do not participate in CUC
- Inadequate space for set-outs and collection
- Do not pay monthly $6.28 charge
Background
• May 25, 2021 - City Council directed staff to:
- Hire a consultant
- Identify alternatives to current CUC format
- Conduct a custome r survey
- Report results to Council
• R3 Consulting Group (R3) hired to:
-Analyze programs used by other cities
- Estimate cost of potential alternatives
- Identify advantages/disadvantage of alternatives
- Conduct a customer survey
2 Current Cleanup Campaign
5 • One Month Program
• City divided into 4 collection areas
• Debris placed on street (unlimited amount)
- C&D debris required to be contained in a bulk bag
- $25/cy charge assessed for C&D setouts over 1 cy
• Collection performed by:
- DPW Staff & As Needed resources
- Trucking Compan ies
- County Services for HHW
- MTWS appliance/tire/yardwaste/recyclables pick up
• Cost - $2.5 million funded by $6.28/mo. rate
6 3
7 8
• Other communities providing similar service
- Campbell, Citrus Heights, Inglewood, and Central Contra Costa County SWMA • Advantages:
- Access to transportation not necessary
- Lowest outreach efforts required
- High program satisfaction rate
- Less illegal dumping
- Lower cost alternative
• Disadvantages:
- Others outside the City dumping
- Material in street
- DPW staff reprioritized for the month
- One event per year
Bulky Waste Collection
Programs Used in Other Cities
4 9
10 On-Call Collection
• Scheduled collection by appointment
• Convenient for customers to schedule when
they need service ( ~ 2-3 weeks)
• Flexibility on options
- Bulky items only / debris bags / combination
- Limited or unlimited number of appointments
• MTWS Current Program
- $148.51 per pickup paid by customer
- 145 customers have utilized service over last 2 yrs
- Only 5 of 106 HOAs have authorized this service
On-Call Collection
• Communities providing on-call collection service:
9 - San Jose , Mountain View, Palo Alto , Milpitas, Los Altos , Oakland , San Francisco , Vallejo , Fairfield , San Rafael and joint power authorities in San Mateo and Contra Costa counties • Cost Estimate (one collection per year):
- $10.00- $11 .20 per month at 80-90% participation rate - $5.00 - $ 5.60 per month at 40-45 % participation rate • Advantages:
- Access to transportation not necessary
- Available all year
- Less dumping from non-residents
- Lower impact to DPW staffing
Disadvantages :
- HOA permission needed
- Potential for higher costs ,o
5 11
12 • Residents drop off material at a waste
facility at no cost
- Amount of material is limited
- Residency verified
• City currently offers 2 disposal days at
the Mission Trail Transfer Station per year if'Pil,i~ii:~111111! - No added charge for drop off
- Limited to 7 cy of material
- 206 residents per event on average
- New agreement or amend current
agreement to expand service
• Communities providing drop-off service:
- Oakland, Fairfield, Vallejo
• Cost Estimate ( one drop off per year):
- $1.50 - $2.45 per month at 40% - 45% participation
- $3.00 - $4.90 per month at 80% - 90% participation
• Advantages:
- Program accessible to all residents, including higher density multi-family dwellings - Available throughout the year
- Less illegal dumping
- Low impact to DPW staffing
- Lowest cost
• Disadvantages:
- Residents need access to transportation
- Additional effort to outreach customers to participate 11 12
6 13
14 Debris Box Events
• Debris boxes placed in neighborhoods or at a single
designated location
• Customers transport and unload their materials
• Events are labor-intensive to plan, set-up and require substantial public outreach
• Number of events per year can vary, but service would not be provided to entire community annually
(more frequent events= higher costs)
• Neighboring cities have moved towards on-call
collection and away from debris box events
• May require outside resources to establish a program
Debris Box Events
• Communities conducting limited Debris Box Events:
- Milpitas , San Jose, San Francisco , San Rafael, Berkeley • Cost Estimate:
- $3.50 - $3.90 per month if neighborhood provided an event once in five years - $17.30 - $19.50 per month if provided annually to each neighborhood • Advantages:
- Program accessible to all residents , including high density multi-family - Less illegal dumping
• Disadvantages:
- Residents need access to transportation
- Limited availability
- Highest staffing level requirements , impact to DPW staffing , and cost u 7 15
16 Program Comparison
Characteristics
Transportation limitations
Easily available to high-density
dwelling residents
Discourages dumping from Non-
residents
Available year-round
Commonly used in other jurisdictions
Monthly cost at 80-90% participation
Outreach needed
Impacts on current DPW staffing
On-call
collection (1)
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
$10.00-$11.20
Medium
Low
Drop-off (1)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
$3.00 - $4.90
Low
Low
Annual debris
box
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
$17.30 - $19.50
High
High
No
No
No
No
No
$6.28
Low
High
Community Engagement and
Survey Results
15 16
8 17
Community Engagement
• Three community meetings held
- April 20, 2022 (2 meetings) and April 25, 2022 (1 meeting) - Approximately 65 residents attended the three meetings • Demonstrated strong support for the CUC
- Participants voiced concerns about changes to the program - Participants gave positive feedback on scavenging
• Like having items scavenged from their pile and enjoy scavenging • Complaints about scavenging during CUC
• Feedback from meetings informed survey development
- Survey question included to gauge community's feelings on scavenging Customer Survey
• Topics
- Familiarity with current CUC
- Program usage and satisfaction
- Preference for alternatives
- Participation in Citywide Garage Sales, Environmental Days and County HHW Program
• Mailed to all 23,561 residential accounts
- 5,169 completed surveys received (21 .9% response rate) - Higher than anticipated response rate (10%)
18 17
18 9
19 20
Survey Findings
• Use of CUC program to dispose of the following items:
- 90% Small items
- 78% Bulky items
- 60% Yard trimmings
- 34% C&D waste
• Participation rates in other City sponsored disposal events - 12% Twice-a-year Citywide Garage Sale
- 19% Recology Environmental Days (2 per year)
- 60% Santa Clara County Household Hazardous Waste Program Survey Preferences
Residents that currently participate in the CUC ranked the four collection program options for bulky items as follows:
1. Participate in a City-organized pre-scheduled collection at my property (current CUC format)
2 . Schedule an on-call collection at my property throughout the year when needed
3. Schedule an appointment for drop-off at City-designated location when needed
4. Participate in a pre-scheduled debris box drop-off event at City designated location
** Residents that don't a1tici ate in CUC refered #2
)9
20 10
Survey Results
Are you aware the City of Santa Clara has a CUC program? 100.00% 94.08%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00% 4.54% 1.38%
0.00%
Yes No I don't know 21
21 Survey Results
How often does your household participate in the CUC?
100.00%
90.00% 87.41%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00% 5.49% 3.00% 4.10%
0.00%
Annually Every 2 to 3 years Less than every 3 years Have never participa!ed 22 22 11
23 24
Survey Results
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
During the CUC program, do you salvage materials that have been set out by other residents to be reused in your home?
70.52%
29.48%
n
Yes No
Survey Results
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
If your household participates in the CUC program, do you mind if others salvage items that are set out for collection?
82.07%
14.77%
3.16%
23 Yes No N/A - doesn't receive CUC services 2•
12 100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
25 26
Are you satisfied with the current format of the CUC
program?
86.16%
9.27%
4.57%
Yes No NIA - doesn't receive CUC services 2s
Conclusions
13 27
28 Conclusions
• Current Hybrid approach is optimal and desired by residents - Includes pick-up (CUC/on call collection) and drop-off options - Increased promotion of existing programs to expand use • MTWS on-call collection program
• Disposal Days at MTTS (no additional charge)
• Recology Environmental Days
• Citywide Garage Sales
• City could add more disposal days at MTTS
- Additional cost incorporated into customer rates
- Council would need to direct staff to negotiate and approve a separate agreement or amendment with MTWS
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
27 14
Cleanup Campaign Alternatives and Community Survey Results Responses to Questions from Councilmembers
April 18, 2023 (File 23-1171)
Councilmember Jain
1. What are participation rates from other on-call programs?
Participation rates vary widely from program to program. Examples: San Rafael – 10%; Alameda – 30%; Los Altos – 70%
2. Does the $6.28 monthly Cleanup Campaign (CUC) charge include the two free disposal events at the Mission Trail Transfer Station (MTTS)?
The $6.28 monthly CUC charge does not fund the free disposal events at the MTTS.
The free disposal events are a service provided by Mission Trail Waste Systems (MTWS) at no explicit extra charge as required in its exclusive franchise collection agreement with the City. These events are available to all residents regardless of whether or not they pay the monthly CUC charge.
3. Can additional promotion be done to advertise the free disposal events at the MTTS and the On-Call collection?
Additional promotion of the free disposal events and MTWS On-Call collection program through social media and the City’s website can be conducted.
4. Wasn’t the main motivation from moving away from the CUC due to fines from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and requirements to install full trash capture devices in storm drains?
In 2014 the City received a complaint forwarded by the RWQCB of 27 instances in which potential storm drain discharge violations were noted during a rain event due to CUC setouts. The City investigated all 27 instances, issued enforcement actions for applicable violations and submitted a report detailing the investigations and actions. Additionally, in 2015 the City moved the CUC start date out of the rainy season (it used to start in the March/April timeframe) to a May start date and instituted a new requirement to place construction and demolition (C&D) debris in bulk bags. The City did not receive any further action from the RWQCB after submitting a response. However, it was because of this RWQCB complaint that the City launched the previous 2014 review of CUC alternatives.
Trash capture devices that have been installed in catch basins are not associated with the CUC. They have been installed to meet certain requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit that the City must follow.
Councilmember Hardy
1. Why don’t other cities provide CUC’s similar to ours?
The CUC is a very large undertaking and it would be challenging for another jurisdiction to implement a similar program starting from scratch. The program requires a staff of approximately 40 Department of Public Works (DPW) employees on a daily basis for four (4) weeks. DPW defers most non-safety sensitive maintenance activities during the CUC. Additionally, in advance of the CUC, agreements for equipment rental, trucking services and additional as-needed labor need to be procured.
2. Is the CUC sustainable after Newby Island Landfill closes?
DPW is developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for disposal and composting services to enter into a long-term agreement(s) following the December 31, 2024 expiration of the current agreement to use Newby Island Landfill. Staff believes that there is enough capacity and interest in the disposal community to continue the current CUC program for the foreseeable future.
3. What is the amount paid by other cities per resident for on-call services?
This is unknown. Other cities with on-call programs do not separately identify this cost in their collection agreements. It is a required service in the agreement and the costs are embedded into rates of service paid to the collection contractor.
4. Are the free disposal days at the MTTS different from the free household hazardous waste (HHW) drop-off events?
The HHW drop-off events are conducted by the County of Santa Clara and are separate from the free disposal days at the MTTS.
5. The community survey responses were self-selected. Only those with very strong opinions chose to respond.
The 21% response rate was much higher than the 10% response rate targeted. The community support for the CUC is strong, given an 86% approval rating of those responding.
6. Unclear on the number residents who have the CUC?
There are approximately 47,000 households that receive solid waste services from the City. Approximately 33,000 of them pay for and receive CUC services and approximately 14,000 do not receive the service and therefore do not pay for it.
7. There is illegal dumping in non-residential areas which residents are paying for, particularly by Wilcox High School along Calabazas Boulevard.
Staff acknowledges there are multiple non-residential locations that are illegal dumping targets during the CUC. Those areas are collected during the CUC. DPW also receives calls throughout the year regarding illegal dumping taking place city-wide and responds to those complaints as they arise.
Councilmember Becker
1. How do residents that don’t have access to the CUC dispose of junk?
Residents can use the free disposal days at MTTS, make an appointment through MTWS for an on-call collection, or make other arrangements outside of the options provided by the City.
2. How does enforcement of illegal dumping happen?
The Police Department is responsible for enforcement of illegal dumping. Persons caught in the act of illegal dumping can be cited.
3. Can the Police Department be informed of illegal dumping hotspots in advance and can revenue be developed from fines issued?
DPW staff can provide the Police Department with known hotspots for illegal dumping in advance of specific collection weeks and request that these locations be patrolled more frequently.
4. Can the City provide more outreach on upcycling and reuse?
DPW staff can look for additional ways to encourage residents to reuse unwanted items.
It should be noted that both the CUC promotional information in the City calendar and utility bill insert promote the Recyclestuff.org website to look for donation opportunities.
Also, the City intentionally schedules one of the two Citywide Garage Sales in April to provide residents an opportunity to sell unwanted items in advance of the CUC.
5. The HHW outreach needs to be enhanced.
The City promotes the countywide HHW program in every outreach piece produced for the CUC. DPW staff will look for ways to expand the HHW outreach.
Councilmember Watanabe
1. What alternatives are available to residents that don’t have access to the CUC
See Response #1 to question from Councilmember Becker.
2. What is the cost to per pick-up of the on-call program?
The current cost for each on-call collection appointment through MTWS is $148.51.
3. Is the $2.5 million cost of the CUC being subsidized in any way?
No, the CUC is fully funded by the $6.28 per month charge paid by participating households.
4. Do residents that don’t take part in CUC get drop off events for free?
Yes, all residential solid waste customers have access to the 2 drop off events at MTTS at no extra charge.
5. What is the cost to add one more drop off event per year?
DPW will have to engage Mission Trail Waste Systems to determine the cost. However, based on the attendance levels at the current two events it is estimated that it could cost approximately $15,000.
6. There is street and sidewalk damage incurred during the CUC. What can residents do if their sidewalk or curb gets damaged?
Hardscape damage is one of the negative aspects of the CUC. Equipment Operators picking up the debris are highly skilled, but damage does occasionally occur over a 4- week period. Residents can contact DPW at [email protected] or call (408) 615- 3080 to report damages.
Councilmember Chahal
1. Do residents in the Rancho McCormick homeowners association (HOA) pay for CUC? If they don’t have space to set materials out, why are they paying?
Yes, the residents in this complex pay for the CUC. The complex has limited space to set debris on the street but they do each year, so it is applicable to charge them for the service. Staff has reached out to the homeowner’s association (HOA) and offered to provide debris bins on the private property for the complex’s residents to utilize as we do for a few other complexes with similar issues. On April 19, the HOA informed staff that they would like to move forward with staging bins on private property.
2. Is the billing for the CUC in the utility bills or the garbage utility bills?
The CUC charge is a separate line item on residents’ utility bills which also includes electric, water, and solid waste charges.
3. What is the cost of drop-off at the MTTS?
Based on preliminary information provided by MTWS the cost is approximately $65 per resident.
4. What are we doing going forward for illegal dumping?
Illegal dumping happens during the CUC and year-round. That material is picked up and disposed. Staff has and will continue to look at options to add signage, make areas more visible and less attractive for dumping, and will also provide PD with information about areas that are prone to illegal dumping.
Councilmember Park
1. Is the reason that 14,000 residents don’t participate due to access?
The 14,000 residents that don’t participate in the CUC is because they do not have adequate frontage to set out debris on the street or the streets are too narrow for large vehicles and equipment to operate.
2. Do residents that don’t participate in the CUC have access to the free disposal days?
Yes.
3. Scavengers sometimes damage reusable items or make a mess when looking for items to salvage.
Yes, that is an issue that is frequently brought to staff’s attention during the CUC.
However, based on the survey results 82% of respondents do not mind items from their piles being salvaged.
4. There is a significant amount of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) placed out during the CUC.
Acknowledged. All outreach collateral produced to promote the CUC states that the set- out of hazardous waste is prohibited and provides direction to make an appointment with the Countywide HHW Program for disposal. However, during the CUC the County HHW team is called upon to collect any illegally placed HHW that is encountered so that it is properly disposed.
5. How much material can be disposed of through an on-call collection program?
Two cubic yards of loose items can be placed in bulk bags and up to 3 large items are collected through MTWS on-call bulky item collection program.
6. Aren’t there services that pick-up certain items like mattresses for free?
The Center for the Development of Recycling (CDR) which is operated by San Jose State University students has an agreement with the County to maintain a database of locations to recycle/reuse items and host the Recyclestuff.org to provide this information.
Regarding mattresses specifically, the San Jose Conservation Corps recently received grant funding to pick-up and recycle abandoned mattresses at no charge through 2023.
Mayor Gillmor
1. Is there a specific outcome or recommendation from this report?
Staff is not making any recommendation. However, a potential outcome raised in the report is for Council to direct staff to enter into negotiations with MTWS to expand the number of drop-off events at the MTTS to provide more disposal opportunities for residents, particularly those that do not participate in the CUC.
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-841 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Approve Updated Process for Mayor and Council Calling a Special Meeting
BACKGROUND
At the Governance and Ethics Committee (Committee) meeting on June 5, 2023, as part of the 2023 Workplan, the Committee reviewed the process for calling a Special Meeting by the Mayor and City Council. The Committee referred the item to a future City Council meeting for consideration and approval.
DISCUSSION
Section 708 of the Charter of the City of Santa Clara (“City Charter”) provides that “special meetings may be called at any time by the Mayor or by four members of the City Council in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, specifically Government Code Section 54956.” Government Code Section 54956 outlines the process for making sure the public has adequate notice of a special meeting called by the Mayor or the City Council. It does not, however, dictate a process for how cities administer the request for and scheduling of a special meeting. This is left to the cities themselves.
The City of Santa Clara currently uses a Request to Call and Notice a Special Meeting form, which is submitted to the City Manager and Assistant City Clerk to request a Special Meeting (Attachment 1).
While not legally required, the form was created to assist in the administration of scheduling special meetings when proposed by four members of the City Council.
At the June 5, 2023 Committee meeting, staff was directed to survey other cities regarding their process for scheduling special meetings. We have not found that other cities have a formalized process for the scheduling of special meetings and typically coordinate special meetings in coordination with the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk.
After reviewing the current form and process, the City Manager and City Attorney expressed some potential improvements in the policies and process language provided in the existing form. Proposed improvements included a requirement for upfront consultations with executive staff to determine the necessity and best timing for any proposed special meeting and having only one City Councilperson submit the request. Although discussing only the scheduling of a special meeting is not out of compliance with the Brown Act, having four councilmember signatures on a form may be perceived as four councilmembers consulting on the special meeting topic in the preparation of the request.
Additional language provides for modifications in the process where the City Manager or City City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-841 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
Attorney might be the subject of the special meeting to avoid conflicts.
To address these and other coordination issues, staff is proposing revisions to the current process for requesting a special meeting, as reflected on the updated form.
Proposed Process for Calling a Special Meeting
The proposed process provides for better Council-Executive staff coordination and scheduling, with the updated form (Attachment 2) including provisions for prior consultations with the City Manager/City Attorney. This process is meant to streamline and not create additional barriers to set a special meeting.
City Councilmember
1. Prior to requesting a special meeting, the Councilmember proposing such meeting will first consult with the City Manager and City Attorney to review the proposed subject and timing of the meeting.
2. If the Councilmember desires to proceed with their request, they will complete and submits the special meeting request form to City Manager and City Attorney. (See updated form, Attachment 2)
3. City Manager, or their designee, will poll the rest of the City Council to determine if there is interest and availability for the proposed special meeting.
4. If three or more additional councilmembers indicate their approval to schedule the meeting, the City Manager will direct staff to schedule and publicly notice the special meeting in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.
Mayor
1. Prior to requesting a special meeting, the Mayor will first consult the City Manager and City Attorney to review the proposed subject and timing of the meeting.
2. If the Mayor desires to proceed with their request, they will complete and submit the special meeting request form to City Manager and/or City Attorney.
3. City Manager will direct staff to schedule and publicly notice the special meeting.
The form also provides for a slightly modified process where the special meeting involves issues directly affecting the City Manager or the City Attorney in order to avoid conflicts of interest. As per the revised form, “In the event of a conflict with the City Manager and/or City Attorney, Mayor/Councilmember may exclude the conflicted individual or consult the next senior official (i.e.
Assistant City Attorney or Assistant City Manager) and the Human Resources Director.” The proposed updated form also includes admonitions for Councilmembers not to discuss the subject matter of any proposed special meeting among themselves in violation of the Brown Act.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is an information report only and no action is being taken by the City Council and no environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-841 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
There is no fiscal impact to the City other than staff time.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney and City Manager’s Offices.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the proposed process and updated form for calling a special meeting.
Reviewed by: Elizabeth Klotz, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Glen Googins, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS
1. Request to Call and Notice a Special Meeting Form (Current)
2. Request to Call and Notice a Special Meeting Form (Proposed) City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
REQUEST TO CALL AND NOTICE
A SPECIAL MEETING
TO CITY MANAGER AND ASSISTANT CITY CLERK:
NOTICE IS HEREBYBY GIVEN that, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 54956 (“The Brown Act”) and Section 708 of the Santa Clara City Charter, the undersigned(s) calls for a Special Meeting of the:
City Council of the City of Santa Clara
Board of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Other (please designate): Governing Board of the:
o Sports and Open Space Authority
o City of Santa Clara Housing Authority
o Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority
o Public Facilities Financing Corporation
o Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency
Date and Time Requested: ______________________________________________________ Subject matter(s) and to potentially take action with respect to them:
_____________________________________________________________________________ Councilmembers Requesting a Special Meeting:
As reference, Section 708 of the Charter of the City of Santa Clara California (“City Charter”) provides: “Special meetings may be called at any time by the Mayor, or by four members of the City Council pursuant to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, specifically Government Code Section 54956.
Counci
lmember: __________________ ______________________ _________ Name Signature Date
Cou
ncilmember: __________________ ______________________ _________ Name Signature Date
Cou
ncilmember: __________________ ______________________ _________ Name Signature Date
Cou
ncilmember: __________________ ______________________ _________ Name Signature Date
Mayor
Requesting a Special Meeting:
As reference, Section 708 of the Charter of the City of Santa Clara California (“City Charter”) provides: “Special meetings may be called at any time by the Mayor, or by four members of the City Council pursuant to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act, specifically Government Code Section 54956.
Mayor: __
________________ ______________________ _________
Name Signature Date
CURRENT FORM
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL MEETING
TO CITY MANAGER AND/OR CITY ATTORNEY:
Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 54956 (“The Brown Act”) and Section 708 of the Santa Clara City
Charter, the undersigned is requesting a Special
Meeting of the:
City Council of the City of Santa Clara
Board of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority
Other (please designate): Governing Board of the:
o Sports and Open Space Authority
o City of Santa Clara Housing Authority
o Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority
o Public Facilities Financing Corporation
o Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency
Date and Time Requested: _____________________________________________________ Subject matter(s) and proposed action(s) (if any):
Councilmember: __________________ ______________________ _________ Name Signature D ate
Mayor: __________________ ______________________ _________ or Name Signature Date
Requesting Party:
Name
Form Submission Process
1. Prior to requesting a special meeting, the Mayor/Councilmember proposing such meeting will first consult with the City Manager and City Attorney to review the proposed subject and timing of the meeting.
In the event of a conflict with the City Manager and/or City Attorney, Mayor/ Councilmember may exclude the conflicted individual or consult the next senior official (i.e.
Assistant City Attorney or Assistant City Manager) and the Human Resources Director.
2. If the Mayor/Councilmember desires to proceed with their request, they will complete and submits the special meeting request form to City Manager and City Attorney.
3. Councilmember Request:
a. City Manager, or their
designee, will poll the rest of the City Council to determine if there is interest and availability for the proposed special meeting. b. If three or more additional councilmembers indicate their approval to schedule the
meeting, the City Manager will direct staff to schedule and publicly notice the special meeting in accordance with Government Code Section 54956
4. Mayor Request:
a. City Manager will dir
ect staff to schedule and publicly notice the special meeting in accordance with Government Code Section 54956.
REMINDER: While scheduling discussions are allowed, Government Code section 54952.2 prohibits a majority of the City Council from having substantive discuss
ions on the subject matter of any proposed special meeting outside of a publicly noticed meeting.
PROPOSED REVISED FORM
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-814 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Discuss and Consider the Creation of an Independent Ethics Commission REPORT
BACKGROUND
At the June 5, 2023 Governance and Ethics Committee, Committee Member Mayor Lisa Gillmor brought forth an item to discuss and consider modification to the Governance and Ethics Committee workplan, or to consider an alternative process, to evaluate the creation of an independent Ethics Commission. The Committee held a robust discussion on the ethics program for the City of Santa Clara including the recommendation from the Civil Grand Jury report to establish an Independent Ethics Commission, and the City’s response to the Grand Jury Report which states that such a group would overlap the purpose of the City’s existing Governance and Ethics Committee and was therefore not warranted. By unanimous vote, the Committee acted to refer the discussion regarding the possible creation of an Independent Ethics Commission to the full City Council.
As background, in March 2000 the City of Santa Clara adopted an updated Code of Ethics & Values, which was later modified by Council in August 2001. The City’s Code of Ethics and Values was designed to increase public trust and confidence in government by promoting and maintaining the highest standards of personal and professional conduct among the people who work in or represent the City. The City also worked with the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University on the Code of Ethics & Values.
DISCUSSION
To facilitate the discussion on evaluating the creation of a new commission or committee, the Council may consider the following:
1. Role: What role would the commission serve? For example, in some jurisdictions, ethics boards are given the authority enforce a jurisdiction’s ethics regulations in response to complaints. In others, ethics boards are responsible only for reviewing ethics policies and recommending training and education. Others assign their ethics boards both functions. If an enforcement function were to be assigned the City’s ethics code would require revisions to make standards for compliance more clear.
2. Jurisdiction: What topics would the commission be responsible for addressing? Many “ethics” laws and standards are already addressed by other state agencies. For example, the State’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is responsible for advising, regulating and enforcing the following topics:
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-814 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
· Financial conflict of interest
· Lobbyist registration and reporting
· Revolving Door Matters
· Mass Mailing
· Gift and Honoraria issues
· Campaign Finance
3. Authority: What powers should the commission have?
· The ability to initiate investigations?
· Subpoena authority?
· Referral authority to other governing agencies (e.g., the FPPC, the DA or the Attorney General)?
· Ability to determine and impose fines or penalties?
· Should its determinations be appealable?
4. Selection Process: What would the composition, appointment process, and qualifications be for commission members?
5. Resources Required: What staffing will be required to serve the commission? Will the commission require independent legal counsel?
6. Outside Experts: Should the City consultant with outside experts (e.g., the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University)
7. Alternatives: Is there an existing City entity (e.g., the Governance and Ethics Committee), or some other alternative to an Independent Ethics Commission, that could better perform one of more of the desired roles?
Should the City Council wish to proceed with exploring an Independent Ethics Commission, staff requests that the Council provide direction to staff on these and other foundational issues. As appropriate, staff could then come back with a more detailed presentation including more detailed questions, examples of other ethics commission structures and roles, an outline of required next steps, and a projection of the ongoing City resources required to support such a group.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is an information report only and no action is being taken by the City Council and no environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact other than administrative staff time.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated between the City Manager’s and City Attorney’s offices.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-814 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no recommendation.
Reviewed by: Maria Le, Assistant to City Manager, Mayor and Council Office Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager, City Manager’s Office City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-872 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD
SUBJECT
Action on a Written Petition (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Mayor Gillmor and Councilmember Watanabe Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Schedule a Special Meeting to Receive a Detailed Report from MANCO, the New Stadium Manager and Staff including the Police Department to Discuss the operations of the Stadium both inside and outside in the Surrounding Community as it Relates to the Soccer Match which took place on July 2, 2023 between Mexico and Qatar
BOARD PILLARS
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
BACKGROUND
Council Policy 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda (Attachment 1) sets forth the procedure for written petitions. Any member of the public or Council may submit a written request raising any issue or item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Per the policy, the written request will be submitted on the agenda, in the form substantially provided by the requestor, without any staff analysis, including fiscal review, legal review and policy review. If a simple majority of the City Council supports further study of the request, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30) days, unless otherwise directed by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The City Clerk’s Office received a Council Written Request on July 5, 2023 requesting to place an agenda item at a future council meeting (Attachment 2).
In the Council Policy 030 request, Mayor Gillmor and Councilmember Watanabe state the following:
We are requesting that the City Council/Stadium Authority schedule a Special Meeting as soon as possible to receive a detailed report from MANCO, the new stadium manager and our staff including our police department to discuss the operations of the stadium both inside and outside in the surrounding community.
Most particularly the soccer match that took place on July 2nd between Mexico and Qatar and the issues that occurred including:
Fan violence both inside and outside the stadium.
Lack of neighborhood protection including parking, noise and other unsavory behavior, left-over garbage, and non-existent security.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
23-872 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
Illegal vendors outside the stadium, on public streets and in the residential neighborhoods.
Illegal activities such as alcohol and other sales, disposing of garbage many times in front of stadium security.
Inoperative magnetometers at entrance to stadium that resulted in stadium security using a hand wand to screen ticket holders or ticket purchasers going to the Box Office.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact other than administrative staff time.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff makes no recommendation.
Prepared by: Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Policy and Procedure 030-Adding an item on the Agenda
2. Written Petition submitted by Mayor Gillmor and Councilmember Watanabe dated July 5, 2023 City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION NO. 20-8895
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA TO REPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 20-8809,
AMEND COUNCIL POLICY 030 ENTITLED "ADDING AN ITEM
ON THE AGENDA," AND APPROVE THE COUNCIL ITEM
REQUEST FORM
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, amending the policy on adding an item on the agenda to establish a clear, effective and easily understood process for members of the City Council and the public to have items within the jurisdiction of the City Council placed on a meeting agenda; WHEREAS, the amended version of the Adding an Item on the Agenda policy expands on the current policy language by clearly stating that, when a written request is first considered, discussion should be limited to whether an item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item; and,
WHEREAS, the amended Adding an Item on the Agenda policy, attached hereto as Attachment
1, includes a Council Item Request Form for the City Council's use when requesting an item for inclusion on a Council meeting agenda and adds the procedure for written requests from members of the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. That Resolution No. 20-8809 is hereby rescinded in its entirety.
2. That amended Council Policy 030 entitled "Adding an Item on the Agenda" with the Council Item Request Form, attached hereto as Attachment 1, is hereby approved and adopted, and the City Manager is directed to number (and renumber, as appropriate) the Council Policy Manual such that they are organized in a logical fashion.
II
II
II
Resolution/Amending Adding an Item on the Agenda Policy and Approving Council Item Request Form Page 1 of 2 Rev: 11 /22/17
3. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 27rH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
Attachments incorporated by reference:
Chahal, Davis, Hardy, O'Neill, and Watanabe,
and Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None
ORA PIMENTEL, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
1. Council Policy 030 entitled "Adding an Item on the Agenda" Resolution/Amending Adding an Item on the Agenda Policy and Approving Council Item Request Form Page 2 of 2 Rev: 11 /22/17
City of
Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
The Center of What's Possible
PURPOSE
POLICY
ADDING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
To establish a clear, effective, and easily understood process for members of the City Council and the public to have items, within the jurisdiction of the City Council, placed on the City Council agenda for consideration.
Members of the City Council:
The Mayor or any individual Councilmember may submit a written request by using the Council Item Request Form to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a City Council agenda, provided the request is received two (2) days prior to the public release of the agenda packet. At the meeting where the request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item.
Referral from a Council Committee:
Council Committees may submit a written request to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a City Council agenda, provided the request is received two (2) days prior to the public release of the agenda packet. ·
Council Committees may bring forward a recommendation to the full City Council by way of the Committee minutes, which are typically prepared within three weeks following the Committee meeting.
Items Referred During a Council Meeting:
By Council action, an item may be referred to the City Manager for inclusion on a City Council agenda. If the request requires further study of the item from staff, a full analysis shall be prepared at the direction of the City Manager with at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the meeting, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. If the request requires more than thirty (30) calendar days to prepare, status updates will be provided to the City Council every sixty (60) days as an informational memo.
Revised 10/27/2020
Resolution No. 20-8895
CP 030 Page 1 of 3
City of
Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
The Center of What's Possi ble
PROCEDURE
FOR WRITTEN
PETITIONS
ADD ING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Written Petitions and Public Presentations:
Any member of the public may submit a written request raising any issue or item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council to be heard under the "Written Petition" section of the City Council's regular agenda within two (2) Council meetings after received. After the initial Written Petition is placed on the agenda, a majority vote of the City Council may add the item to a future Council meeting for action. Any member of the public may address the City Council under the "Public Presentations" section of the agenda. If the presentation includes a request of the Council, a majority vote of the City Council may refer the item to the City Manager to be properly added to a future meeting, in compliance with the Brown Act.
1. All requests to address the City Council shall be submitted in writing.
Written Petition forms are available for the petitioner's convenience on the City's website and in the City Manager's Office, City Clerk's Office, and the Mayor and Council Offices. Alternatively, an email may be submitted to [email protected] .
2. Once the Written Petition is received by the City Clerk's Office, it should immediately be forwarded to the City Manager for placement on an agenda within two (2) Council meetings after receipt of the original request from the City Clerk's Office. All written material (request and any support material) will be submitted on the agenda in the form substantially provided by the requester without any staff analysis, including fiscal review, legal review and policy review, until the City Council has had the opportunity to provide direction to the City Manager.
3. At the meeting where the item is first considered, if a majority of the City Council supports further study of the item, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30) days, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. Discussion should be limited to whether an item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item.
Revised 10/27/2020
Resolution No. 20-8895
CP 030 Page 2 of 3
City of
Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
The Center of What's Possible
PROCEDURE
FOR WRITTEN
REQUESTS
FROM CITY
COUNCIL
ADD ING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
1. Members of the City Council shall use the Council Item Request Form to submit a written request for inclusion of an item on a future City Council agenda.
2. Once the Council Item Request Form is received by the City Clerk's Office, it should immediately be forwarded to the City Manager for placement on an agenda within two (2) Council meetings after receipt of the original request from the City Clerk's Office. All written material (Council Item Request Form and any support material) will be submitted on the agenda in the form substantially provided by the requester without any staff analysis, including fiscal review, legal review and policy review, until the City Council has had the opportunity to provide direction to the City Manager.
3. At the meeting where the item is first considered, if a majority of the City Council supports further study of the item, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30) days, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. Discussion should be limited to whether an item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item.
Attachments: Council Item Request Form
Revised 10/27/2020
Resolution No. 20-8895
CP 030 Page 3 of 3
City of
Santa Clara
The Ce nter of What's Possi ble
COUNCIL ITEM REQUEST FORM
The Council Item Request Form is for members of the City Council to submit written requests to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a future City Council meeting agenda. At the meeting where the initial written request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item. A majority vote of the City Council is required for the item to be added to future Council meeting agenda for action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Requesting Member of City Council --------------------
Contact E-mail ___________________________ _
Contact Phone ____ _ ______________________ _
Today's Date ____________________________ _
WRITTEN REQUEST
I, __________________ , hereby request that the following item be placed on the City of Santa Clara Council and Authorities Concurrent meeting agenda:
Reference: Council Policy 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda Resolution No. 20-8895
' '
I •
City of
Santa Clara
Tl10Conlor ol WhDl 's Posclulo
COUNCiL ITEM REQU EST FORM
2023 .JIil - 5 Pll 3: 52
The Council Item Request Form is for members of the City Coun cil to submit writt en requests to the City Manager's Offi ce for inclusion of an item on a futu're City Council meeting agend a. At the meeting where the initi al written request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item. A majority vote of the City Council is required for th e item to be adde d to future Coun cil meeting age nd a for action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Requesting Member of City Council Mayor Lisa Gillmor and Councilmember Kathy Watanabe contact E-mail Lgillmor @san taclaraca.gov
Contact Phone 408-941-5395
Today 's Date July 5, 2023
WRITTEN REQUEST
----
1, Mayor Gillmor and Counci lmember Watanabe , hereby request that the following item be placed on the City of Santa Clara Council and Authorities Concurrent meeting agenda:
See Below
We are requesting that the City Council/Stadium Authority schedule a Special Meeting as soon as possible to receive a detailed report from MANCO, the new stadium manager and our staff including our police department to discuss the operations of the stadium both inside and outside in the surrounding community .
Most particularly the soccer match that took place on July 2nd between Mexico and Qatar and the issues that occurred including:
Fan violence both inside and outside the stadium .
Lack of neighborhood protection including parking, noise and other unsavory behavior, left over garbage, and non-existent security.
Illegal vendors outside the stadium, on public streets and in the residentia l neighborhoods .
Illegal activities such as alcohol and other sales, disposing of garbage many times in front of stadium security.
Inoperative magnetometers at entran ce to stadium that resulted in stadium security using a hand wand to screen ticket holders or ticket purcha sers going to the Box Office.
Reference: Council Policy 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda Resolution No. 20-8895
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-871 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Action on a Written Petition (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Councilmember Jain Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Establish a Budget for Support of Public Meetings, Outreach, for the Charter Review Committee, City Webpages, and the Cost of Placing Measures on the Ballot
BOARD PILLARS
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
BACKGROUND
Council Policy 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda (Attachment 1) sets forth the procedure for written petitions. Any member of the public or Council may submit a written request raising any issue or item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. Per the policy, the written request will be submitted on the agenda, in the form substantially provided by the requestor, without any staff analysis, including fiscal review, legal review and policy review. If a simple majority of the City Council supports further study of the request, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30) days, unless otherwise directed by the City Council.
DISCUSSION
The City Clerk’s Office received a Council Written Request on July 5, 2023 requesting to place an agenda item at a future council meeting to establish a budget for support of public meetings, outreach, support for the CRC, City webpages, and the cost of placing measures on the ballot. (Attachment 2).
In the Council Policy 030 request, Councilmember Jain states the following:
On June 24, 2022, I submitted a 030 for the Council to consider ballot measure to change the Chief of Police and City Clerk positions from elected to appointed. On August 30, 2022 the City Council voted to place this item on a future Council agenda for action.
On June 6, 2023, Council held a study session to discuss possible actions including creating a Charter Review Committee.
At the June 6th, 2023 Council meeting, the council took specific actions and gave direction to staff.
First, we voted that the City Council may take actions during the Study session.
Staff had a presentation with questions and options for Council direction as well as a schedule of deadlines to meet the March 5th, 2024 election.
City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
23-871 Agenda Date: 7/11/2023
Council voted to establish a Charter Review Committee (CRC) that would look at possible charter amendments for both Police Chief and City Clerk on the March 5th, 2024 ballot. Council also voted that each Councilmember would appoint one resident from their district to a 7 member CRC with the Mayor appointing an at-large member.
Given that the Council has already directed staff to proceed with forming and supporting a CRC, I'm now asking that we place on a future agenda an action item to establish a budget for support of public meetings, outreach, support for the CRC, City webpages, and the cost of placing measures on the ballot.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact other than administrative staff time.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff makes no recommendation.
Prepared by: Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Policy and Procedure 030-Adding an item on the Agenda
2. Written Petition submitted by Councilmember Jain dated July 4, 2023 City of Santa Clara Printed on 7/6/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
RESOLUTION NO. 20-8895
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA TO REPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 20-8809,
AMEND COUNCIL POLICY 030 ENTITLED "ADDING AN ITEM
ON THE AGENDA," AND APPROVE THE COUNCIL ITEM
REQUEST FORM
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, amending the policy on adding an item on the agenda to establish a clear, effective and easily understood process for members of the City Council and the public to have items within the jurisdiction of the City Council placed on a meeting agenda; WHEREAS, the amended version of the Adding an Item on the Agenda policy expands on the current policy language by clearly stating that, when a written request is first considered, discussion should be limited to whether an item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item; and,
WHEREAS, the amended Adding an Item on the Agenda policy, attached hereto as Attachment
1, includes a Council Item Request Form for the City Council's use when requesting an item for inclusion on a Council meeting agenda and adds the procedure for written requests from members of the City Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. That Resolution No. 20-8809 is hereby rescinded in its entirety.
2. That amended Council Policy 030 entitled "Adding an Item on the Agenda" with the Council Item Request Form, attached hereto as Attachment 1, is hereby approved and adopted, and the City Manager is directed to number (and renumber, as appropriate) the Council Policy Manual such that they are organized in a logical fashion.
II
II
II
Resolution/Amending Adding an Item on the Agenda Policy and Approving Council Item Request Form Page 1 of 2 Rev: 11 /22/17
3. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 27rH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
Attachments incorporated by reference:
Chahal, Davis, Hardy, O'Neill, and Watanabe,
and Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None
ORA PIMENTEL, MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
1. Council Policy 030 entitled "Adding an Item on the Agenda" Resolution/Amending Adding an Item on the Agenda Policy and Approving Council Item Request Form Page 2 of 2 Rev: 11 /22/17
City of
Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
The Center of What's Possible
PURPOSE
POLICY
ADDING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
To establish a clear, effective, and easily understood process for members of the City Council and the public to have items, within the jurisdiction of the City Council, placed on the City Council agenda for consideration.
Members of the City Council:
The Mayor or any individual Councilmember may submit a written request by using the Council Item Request Form to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a City Council agenda, provided the request is received two (2) days prior to the public release of the agenda packet. At the meeting where the request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item.
Referral from a Council Committee:
Council Committees may submit a written request to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a City Council agenda, provided the request is received two (2) days prior to the public release of the agenda packet. ·
Council Committees may bring forward a recommendation to the full City Council by way of the Committee minutes, which are typically prepared within three weeks following the Committee meeting.
Items Referred During a Council Meeting:
By Council action, an item may be referred to the City Manager for inclusion on a City Council agenda. If the request requires further study of the item from staff, a full analysis shall be prepared at the direction of the City Manager with at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the meeting, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. If the request requires more than thirty (30) calendar days to prepare, status updates will be provided to the City Council every sixty (60) days as an informational memo.
Revised 10/27/2020
Resolution No. 20-8895
CP 030 Page 1 of 3
City of
Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
The Center of What's Possi ble
PROCEDURE
FOR WRITTEN
PETITIONS
ADD ING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Written Petitions and Public Presentations:
Any member of the public may submit a written request raising any issue or item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council to be heard under the "Written Petition" section of the City Council's regular agenda within two (2) Council meetings after received. After the initial Written Petition is placed on the agenda, a majority vote of the City Council may add the item to a future Council meeting for action. Any member of the public may address the City Council under the "Public Presentations" section of the agenda. If the presentation includes a request of the Council, a majority vote of the City Council may refer the item to the City Manager to be properly added to a future meeting, in compliance with the Brown Act.
1. All requests to address the City Council shall be submitted in writing.
Written Petition forms are available for the petitioner's convenience on the City's website and in the City Manager's Office, City Clerk's Office, and the Mayor and Council Offices. Alternatively, an email may be submitted to [email protected] .
2. Once the Written Petition is received by the City Clerk's Office, it should immediately be forwarded to the City Manager for placement on an agenda within two (2) Council meetings after receipt of the original request from the City Clerk's Office. All written material (request and any support material) will be submitted on the agenda in the form substantially provided by the requester without any staff analysis, including fiscal review, legal review and policy review, until the City Council has had the opportunity to provide direction to the City Manager.
3. At the meeting where the item is first considered, if a majority of the City Council supports further study of the item, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30) days, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. Discussion should be limited to whether an item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item.
Revised 10/27/2020
Resolution No. 20-8895
CP 030 Page 2 of 3
City of
Santa Clara
City of Santa Clara
Council Policy Manual
The Center of What's Possible
PROCEDURE
FOR WRITTEN
REQUESTS
FROM CITY
COUNCIL
ADD ING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA
1. Members of the City Council shall use the Council Item Request Form to submit a written request for inclusion of an item on a future City Council agenda.
2. Once the Council Item Request Form is received by the City Clerk's Office, it should immediately be forwarded to the City Manager for placement on an agenda within two (2) Council meetings after receipt of the original request from the City Clerk's Office. All written material (Council Item Request Form and any support material) will be submitted on the agenda in the form substantially provided by the requester without any staff analysis, including fiscal review, legal review and policy review, until the City Council has had the opportunity to provide direction to the City Manager.
3. At the meeting where the item is first considered, if a majority of the City Council supports further study of the item, then a full staff analysis shall be prepared within thirty (30) days, unless otherwise directed by the City Council. Discussion should be limited to whether an item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item.
Attachments: Council Item Request Form
Revised 10/27/2020
Resolution No. 20-8895
CP 030 Page 3 of 3
City of
Santa Clara
The Ce nter of What's Possi ble
COUNCIL ITEM REQUEST FORM
The Council Item Request Form is for members of the City Council to submit written requests to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a future City Council meeting agenda. At the meeting where the initial written request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item. A majority vote of the City Council is required for the item to be added to future Council meeting agenda for action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Requesting Member of City Council --------------------
Contact E-mail ___________________________ _
Contact Phone ____ _ ______________________ _
Today's Date ____________________________ _
WRITTEN REQUEST
I, __________________ , hereby request that the following item be placed on the City of Santa Clara Council and Authorities Concurrent meeting agenda:
Reference: Council Policy 030 - Adding an Item on the Agenda Resolution No. 20-8895
COUNCIL ITEM REQUEST FORM
1 l ' i '
City of Santa Clara 2023 JUL -s PM 3= 52
l hu Cont a, of Wliot'G l'oGs!IJlo
The Council Item Request Form is for members of the City Council to submit written requests to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a future City Council meeting agenda . At the meeting where the initial written request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date , not the merit of the item. A majority vote of the City Council is required for the item to be added to future Council meeting agenda for action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Requesting Member of City Council : Suds Jain
Contact E-mail [email protected]
Contact Phone: 408-499-2955
Today's Date 7/4/2023
WRlTT EN REQUEST
I, Suds Jain , hereby .request that the following item be placed on the City of Santa Clara Council and Authorities Concurrent meeting agenda :
On June 24, 2022, I submitted a 030 for the Council to consider ballot measure to change the Chief of Police and City Clerk positions from elected to appointed. On August 30, 2022 the City Council voted to place this Item on a futur e Council agenda for action.
On June 6, 2023, Council held a study session to discuss possible action s includin g creating a Charter Review Committ ee.
At the June 61\ 2023 Council meeting, the council took specific actions and gave direction to staff.
First, we voted that the City Council may take actions during the Study session.
Staff had a presentation with questions and options for Council direction as well as a schedu le of deadlines to meet the March 5th, 2024 election.
Council voted to establish a Charter Review Committ ee (CRC) that would look at possible charter amendments for both Police Chief and City Clerk on the March 5111, 2024 ballot. Cou ncil also voted that each Counc ilmember would appoint one resident from their district to a 7 member CRC with the Mayor appointing an at-large member.
Given that the Council has already directed staff to proceed with forming and supporting a CRC, I'm now asking that we place on a future agenda an action item to establish a budget for suppo rt of pub lic meetings, outreach, support for the CRC, City webpages , and the cost of placing mcasLu·es on the ballot.