[4:02] Also
[8:39] >> We are ready when you are.
[8:46] >> Good evening everyone and welcome to the Santa Clara City
[8:50] Council special meeting tonight.
[8:54] We are here at a special time.
[8:58] I would like to call the meeting to order
[9:01] with a confirmation of a quorum.
[9:04] City clerk?
[9:17] Clerk
[9:19] confirming quorum and like to say that Council member Chahal
[9:29] is virtual this >> We will be conducting applicant interviews
[9:35] and appointing two people to the Commission to serve a partial
[9:41] term and one full term for the June 30th to 2030 term.
[9:47] So just for everyone's information,
[9:49] the partial term is potentially the longer term
[9:54] than the full term because you serve a partial
[9:57] and then you're eligible for two full terms after that.
[10:00] So there's a potential for ten years.
[10:03] And the other would be two potential four year
[10:07] appointments.
[10:08] So City Clerk you have some information
[10:21] Clerk: We had four applicants initially
[10:22] and the one withdrew so tonight we have three.
[10:28] Our first is in person and the other two are on Zoom.
[10:33] >> Can you tell us about the process in terms of timing
[10:36] for the presentations?
[10:39] >> They have all been informed of this,
[10:42] they each have a few minutes of introduction followed by council
[10:47] introduction and then one minute closing remarks.
[10:53] And then you will do your nomination for those afterwards.
[10:58] >> Thank you so much, our first candidate is Barbara Estrada,
[11:03] if you would like to come forward please,
[11:04] since you are here in person.
[11:08] Welcome, and when you are ready you can begin.
[11:11] Barbara can you please speak into --
[11:16] pull that microphone over to your mouth so the folks at home
[11:20] can hear you as well.
[11:23] You can rearrange down there, that's okay.
[11:31] >> I wrote a few notes since it's been a long time since
[11:33] I've had to do an interview.
[11:34] Good evening mayor and Council I appreciate your time
[11:37] this evening.
[11:37] I assume that you have my application in front of you,
[11:40] I try to give you as much detailed information
[11:43] regarding me.
[11:44] I've been a resident in the city of Santa Clara for 48 years,
[11:48] I have served on two commissions,
[11:50] eight plus commissions on the senior commission
[11:52] and two plus years as the chair of that commission.
[11:57] I also sat on the redistricting commission
[12:02] to determine those districts.
[12:09] Let me look at my notes here.
[12:13] What kind of experience do I bring to this position?
[12:17] I have a 40 year career in civil service as a state employee.
[12:23] A big portion of my employment during that time
[12:28] I was in HR manager, the last 17 years of my career I
[12:33] was a claims adjuster handling large claims in the system.
[12:39] The last period of time I was a manager at state Compensation.
[12:48] With that, I will talk a bit about my personal experience.
[12:53] I work with pay scales and benefits,
[12:56] I worked with hiring above minimums, budgets,
[13:01] classifications, payroll, all phases of that position.
[13:09] So I am exposed to what we are here talking about tonight,
[13:16] the civil service department.
[13:18] As a workers manager I co-managed
[13:22] a group of 50 people, staff, during that period of time.
[13:26] I retired in 2009.
[13:28] Only I never really retired.
[13:31] So I believe that I bring good communication skills,
[13:36] I believe I am able to work with different people that
[13:40] have different opinions and I hope to bring that forward
[13:46] to this commission.
[13:48] You might ask me a question at some point
[13:52] about what am I currently doing now?
[13:54] I currently oversee Multi-million dollar RV parks
[14:08] for a family in the area, none of them
[14:10] are in the city of Santa Clara.
[14:12] One is in Sunnyvale and one is in --
[14:16] I oversee that process.
[14:18] And you can ask me anything you want about that.
[14:21] But I don't see any conflict.
[14:29] >> Thank you.
[14:30] As you've probably been made aware
[14:31] we have some questions for you.
[14:34] >> I am now.
[14:35] They may have sent them to me.
[14:40] I got them this evening, not because you
[14:44] didn't send them to me I just don't think I saw the email.
[14:47] >> We will start with Vice Mayor Gonzalez to start with the first
[14:52] question for Barbara.
[14:55] Vice Mayor Gonzalez: Thank you Madam Mayor
[14:58] and thank you Barbara for applying.
[15:02] You'll be asked to make decisions
[15:05] about employees and policies, how would you
[15:09] ensure that your decisions are fair and impartial and based
[15:11] on the facts rather than personal relationships
[15:14] or outside pressures?
[15:20] >> Since have to think about this on my feet,
[15:22] I kind of explain to you how worker's Comp worked,
[15:26] as a claims adjuster you have the role of many facets of that
[15:34] picture.
[15:35] The best way I can describe it is
[15:37] that I have a responsibility to the employer,
[15:39] a responsibility to the doctor, a responsibility
[15:42] to the injured worker, and all of the providers
[15:47] that come along with that.
[15:48] And I have a responsibility to my job.
[15:53] If you take all of those facets together
[15:56] you have to figure out how to manage that.
[16:01] And I think that applies to this question.
[16:03] I am a black and white person.
[16:07] I don't work in the gray, I gather all the facts,
[16:12] I gather the information and make the best assessment
[16:17] that I can make.
[16:18] And then I go from there.
[16:20] So I hope that answers your question.
[16:26] >> Thank you and Council member Chahal do you have
[16:31] the questions?
[16:35] Councilmember Chahal: What do you
[16:36] believe is the most important role of a civil service worker,
[16:40] and how would you balance protecting the rights of city
[16:44] employees with the city's responsibility
[16:46] to maintain accountability, high performance and ethics?
[16:52] >> I think it goes back to my answer to the first question.
[16:55] You have to understand what your role is
[16:59] in each of those capacities.
[17:01] And I think that if you stay true to what
[17:07] you know and believe and you learn what the protocol is,
[17:12] and what the facts are then I think you will always
[17:16] stay true to yourself and you will represent the Commission
[17:20] as best you can.
[17:24] Thank you.
[17:26] >> Thank you, Council member Hardy?
[17:29] Councilmember Hardy: Do you have any thoughts
[17:32] about the high vacancy rates of our staff?
[17:39] >> I'm surprised actually, how would I answer that?
[17:43] Since I was in civil service and I loved my job,
[17:49] maybe I made a decision at that point that I would stick with it
[17:54] and I'm grateful that I did because the benefits at the end
[17:59] really paid off.
[18:00] So I'm not sure why the city would have that difficulty.
[18:05] It depends on what areas you are hiring for.
[18:09] Are you hiring for maintenance, clerical?
[18:11] Are you hiring high tech?
[18:14] Depending on the departments you have high vacancies for,
[18:20] but there's many things out there,
[18:23] social media, just how you run the businesses here,
[18:26] it shouldn't be that way.
[18:28] In my opinion.
[18:34] >> Thank you, my question is do you have any thoughts on why it
[18:38] takes so long to hire someone in Santa Clara after a position has
[18:42] been approved and budgeted?
[18:45] >> Do I have any thoughts?
[18:48] Your questions are interesting since I was a personnel manager
[18:54] there shouldn't be any delays.
[18:56] Once you have your funding and your position,
[19:00] once you have your announcement that details all
[19:02] of the positions, I don't know if it's how you're marketing,
[19:05] I'm not sure --
[19:07] I would be happy to look into that for you
[19:09] if I'm appointed to the commission,
[19:11] and to ask questions.
[19:12] I'm good at asking questions.
[19:15] And my opinion it should not be happening.
[19:18] But for some reason I guess it >> Thank you Barbara.
[19:24] And Council member Park you have the final question.
[19:36] Councilmember Park: Thank you for applying and coming
[19:38] in person.
[19:39] Do you have any suggestions for recruiting new employees.
[19:42] >> I think first of all you need to look at what the city is
[19:45] doing to recruit.
[19:46] See if there are more avenues or more exposure,
[19:51] sometimes the bulletins are --
[19:55] I don't want to say they are confusing
[19:57] but they are so legally written that they don't present
[20:03] the position, and the advantages of working for a city
[20:07] or government agency.
[20:08] Since I came out of a government agency
[20:11] I think that they should be utilizing
[20:16] talking to high schools.
[20:19] Some of these kids don't want to go to college
[20:21] but they could have a great career in city government.
[20:25] I think social media, other facets
[20:29] are maybe not being looked at at this point.
[20:31] But I can't tell you why, I don't know
[20:34] what you're currently doing.
[20:39] >> Thank you, now it's time for your closing statement.
[20:41] When you're ready.
[20:45] >> I appreciate coming before you this evening.
[20:47] I believe I am committed to do my best work for the Commission
[20:56] and would be very proud to represent
[20:59] the city of Santa Clara.
[21:00] Thank you.
[21:02] >> Thank you so much Barbara and thank you so much again
[21:05] for coming and participating in this.
[21:06] If you want to hold tight until we finish this,
[21:10] you can stay here.
[21:11] Our next two interviews, the other candidates just listened
[21:15] to you online, so it's okay.
[21:17] We will be making a decision this evening.
[21:19] So just stay with us.
[21:22] City clerk?
[21:29] Clerk: Thank you our next candidate
[21:30] is online and ready to go.
[21:33] Mayor Gillmor: Go ahead please I think you know our process here.
[21:37] So I hope you have the questions that were given to you.
[21:43] So whenever you are ready to start we are ready to hear you.
[21:47] Welcome.
[21:50] >> Thank you so much, good evening Mayor and Council
[21:53] and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.
[21:57] I have lived here in Santa Clara for eight years,
[22:00] I started my career as a molecular biologist,
[22:03] and later moved into field applications, technical support
[22:07] and leadership roles across many industries.
[22:11] Since then I have built teams, coached employees,
[22:14] managed performance, made difficult staffing and resource
[22:17] decisions.
[22:18] One experience that I think translates particularly
[22:21] well to the commission was my time at Roche
[22:24] where I led a global case investigation Resolution
[22:30] Group for supporting diagnostic products.
[22:33] Why is this relevant?
[22:35] Wins something serious was escalated
[22:36] it was my job to understand what happened.
[22:38] That meant gathering relevant data,
[22:41] hearing different perspectives, separating facts
[22:44] from assumptions, and reaching conclusions
[22:47] that were supported by evidence not just the loudest
[22:51] voice in the room.
[22:52] That same discipline and scientific rigor
[22:55] about gathering facts and then forming an opinion
[22:58] is something I have also had to apply on the people
[23:01] side of my career.
[23:02] I know what it's like to hire someone, coach them, help
[23:05] them improve and do deal with difficult performance issues.
[23:08] I have also dealt with operational side
[23:10] of that with vacancies sitting open too long
[23:15] and hiring timelines dragging out, and the real cost that has
[23:19] on the employees that are left covering the gap.
[23:22] I have had to develop strategies to move faster
[23:25] without cutting corners and without disregarding process.
[23:30] And those experiences have made me appreciate how important it
[23:33] is to have a process that is fair to employees
[23:36] while still allowing managers to hold people accountable.
[23:39] That is a big part of what draws me to the Civil Service
[23:43] Commission.
[23:44] At its core, this commission exists
[23:46] to protect a merit based system.
[23:49] So we can make sure that these decisions are
[23:52] based on qualifications, process, rules,
[23:54] not favoritism and politics.
[23:56] I like that it requires independent judgment,
[24:00] you have to understand the rules and listen carefully and ask
[24:03] good questions and make a decision based on what
[24:05] is actually in front of you.
[24:07] The data.
[24:08] Outside of work I have lived in Santa Clara for many years
[24:11] and look for ways to give back locally.
[24:15] I volunteer with Second Harvest and volunteer with Stem outreach
[24:20] in my company and community.
[24:22] And serving on this commission feels
[24:24] like a natural way to increase that commitment
[24:27] and my professional commitment and giving back
[24:31] to the community.
[24:32] I know what serving effectively means and look forward
[24:37] to applying these processes consistently.
[24:39] What I bring from day one is years
[24:41] of experience leading people and building and following processes
[24:44] and evaluating difficult situations
[24:46] and making decisions thoughtfully and independently.
[24:49] Thank you for the opportunity to consider me.
[24:57] Mayor Gillmor: We appreciate that we will
[24:59] start with Council member Jain
[25:04] Councilmember Jain: You've heard this
[25:06] before you may be asked to make decisions with employees,
[25:09] management, labor organizations, city policies,
[25:12] how would you ensure that your decisions are
[25:15] fair and impartial and based on the facts rather
[25:18] than personal relationships or outside pressure?
[25:23] >> I think fair impartial decisions come down
[25:27] to discipline and how you approach them.
[25:29] Not just good intentions.
[25:31] I start with the process and rules of policy that apply,
[25:36] look carefully at the facts.
[25:37] I want to hear both sides and ask questions
[25:40] if something doesn't make sense rather than filling
[25:42] in gaps with assumptions.
[25:45] That discipline is something I have relied on consistently
[25:49] in investigations at Roche and different groups
[25:52] have very different views of the same problem.
[25:54] Part of my job was to separate that opinion out
[25:58] with the evidence that was actually shown, regardless
[26:01] of who was making that or how serious they were.
[26:05] I bring that same approach to the commission.
[26:09] If I knew someone involved or had any potential conflicts
[26:12] I would disclose it and step away when appropriate.
[26:14] If I ever felt pressure from any direction or department
[26:19] of public opinion the answer would be the same.
[26:22] The decision has to be based on the record in front
[26:25] of me and not who is applying pressure.
[26:28] Even if someone disagrees with the outcome,
[26:30] they should be able to look at the process
[26:33] and understand how we got there to that decision.
[26:40] Mayor Gillmor: Thank you Vice Mayor?
[26:44] Vice Mayor Gonzalez: Thank you for applying.
[26:46] The question I have is what do you
[26:47] believe is the most important role of the Civil Service
[26:49] Commissioner and how would you balance the technical rights
[26:52] of employees with the city's responsible to maintain
[26:55] accountability, high performance,
[26:57] and public >> Thank you for the question,
[27:02] I think the most important job is
[27:04] making sure the civil service system is applied
[27:07] fairly and consistently.
[27:09] So decisions held up regardless of who is involved
[27:13] or who is asking.
[27:15] I understand why this includes employee rights
[27:18] and accountability, in the moment someone trying
[27:22] to hold someone accountable, and employee asserting their rights,
[27:27] that can feel like an opposing side.
[27:28] But I don't think that has to be a balancing act between two
[27:32] competing interests.
[27:33] I have been a manager and director for many years,
[27:37] I have hired people, coached them,
[27:40] dealt with performance issues and made decisions that
[27:43] have affected people's careers.
[27:45] Employees deserve a fair process and a real opportunity
[27:47] to be heard, managers and leaders
[27:49] also need to be able to set expectations and act when
[27:52] those expectations are not met.
[27:54] Those are not opposing goals, they
[27:56] both depend on the same thing, a defined process that
[28:00] is followed correctly and applied the same way each
[28:04] and every time.
[28:05] So maybe something like a discipline appeal
[28:08] comes before the commission, I'm not there
[28:10] to take the employee side or the department side,
[28:12] I am there to look at whether or not the rules were followed.
[28:15] Whether a person was treated fairly,
[28:17] whether the decision is supported by the facts.
[28:20] Thank you.
[28:25] Mayor Gillmor: Council member Chahal?
[28:32] Councilmember Chahal: Do you have
[28:33] any thoughts about the high vacancy
[28:35] rates of our staff in the city?
[28:37] >> I don't have any specific numbers but based on what
[28:40] I've seen of hiring through periods of high vacancy in other
[28:43] teams and positions it is rarely one cause.
[28:45] My instinct is that it is some combination of three things,
[28:50] compensation that's not competitive
[28:52] with nearby employers, many times burnout driven attrition
[28:57] leads to people leaving, and how long
[29:01] it takes to hire once a position opens up.
[29:04] That last one, how long it takes to hire once the position opens
[29:08] up can really make that vacancy rate look
[29:12] worse than it is because people may already be in the pipeline
[29:15] but haven't quite started yet.
[29:16] I have been responsible for staffing and capacity
[29:20] planning understaffed teams myself.
[29:22] So I take that very seriously regardless of the cause.
[29:25] The work doesn't disappear when positions are empty,
[29:29] it gets absorbed by people that are still there.
[29:32] And over time it shows up in burnout
[29:35] and lower quality of work.
[29:37] From the commission perspective I
[29:39] would want to know which of those factors, compensation,
[29:43] attrition, hiring speed, is actually
[29:47] driving the numbers here.
[29:48] Because retention, recruitment, process of recruitment
[29:51] those are three different fixes and it really
[29:54] matters which one you're actually trying to solve for.
[29:57] Thank you.
[30:02] Mayor Gillmor: Council member Hardy?
[30:06] Councilmember Hardy: This is a follow up to what you mentioned
[30:09] do you have any thoughts about why it takes so long to hire
[30:12] someone in Santa Clara after it takes --
[30:15] after the position is cleared and budgeted?
[30:18] >> I don't have any specific knowledge about the Santa Clara
[30:22] process to have any specifics.
[30:25] But my experience with long hiring
[30:28] timelines those usually come from a few common places.
[30:32] And I could guess that maybe at least one of them
[30:34] will apply here.
[30:35] A lot of times it's the steps that run sequentially
[30:38] that don't need to.
[30:40] So instead of parallel they happen one after the other.
[30:43] Things like testing eligible, interviews, background checks,
[30:50] they happen one after the other instead of overlapping.
[30:52] Sometimes it is handoffs, so a candidate moves
[30:56] from HR to a hiring department for final removal in each
[31:00] of those handoffs add a few days or sometimes weeks of waiting.
[31:04] Even when everyone is responsive.
[31:06] Sometimes it's just scheduling, getting
[31:08] a panel of interviewers or background checks or start date
[31:12] approval, getting that all coordinated takes
[31:14] longer than the other parts of the process.
[31:18] And I also know city hiring doesn't work exactly
[31:21] like private sector hiring.
[31:23] Testing eligible lists and other civil service protections
[31:28] are in place for a good reason and the end goal
[31:31] isn't to shortcut those.
[31:33] But there is a real cost to the pace.
[31:36] You can find exactly the right candidate,
[31:38] and you still lose them because another employer moved faster.
[31:43] I want to confirm which cause, or causes, are actually
[31:48] driving that Santa Clara timeline specifically
[31:50] by looking at time and stage data, if that exists.
[31:54] Or by talking to the people managing each step
[31:58] rather than just guessing.
[32:00] But once you know the time -- where the time is going,
[32:04] you can ask if there's a legitimate reason for it
[32:06] or if it could move faster without cutting corners.
[32:15] Mayor Gillmor: Last question I know you answered parts of this
[32:17] already do you have any suggestions to --
[32:20] improve recruitment of new employees?
[32:22] >> One thing I've learned from hiring technical and scientific
[32:27] teams is you have to learn the difference between what makes
[32:32] a candidate want the job and what makes them step away.
[32:34] I would look at whether or not the posting reflects the work,
[32:38] whether every requirement is necessary,
[32:40] whether a qualified candidate is spending
[32:44] too long in between steps.
[32:47] Public sector hiring often has more steps
[32:49] than private industries, so communication matters even more.
[32:53] Even if the process takes time, more time,
[32:58] candidates should always know where they stand
[33:00] and what the next step is in that recruitment process.
[33:04] I have seen a strong candidates walk away not because
[33:08] of the wait itself but because they
[33:09] had no idea where they were in the hiring process,
[33:12] or even if they were still being considered.
[33:15] I wouldn't lower standards just to fill positions faster,
[33:19] but I do think it's worth periodically asking
[33:22] whether requirements or steps that we have always used
[33:25] are still helpful and if they still
[33:28] help us find and hire the best people
[33:30] or are they just adding time?
[33:35] Mayor Gillmor: Thank you so much and now it's
[33:37] time for your closing statement.
[33:39] >> Thank you Mayor and Council again for the opportunity
[33:42] to speak with you tonight.
[33:44] The more I have learned about this commission the more
[33:47] it is interesting to me in serving.
[33:52] These are not abstract decisions that are made on this council,
[33:56] they affect people's careers, and managers ability
[33:59] to lead a department, and ultimately
[34:01] the city serves the community.
[34:04] And based on tonight's questions I
[34:07] feel you are asking and thinking hard about vacancies
[34:10] and hiring timelines, so those same stakes apply there too.
[34:15] I have spent a lot of my career leading people,
[34:18] leading investigations, and looking carefully at evidence
[34:24] and considering perspectives and making decisions
[34:26] that I can stand behind.
[34:28] I believe that combination, people leadership and evidence
[34:32] based decision making is directly relevant to the work
[34:34] of this commission.
[34:35] I have lived in Santa Clara for many years
[34:37] and I want to give back more directly.
[34:39] I bring a thoughtful independent perception to the role.
[34:43] Can I be proud to serve.
[34:45] Thank you for your consideration.
[34:49] Mayor Gillmor: Thank you and thank you for applying,
[34:51] we have one more candidate and then
[34:53] we will be making a decision.
[34:55] Clark?
[34:59] Clerk: Next and last candidate is on line.
[35:05] Mayor Gillmor: Timothy can you hear us?
[35:08] Timothy?
[35:08] Are you there?
[35:20] >> I think I did it.
[35:21] Can you hear me?
[35:22] Mayor Gillmor: Yes we can, thank you so much for applying,
[35:26] whenever you are ready we are ready for your opening
[35:28] statement.
[35:30] >> Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you
[35:34] today.
[35:34] I have to apologize, I'm standing outdoors in a parking
[35:39] lot because we're going to see a movie at the big Imax
[35:51] and I had to jump off the train to speak with you
[35:53] so excuse the background here.
[35:55] My name is Timothy I've lived in Santa Clara for 14 years
[35:59] with my wife and two kids.
[36:01] I am recently retired for the last 11 years
[36:07] before I retired I worked for Nvidia in their architecture
[36:12] research group.
[36:14] And I had the opportunity to join Nvidia right
[36:19] as the AI revolution was getting started
[36:21] so we had a front seat to the things that were going on there,
[36:25] very exciting.
[36:26] I love retired life, I play a lot of pickleball,
[36:30] especially at Central Park, I take
[36:32] walks around the neighborhood and have conversations with AI
[36:36] and learn about all sorts of things, music, sports,
[36:41] everything.
[36:42] And I'm enjoying that.
[36:45] I have a little project at home, I'm
[36:48] trying to build a robot with AI that
[36:51] will have the goal of wandering around the house trying to find
[36:56] my teenage son and when it finds him
[37:00] the goal is to tell him a good dad joke.
[37:05] In terms of what I do for my qualifications, what those
[37:10] are with respect to the Civil Service Commission position,
[37:14] as I mentioned I worked for many years in research organizations
[37:19] at various companies.
[37:20] I think that helps me to look at things
[37:23] from an analytical perspective, as well as looking
[37:27] at things with details in mind.
[37:30] I also like to document and write down things
[37:35] that I do in the processes that I
[37:37] take to arrive at various projects and decisions
[37:41] that I work on.
[37:42] I also have a preference for trying to work with people
[37:49] and trying to build consensus.
[37:51] So just to give you a little background
[37:55] on my personal experience, I studied electrical engineering
[37:59] at the University of Illinois and I
[38:01] have worked for various research labs
[38:03] on projects for multiple companies.
[38:08] And at Nvidia again did research across various high tech
[38:13] domains.
[38:14] I think that has given me a lot of good experience in terms
[38:16] of trying to understand how people and groups
[38:21] and organizations in a corporate environment work
[38:24] and what has worked and what has not worked from my perspective.
[38:28] So that's my quick introduction, thank you.
[38:37] Mayor Gillmor: Perfectly timed, thank you.
[38:39] We have some questions for you I assume that you received them
[38:41] ahead of time as well.
[38:42] We will start with Council Member Pak.
[38:51] Councilmember Park: City Council members
[38:53] may have to make decisions involving management
[38:56] and employees and how would you make
[38:57] those decisions are fair and impartial and based on the facts
[39:02] rather than from outside influences or pressure.
[39:05] >> I think that's a good question and I think
[39:08] that's of the utmost importance.
[39:10] I think it really comes down to letting
[39:12] people know about things.
[39:15] That focuses on documentation, both in terms
[39:20] of data that is considered, in terms
[39:24] of the steps of siting and making certain decisions,
[39:29] but also has to do with making sure people understand what
[39:34] the process and criteria are in advance of making the decision.
[39:39] I think when a decision is made and then
[39:42] there are justifications for the decision
[39:46] after the fact that's not very good for trust.
[39:50] So I think being able to lay out criteria and processes ahead
[39:56] of times, the only good approach is a good process
[40:00] for doing things in a orderly fashion.
[40:04] And along with that it needs to be full disclosure for anything
[40:08] that might be considered a conflict of interest.
[40:14] Mayor Gillmor: Thank you Council member Jain.
[40:20] Councilmember Jain: Thank you, what do you
[40:22] believe is the most important role of the Civil Service
[40:25] Commissioner and how would you balance
[40:27] protecting the rights of employees
[40:28] with the city's responsibility to maintain accountability,
[40:31] high performance and public trust?
[40:37] >> I try to find out a bit about the specifics of what
[40:48] the Commission does.
[40:48] I don't know all the details but I
[40:50] believe a big part of what the Commission does
[40:54] is provide oversight for the public employees in the city
[41:01] in terms of being able to hire employees, making sure
[41:07] they have the human resources that they need.
[41:10] That they are doing what they are
[41:14] doing so that we have a well functioning full staffed city
[41:18] set of employees.
[41:21] Sometimes appeals and petitions need to be resolved,
[41:25] and I think also the commission has a role in hearing
[41:29] those appeals and petitions.
[41:34] And I think in terms of being able to take
[41:40] a look at the entire system, there's
[41:42] a lot of work that is being done by human resources
[41:47] Department of the city.
[41:50] But there are strategic goals and long range things
[41:57] that the city wants to do, perhaps this council also
[42:04] has strategic goals, and the Commission
[42:08] takes a look at those goals and sees
[42:10] how well the current system is functioning within those goals.
[42:13] I believe also the Commission has a role in selecting members
[42:19] of the salary setting commission,
[42:22] and in terms of trying to maintain fairness and trust
[42:27] between employees and the city and managers,
[42:32] I think a lot of this has to do with --
[42:40] the word I will use is culture.
[42:41] Coming from Nvidia, this was a huge thing
[42:46] that was front and center at that company.
[42:48] That, probably more than anything else
[42:53] produced a high retention rate, long tenure rate at the company.
[43:00] Because people felt like they could
[43:02] work within the system and they felt comfortable
[43:04] within the system.
[43:06] And that's sort of what we would call the culture there.
[43:10] So hopefully that's something that
[43:11] can be fostered in the city.
[43:16] Mayor Gillmor: Vice mayor Gonzalez?
[43:23] Vice Mayor Gonzalez: My question is do you
[43:25] have any thoughts about the high vacancy rate of our city staff?
[43:29] >> That is an interesting question.
[43:32] I would go back -- there are obviously many different
[43:39] considerations for different organizations and individuals.
[43:43] But going back to something I just
[43:45] mentioned with the idea of culture,
[43:47] I think it's interesting when we take a look at,
[43:51] I'll go back to Nvidia since that's
[43:54] what my experience is but I joined in 2013 when
[43:56] it was a small company.
[43:57] We would compete with Google and Facebook for employees
[44:02] and we would always get outbid.
[44:05] They would always offer way more than Nvidia could offer.
[44:09] We would always lose these highly sought after employees.
[44:14] But at the same time, even though Nvidia was a much smaller
[44:19] company, the retention rate was far better
[44:21] than at these other companies.
[44:23] And the average length of tenure is far better.
[44:26] So why is that?
[44:27] Well I think it's two things, one
[44:29] is the compensation was good enough.
[44:32] Didn't have to be good -- better it just had to be good enough
[44:36] that people felt comfortable.
[44:37] And the culture where people felt
[44:39] like I can work with my manager, I can work within this system,
[44:43] I feel like people at this company trust me.
[44:46] I think that's huge.
[44:50] At Nvidia, and I hear from other companies,
[44:54] they have NDAs between groups to make sure
[44:58] that secrets stay secrets and Nvidia people were just trusted.
[45:01] I think that's very empowering and helps
[45:05] to help people feel like they want to stay there.
[45:08] So perhaps that's something that can be promoted
[45:11] within the city of Santa Clara.
[45:13] Obviously it depends on your organization and the people.
[45:16] But maybe that's something to look at.
[45:22] Mayor Gillmor: Council member Chahal?
[45:29] Councilmember Chahal: Do you have any thoughts
[45:29] about why it takes so long to hire someone in Santa Clara
[45:32] after a position has been approved and budgeted?
[45:37] >> I think there are two main obstacles,
[45:44] or two big steps in hiring.
[45:48] Whether that's for organizations or corporations or government,
[45:52] you have to find the people and then
[45:53] you have to go through the process of interviewing
[45:56] and approving people.
[45:58] A lot of times finding people is -- it can be very challenging.
[46:06] People may not know that these positions exist and the city
[46:13] probably, the city has been around for a long time
[46:16] but at a certain -- you have a certain path to find certain
[46:22] people.
[46:22] Certain media or forms that they look at.
[46:24] So maybe the world is changing, I,
[46:30] the internet, things like that, maybe there
[46:33] are different forms and different media
[46:36] that can be used to improve finding people.
[46:41] Also, the interview process sometimes can take a long time.
[46:48] Some of these things with their steps
[46:53] for considering people and reaching out to people
[46:55] to make sure that you can connect with them
[46:56] and get the information that they need.
[46:59] Other things are sometimes not as efficient as they could be.
[47:04] Sometimes that could be a bit daunting for applicants.
[47:10] So I think if we can focus on finding people,
[47:14] marketing as part of that, and trying to improve the process
[47:20] of interviewing and improving people --
[47:24] approving people I think that will go a long ways to help
[47:29] that.
[47:33] Mayor Gillmor: Last question, you touched on this a little bit
[47:42] Councilmember Hardy: Do you have any suggestions to improve
[47:44] recruitment of new employees?
[47:47] >> Yes.
[47:49] I will kind of take on from the last question.
[47:54] In terms of finding people , a lot of times we go to the same
[48:00] universities or the same organizations to try to find
[48:05] people.
[48:06] But there are good people in a lot of different places.
[48:09] There may be certain requirements
[48:13] that we put in our job postings that have been there
[48:16] for a long time and may or may not be appropriate
[48:20] for today's qualifications or for that specific position,
[48:25] in terms of having a specific degree or a certain number
[48:28] of years of experience, if someone has slightly less
[48:32] than that number of years they may not even bother applying.
[48:38] So trying to find people, trying to think outside
[48:42] of the traditional paths and boxes
[48:45] that we usually use to find people is a good thing.
[48:49] The city itself offers things that a lot
[48:52] of corporations and other organizations don't offer.
[48:56] Job stability, healthcare, pensions ,
[49:02] so maybe some people know about this but not everybody.
[49:06] So that's part of the marketing again,
[49:07] making sure that people are well aware of the benefits of working
[49:11] for the city.
[49:12] There may be specific positions within the city,
[49:17] or specific organizations that deal
[49:20] with more turnover for various reasons.
[49:23] So it may make sense to focus on those organizations building
[49:27] a kind of longer pipeline, or a broader pipeline
[49:32] to build up candidates that are good for those high turnover
[49:38] jobs.
[49:40] As I mentioned before, I'm a big believer in culture.
[49:47] And I'm speaking of culture in terms
[49:52] of interpersonal relationships, that's
[49:55] a lot of what I mean by culture.
[49:57] Having that be something that is fostered
[50:01] and that potential job candidates can know
[50:06] is a great thing within the city.
[50:08] That, I think, is a great thing.
[50:11] And I will tell you a lot of times people
[50:13] quit jobs not because of the compensation
[50:16] but because there may be some friction with either the manager
[50:20] or coworkers and that culture can be fostered.
[50:24] And people know it's their, that can
[50:27] help attract good candidates.
[50:36] Mayor Gillmor: Thank you Timothy, now
[50:38] it's time to give your closing statement whenever
[50:42] you are ready.
[50:43] >> Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the council this
[50:46] evening.
[50:47] I have been a member of or I should
[50:50] say I've been a resident of the city of Santa Clara
[50:53] for over a decade now and I try to seek opportunities
[51:00] to give back to the city and to try to provide some service.
[51:04] And I think this opportunity, this particular service
[51:10] commission is something that I can make contributions toward
[51:15] and that I would be a good fit for.
[51:19] So thank you for your consideration and your time.
[51:27] Mayor Gillmor: City clerk, now we
[51:28] have heard from our three applicants
[51:30] and I don't even know how we're going
[51:33] to do this because they are all so qualified and wonderful.
[51:39] All well suited for the job.
[51:42] We have two positions and we also
[51:46] carry what we call an eligibility list.
[51:49] Would you like to explain what it
[51:52] means to be on the eligibility Clerk:
[51:58] So if it is the council's decision
[52:00] to establish an eligibility list, that
[52:01] means from today's date it would be open for six months
[52:05] should a vacancy occur.
[52:06] So if someone resigned then we have that person there
[52:11] that we would reach out and see if there's still an interest
[52:14] to serve.
[52:15] And if there was then this evening
[52:19] you would be voting on appointing that person
[52:21] if that vacancy was to occur.
[52:25] In the next six months from today's date.
[52:29] Mayor Gillmor: This would automatically fill that vacancy?
[52:34] Clerk: If that's decided tonight.
[52:38] Mayor Gillmor: I wish we had three openings.
[52:40] I think our process is for each of us to select two applicants?
[52:45] I don't know what other way we would do it.
[52:50] If we each give the city clerk, when she calls it two names,
[52:55] and we will see how that pans out.
[52:58] If it works out, we are missing a council member tonight,
[53:02] so if we have six it could be a tie.
[53:05] But let's see if it works.
[53:07] The top two would then -- the top voter would get the longer
[53:14] appointment, the partial term, and the second vote getter would
[53:17] get the regular term and the third would get the eligibility
[53:24] list.
[53:25] Does anyone need a moment to think about this?
[53:32] Are we all okay?
[53:36] I will tell you my head is spinning.
[53:41] Assistant city clerk, whenever you are ready.
[53:48] Clerk: Council member Jain
[53:57] Councilmember Jain: turell, barbara
[54:05] Councilmember Park:timothy and turell
[54:11] Mayor Gillmor:barbara and timothy
[54:18] Councilmember Chahal:turell and timothy
[54:30] Vice Mayor Gonzalez:turell and barbara
[54:37] Mayor Gillmor: Let's see if I'm correct.
[54:40] Turrell is the highest vote getter?
[54:44] Barbara number two?
[54:46] And Timothy eligibility?
[54:50] Clerk: Correct.
[54:54] Mayor Gillmor: Can I have a motion?
[54:56] Rt?
[55:01] Councilmember Hardy: I move that we
[55:03] give the partial term to Turrell the full term to Barbara
[55:07] and put Timothy on the eligibility list.
[55:12] Mayor Gillmor: And we have a second.
[55:14] That was a tough decision.
[55:17] I will tell you.
[55:19] Everyone is extremely qualified.
[55:25] I have great faith now and hope for our civil Service
[55:29] Commission.
[55:30] Well I guess we'll see if it passes first.
[55:52] >> A pointer to the Civil Service Commission
[55:54] and the partial position.
[55:56] And Barbara to the full position,
[56:00] establish an eligibility list with Timothy that should
[56:04] a vacancy occur in six months from August 25th of 2026.
[56:12] Mayor Gillmor: Are we doing all roll call votes tonight?
[56:23] [Roll Call]
[56:32] Mayor Gillmor: That passes unanimously of those present.
[56:34] Congratulations to the two appointees ,
[56:38] and hang in there Timothy in the eligibility list because things
[56:42] do happen around here occasionally.
[56:44] Again thank you all for applying this evening.
[56:47] At 653 -- it is 6:53 we will take a short break and then
[56:59] begin our regular council meeting.
[1:11:21] >> Good evening everyone welcome to the Santa Clara City Council
[1:11:25] concurrent meeting could you please stand for the Pledge
[1:11:27] of Allegiance and stay standing for our Statement of Values.
[1:11:31] I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
[1:11:34] and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
[1:11:36] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all
[1:11:43] .
[1:11:45] >> As we gather we humbly seek blessings upon this meeting.
[1:11:49] May we act with strength courage and the ability
[1:11:52] to perform our obligations and duties to our people
[1:11:55] with justice for all.
[1:11:56] Let us seek wisdom so we may act in the best
[1:11:58] interest of our people our neighbors and our country.
[1:12:01] All of this we ask so that we may
[1:12:03] serve our community with fairness
[1:12:06] and respect putting their needs before ours.
[1:12:11] >> Thank you please be seated.
[1:12:13] Roll call city clerk .
[1:12:19] Clerk: Before I take roll I would
[1:12:21] like to note for the record that in accordance with the Brown
[1:12:24] Act, governing section 49453 B the Council member Chahal is
[1:12:30] attending via audio only teleconference
[1:12:35] the location from which they are attending
[1:12:38] is included on the agenda for this meeting.
[1:12:40] Council member can you at this time
[1:12:41] confirm that the agenda for this meeting
[1:12:43] is posted at your teleconference location
[1:12:45] and at this location is accessible to the public?
[1:12:52] Let me move him over real quick.
[1:13:09] Councilmember Chahal: Thank you, I just joined.
[1:13:14] Yes, I'm sorry you --
[1:13:17] I missed your question but I am joining
[1:13:19] remotely from another location and the agenda was posted.
[1:13:28] Clerk: And it's accessible to the public?
[1:13:32] Councilmember Chahal: It is correct.
[1:13:34] No one is in the room right now.
[1:13:36] If that changes I will let you know throughout.
[1:13:39] Clerk: Moving forward, this evening all votes taken
[1:13:42] will be by roll call vote.
[1:13:44] With that I shall proceed.
[1:13:46] Council member and board member Chahal .
[1:13:57] [Roll Call]
[1:13:59] I will note for the record that board member Cox is absent
[1:14:06] this evening.
[1:14:09] Mayor Gillmor: Could I have a motion
[1:14:11] to excuse Council member Cox?
[1:14:18] motion by park and second by Jain
[1:14:26] .
[1:14:28] Clerk: Vice mayor Gonzalez?
[1:14:37] [Roll Call]
[1:14:43] Mayor Gillmor: That's unanimous of those present.
[1:14:48] Clerk: Members of the Santa Clara Authority support
[1:14:53] open authority there entitled to receive
[1:14:56] $30 for each attended meeting.
[1:14:57] The city of Santa Clara has adopted
[1:14:59] a code of ethics and values and behavioral standards
[1:15:01] for public meetings.
[1:15:03] To promote and maintain the highest levels of conduct.
[1:15:05] This includes mutual respect, robust discussion, and allowing
[1:15:10] city business to be done in an efficient and consistent manner.
[1:15:13] Please note that as a presiding officer
[1:15:15] the mayor and chairs direction and process of decorum
[1:15:19] will be followed and use of the gavel
[1:15:21] indicates all conversations must conclude.
[1:15:23] Everyone in attendance should come to order and attention.
[1:15:27] Welcome and thank you for your participation.
[1:15:29] For those joining us in the registered lobby
[1:15:33] we ask you to identify yourselves as such
[1:15:36] and disclose the clients or organizations
[1:15:37] that you represent.
[1:15:38] This is pursuant to the City Code.
[1:15:41] Thank you Madam Mayor.
[1:15:45] Mayor Gillmor: Thank you welcome everyone and good evening.
[1:15:47] For this meeting the council is back in person
[1:15:49] and conducting its meeting in a hybrid manner.
[1:15:51] The public is welcome to attend in person
[1:15:54] and the city continues to use a Zoom
[1:15:56] feature to allow participation from your home or office.
[1:16:00] Members of the public can still join via the link
[1:16:04] or call in to the Zoom meeting phone number shown on the screen
[1:16:08] now.
[1:16:08] If you would like to speak on an agenda item
[1:16:11] during public presentation, please
[1:16:13] raise your hand on the Zoom application
[1:16:16] or press star nine on your phone.
[1:16:19] Only raise your hand when the item you want to speak on
[1:16:23] is presented.
[1:16:24] The staff will enter your name or the last four
[1:16:25] digits of your phone number and I will call on you to speak.
[1:16:28] As a friendly reminder, members of the public
[1:16:30] have two minutes to speak on an agenda item and three minutes
[1:16:34] on public presentation items.
[1:16:36] And those are reserved for topics
[1:16:38] that are not on the agenda.
[1:16:39] Prior to each agenda item staff will lower your hand
[1:16:44] to make sure that members of the public
[1:16:47] who want to speak on the appropriate items.
[1:16:49] And we will move on to the agenda.
[1:16:55] Clerk: Council member Jain has his hand up.
[1:17:07] Councilmember Jain: I'm requesting that we move an item.
[1:17:10] Mayor Gillmor: Let's wait till we get to that.
[1:17:15] And the city attorney?
[1:17:17] >> Thank you Madam mayor.
[1:17:20] Following the end of the council meeting
[1:17:23] adjourned to take up item one B which
[1:17:26] was conference with labor negotiators with respect
[1:17:29] to all city labor groups.
[1:17:31] And at the end of that meeting I reported out to the chambers
[1:17:34] that there was no reportable action.
[1:17:36] Since the chambers were emptied consistent
[1:17:38] with our action of reporting out again at this meeting live,
[1:17:43] there is no reportable action as a result of those Mayor Gillmor:
[1:17:50] And we did not have one today so thank you very much.
[1:17:52] Council member Jain go ahead.
[1:17:58] Councilmember Jain: I'd like to move my item
[1:18:01] ten until after consent, we have some high school
[1:18:04] members in the audience and online
[1:18:05] that need to go to school early in the morning.
[1:18:08] So we don't want them to have to wait until 11:00 to hear that
[1:18:12] item.
[1:18:15] Mayor Gillmor: I would like to hear that after the appeal.
[1:18:17] We have a lot of people for the appeal maybe
[1:18:22] they'll learn about the appeal process.
[1:18:24] Councilmember Jain: It won't take much time.
[1:18:27] Mayor Gillmor: Counsel are you okay with that?
[1:18:31] After the appeal?
[1:18:32] Okay we will do that.
[1:18:34] Any other exceptions or Reconsiderations?
[1:18:37] Seeing none, we have two very special orders
[1:18:42] of business this evening.
[1:18:43] For our first special order of business
[1:18:45] this evening, the city of Santa Clara
[1:18:48] is honored to recognize our outgoing commissioners
[1:18:51] for their dedication and service to Santa Clara.
[1:18:55] So the commissioners present come to the front,
[1:19:01] I would like to honor all seven outgoing commissioners.
[1:19:03] We will call you out one at a time
[1:19:06] and then we will ask you to take a group photo with the City
[1:19:08] Council.
[1:19:09] From our Library Board of Trustees we have Debi,
[1:19:12] I can see you there.
[1:19:14] From the Civil Service Commission we have Franklin.
[1:19:18] From the Cultural Commission we have Luis.
[1:19:21] From the Historical and Landmarks Commission
[1:19:24] we have Michael and Anna.
[1:19:26] And from our Parks and Recreation Commission
[1:19:29] we have Brittany and from our Senior Advisory Commission
[1:19:34] we have Srinivasan
[1:19:42] thank you so much for your work and dedicated service.
[1:19:45] I will again call you up individually
[1:19:47] to give you your plaques.
[1:19:49] And if you would come up here, Council, how many commissioners
[1:19:55] do we have?
[1:19:56] Five?
[1:19:57] Okay, I think we'll all fit.
[1:19:59] If the council can come down here now, that would be great.
[1:20:02] We will call you up individually.
[1:20:26] First first we have a Debbie.
[1:20:34] [Applause}
[1:20:46] From the civil service Commission,
[1:20:50] Franklin please come forward.
[1:20:56] [Applause]
[1:21:07] From the cultural commission, Luis.
[1:21:18] [Applause]
[1:21:29] From the Historical and Landmarks Commission,
[1:21:33] Michael is Michael here?
[1:21:37] There he is.
[1:21:40] [Applause}
[1:21:53] Also from the Historical Landmarks Commission, Anna.
[1:22:00] [Applause]
[1:22:08] We are also grateful for all of your work
[1:22:13] and thank you for your dedicated service.
[1:22:15] And now we will take a group photo.
[1:22:17] I have already had requests for copies of the photos
[1:22:21] to be sent after to the commissioners.
[1:22:47] [Applause]
[1:23:39] So for our next special order of business,
[1:23:43] it's the recognition of our 2026 mission
[1:23:47] meets the moment campaign sponsors.
[1:23:49] I am just going to stay a few words
[1:23:52] and then turn it over to our staff
[1:23:54] to give a presentation about what we did during 2026.
[1:24:00] Because it was a lot, it was a lot.
[1:24:02] But good evening and thank you all for being here.
[1:24:05] There is a saying in our community
[1:24:07] that a community's greatness is not measured by what it dreams,
[1:24:12] but by who steps up to make those dreams real.
[1:24:15] Tonight we get to honor the people and businesses who did
[1:24:19] exactly that for Santa Clara.
[1:24:21] When we set out to make 2026 a year
[1:24:24] that our residents would never forget.
[1:24:26] A year that would bring Super Bowl and FIFA World Cup
[1:24:30] home to Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara.
[1:24:33] We knew that we could not do it alone.
[1:24:36] We needed partners who believed in this community as much
[1:24:40] as we do.
[1:24:40] And that is exactly what each of you gave us.
[1:24:44] Your generosity didn't just fund an event calendar
[1:24:48] it funded memories.
[1:24:50] It made it possible for a family to enjoy a night
[1:24:55] market together, for a child to stand in our stem zone
[1:24:59] and imagine their future in Silicon Valley,
[1:25:02] for neighbors to gather at Levi's Stadium, some
[1:25:06] for the very first time to feel if only
[1:25:10] for a moment that the whole world is
[1:25:13] watching their hometown.
[1:25:15] All the banners that lined the seats and every celebration that
[1:25:18] filled our parks, every where the mission meets
[1:25:21] the moment moment carries a piece of your generosity in it.
[1:25:25] What gave -- what you gave us was more than just donations,
[1:25:31] it was a vote of confidence in Santa Clara.
[1:25:34] In our staff and volunteers and our residents.
[1:25:37] And because of that confidence our city did not just
[1:25:41] host history in 2026, we shared it together
[1:25:45] with everyone who calls this community home.
[1:25:48] Tonight we want to recognize the organizations that
[1:25:51] invest in it in our community and helped
[1:25:53] make these experiences possible.
[1:25:55] But first the assistant to the city Manager
[1:25:59] will provide us with a brief presentation regarding our
[1:26:05] when the mission Meets the Moment campaign.
[1:26:07] Have you recovered yet Alicia?
[1:26:09] She worked so hard, along with staff, to put this together.
[1:26:14] Welcome.
[1:26:15] >> Thank you so much mayor and Council.
[1:26:17] As the mayor said my name is Alicia,
[1:26:19] I'm the assistant city manager and I
[1:26:21] have the pleasure and honor of working with the community
[1:26:25] to showcase the local pride through events that
[1:26:30] were showcasing Santa Clara on the global stage
[1:26:34] during the Super Bowl and World Cup.
[1:26:37] Thank you.
[1:26:40] Over the last year our community built a beautiful campaign
[1:26:45] with the support of City Council, Economic Development
[1:26:48] and Marketing Committee, and most importantly the support
[1:26:51] of our community sponsors.
[1:26:53] Who we are here to recognize this evening.
[1:26:56] Tonight I would like to share just a little bit
[1:26:58] about the campaign, and I will try to do it fairly quickly.
[1:27:02] Where the mission meets the moment,
[1:27:04] it is presented in this roadmap which
[1:27:08] will walk us through the journey of the campaign.
[1:27:10] So where the mission meets the moment is Santa Clara's
[1:27:14] community centered campaign that launched in June of 2025
[1:27:19] and recently concluded in August of 2026.
[1:27:23] The campaign celebrates the people and places
[1:27:27] and shared experiences and shared pride that
[1:27:29] makes Santa Clara so unique.
[1:27:30] It also highlights our city as we
[1:27:34] prepare to host the major global sporting events, the Super
[1:27:38] Bowl and the World Cup.
[1:27:39] What you see here on the screen are five little circles up
[1:27:45] at the top, they showcase the making
[1:27:47] of the campaign's identity.
[1:27:49] Within each of those circles is represented an image of the logo
[1:27:56] and it tells the story of Santa Clara.
[1:27:58] So when you see the green circle here,
[1:28:01] that is the Central Park Pavilion representing
[1:28:03] community and connection.
[1:28:05] The orange circle, that's the microchip which represents
[1:28:11] innovation and enterprise.
[1:28:13] You see the blue circle here, which
[1:28:16] has an image of Levi's Stadium and represents the global stage
[1:28:20] that we were all on.
[1:28:21] The pink represents the history and heritage,
[1:28:24] so you see the image here is the peace
[1:28:28] Rose, a nod to Santa Clara history.
[1:28:30] And the purple circle represents youth sports, youth soccer,
[1:28:35] legacy, pride.
[1:28:37] Additionally, at the bottom of this slide what you see
[1:28:42] is the campaign goals, the five campaign
[1:28:46] goals that were identified at the onset of the campaign.
[1:28:49] Fostering local pride, building connections,
[1:28:53] generating global visibility, promoting inclusivity,
[1:28:56] supporting local economy.
[1:29:04] During several months the community
[1:29:09] engaged in five workshops which resulted
[1:29:11] in 160 hours of community expertise
[1:29:13] which helped create the campaign.
[1:29:15] We also launched two Citywide surveys,
[1:29:18] one that identified the preferred events and the other
[1:29:22] to understand the community's values.
[1:29:24] So if you see here, the most popular events
[1:29:28] that were identified early on were watch parties, concerts,
[1:29:31] night markets, kids sporting events, and NFL player events.
[1:29:36] All of which I can say we achieved and implemented
[1:29:39] throughout this campaign.
[1:29:40] But to fully understand all that was achieved this year,
[1:29:46] this slide shows a bulleted list of the campaign events
[1:29:49] across 25 and 26.
[1:29:52] Wow.
[1:29:53] It's incredible.
[1:29:55] But what is not fully built out here, and to break it down a bit
[1:30:01] further, are the campaign milestones and showcasing
[1:30:04] of how those goals were achieved.
[1:30:07] So goal one, fostering local pride,
[1:30:12] the city hosted 16 public events in --
[1:30:18] that represents more than one per month.
[1:30:21] Of those 165 were directly supported by our campaign
[1:30:26] sponsors which were a day on the field,
[1:30:29] the stadium event which had more than 10,000 residents
[1:30:32] and visitors that attended Levi's Stadium.
[1:30:36] We also had free entry into the 40 Niners Museum, free kids
[1:30:41] meals, discounted food and beverage,
[1:30:43] that's just some of the impact from that event.
[1:30:46] We also had the stem zone which had more than 8000 residents
[1:30:51] attend, they participated in hands on interactive activities
[1:30:56] showcasing tech and robotics and sciences.
[1:31:00] We also had three weekends of night markets.
[1:31:05] So six total markets with over 25,000 attendees across each
[1:31:10] weekend.
[1:31:11] And over 120 vendors at each one.
[1:31:16] And finally, we also hosted six watch parties.
[1:31:21] That's incredible.
[1:31:23] I think the important thing to note about the watch parties
[1:31:26] is that we had them at three different events, Alamo
[1:31:30] Drafthouse, the convention center,
[1:31:31] but I think my favorite one was the Night
[1:31:34] Market where we closed down homestead and took over
[1:31:37] the streets.
[1:31:37] If you also see here campaign code number two,
[1:31:43] building connections, we had 1300 residents
[1:31:45] and visitors share feedback and insights with us.
[1:31:48] Goal number three, generating global visibility.
[1:31:51] We had 16,000 times that we, Santa Clara,
[1:32:02] were mentioned in local media.
[1:32:04] That's incredible.
[1:32:04] If we also -- we also had 16,000 new people follow us on social
[1:32:10] media.
[1:32:11] Campaign goal number four, inclusivity.
[1:32:13] We had 200,000 people attend our free city events.
[1:32:18] I don't even know what to say.
[1:32:22] For campaign goal number five, supporting the local economy,
[1:32:27] we had the sponsorship commitment investment
[1:32:32] of $820,000 directly into the community.
[1:32:36] Thank you.
[1:32:38] Now I just want to showcase exactly what
[1:32:44] those numbers and milestones mean
[1:32:47] by playing a little video recapping each of those five
[1:32:50] major community events before we say thank you to our sponsors.
[1:32:53] Thank you.
[1:33:02] What you see here is the celebrate Santa Clara Day
[1:33:06] on the field at Levi's Stadium.
[1:33:11] There's a small community concert.
[1:33:16] This is the Stem zone at the convention center
[1:33:19] where we had tech and robotics and interactive skills.
[1:33:30] This is our night market.
[1:33:33] We hosted three weekends of night markets with 25,000
[1:33:39] visitors and residents.
[1:33:49] this is one of our watch parties at the convention center.
[1:34:02] And this is where we shut down homestead and took
[1:34:06] over the streets to showcase the final match of the FIFA World
[1:34:11] Cup.
[1:34:22] Thank you.
[1:34:23] Thank you everyone for your support.
[1:34:30] [Applause]
[1:34:36] Mayor Gillmor: Thank you.
[1:34:38] And now on behalf of the Santa Clara City
[1:34:40] Council and our entire community we
[1:34:42] want to thank each of our sponsors
[1:34:44] for your generosity, your partnership, your commitment
[1:34:48] to Santa Clara.
[1:34:49] Your support allowed us to create opportunities
[1:34:52] for the opportunity to celebrate together,
[1:34:55] to experience something really special
[1:34:58] right here in Santa Clara and to make lasting memories
[1:35:01] during what has become truly a historic year for us
[1:35:05] in this city.
[1:35:08] That is why your partnership is so important to us
[1:35:13] and we were able to make the most of these historic events.
[1:35:17] At this time I am going to call each of you
[1:35:20] up, if you would like to say a few words that would be great.
[1:35:24] I will hand you just a small gift on behalf of the city
[1:35:29] and at the end we will take a full picture
[1:35:32] with the full council.
[1:35:33] So if I could call up Transtech engineers,
[1:35:38] you were our exhibitor sponsor.
[1:35:40] Rafael Diaz, the executive director, please come forward.
[1:35:57] >> Good evening mayor and vice mayor and members of city
[1:35:59] Council and city staff I am an engineer and one
[1:36:02] of the directors at Transtech engineers.
[1:36:05] We are a full service municipal engineering consulting firm.
[1:36:09] At Transtech we truly do believe in the value
[1:36:12] of supporting events that bring communities together.
[1:36:16] And I think that is exactly what this campaign did, where
[1:36:21] the mission meets the moment.
[1:36:23] We are truly honored to be a part of that.
[1:36:26] And actually we want to thank you
[1:36:29] for allowing us and giving us the opportunity
[1:36:32] to be a part of your community in this way.
[1:36:35] So we look forward to future years
[1:36:38] of still supporting and bringing that partnership together.
[1:36:42] So thank you, thank you to the city of Santa Clara.
[1:36:54] [Applause]
[1:37:20] Mayor Gillmor: I can't figure it out,
[1:37:21] I've only been here 30 years.
[1:37:23] Our second sponsor our exhibitor sponsor,
[1:37:27] we have the vice president of clinical planning for Sutter
[1:37:32] Health, would you like to come forward and say a few words?
[1:37:42] >> Good evening on behalf of Sutter Health I want to thank
[1:37:45] you for this recognition and for the opportunity to be a part
[1:37:48] of such an amazing year for the city of Santa Clara.
[1:37:51] We are honored to support initiatives like the Night
[1:37:54] market and stem zone and where the mission meets the moment
[1:37:57] campaign because they celebrate what truly
[1:37:59] makes Santa Clara special.
[1:38:01] Innovation, diversity, community pride and a shared vision
[1:38:06] for the future.
[1:38:07] This year Santa Clara welcomed the world
[1:38:10] through Super Bowl 60 and the FIFA World Cup.
[1:38:13] As the city stepped onto the global stage
[1:38:15] it showcased not only its accomplishments but also
[1:38:17] its character.
[1:38:18] Sutter Health was proud to stand alongside the city of Santa
[1:38:23] Clara in supporting that success.
[1:38:26] Our partnership is built on a shared belief
[1:38:29] that strong communities are created
[1:38:31] when organizations work together toward a common purpose.
[1:38:35] Sutter Health is committed to investing in Santa Clara's
[1:38:39] future, expanding health care access
[1:38:41] with new ambulatory and special care clinics
[1:38:44] as well as advancing plans for the new Sutter Santa Clara
[1:38:48] Medical Center.
[1:38:49] Together these investments will bring care closer to home
[1:38:52] and enhance services for residents throughout the region.
[1:38:56] Investing in the future means more than just building
[1:38:59] facilities, it means investing in people.
[1:39:03] Through the mark and Mary Stevens School
[1:39:06] of Medicine, that's the first one in the last century
[1:39:10] to be coming to California, in partnership with Santa Clara
[1:39:13] University, we're going to help train the next generation
[1:39:16] of physicians to serve across California for generations
[1:39:19] to come.
[1:39:20] We also recognize that health begins
[1:39:24] in our neighborhoods and schools and places and communities.
[1:39:28] That's why we continue to partner
[1:39:30] with local government, educational institutions
[1:39:33] and nonprofit organizations to advance
[1:39:37] food security, behavioral health services, workforce development,
[1:39:42] illness prevention and equitable access to care.
[1:39:45] Together these efforts reflect our commitment
[1:39:48] to Santa Clara as a long term community stakeholder partner.
[1:39:54] Representing a shared investment in the health and vitality
[1:39:57] and success of the community.
[1:39:59] As we look ahead we see tremendous opportunity,
[1:40:03] by working together we continue to build
[1:40:06] a healthier and stronger and more resilient
[1:40:08] Santa Clara for future generations.
[1:40:10] Thank you to the City Council for this honor
[1:40:13] and thank you to your partnership and collaboration
[1:40:16] for the shared future of our community.
[1:40:23] [Applause]
[1:40:43] Mayor Gillmor: Next is a familiar name
[1:40:45] in Santa Clara the Morley brothers, Eric
[1:40:48] Morley the co-founder principal would
[1:40:49] you like to come forward and say a few words?
[1:40:58] >> Thank you mayor and vice mayor and Council,
[1:41:00] on behalf of my brother and business partner Sean
[1:41:03] and the entire Morley Brothers team,
[1:41:05] it's an honor to be recognized here tonight, this evening.
[1:41:09] Where the mission meets the moment
[1:41:12] was built on a simple idea.
[1:41:15] A cumulative campaign is only as good
[1:41:18] as the people that had actually reaches.
[1:41:20] When Santa Clara was on the global stage this year
[1:41:24] it became very clear, and evident
[1:41:27] that this campaign became, and it always was
[1:41:30] and it fulfilled a resident first vision.
[1:41:33] That was wonderful to see.
[1:41:35] Neighbors showing up for and with neighbors.
[1:41:38] It truly defines Santa Clara and its sense of community
[1:41:42] and also its sense of place.
[1:41:45] The credit for all of that belongs
[1:41:47] with the City Council for its vision
[1:41:49] but also the professional staff and the volunteers who
[1:41:52] implemented that effort.
[1:41:54] Our partnership has spanned more than 25 years now
[1:41:59] with the City of Santa Clara.
[1:42:01] We are grateful for that partnership and we are looking
[1:42:04] forward to the next part -- chapter in that with more
[1:42:09] investment in the community and more celebration and more
[1:42:11] moments like this one.
[1:42:12] After seeing the roll up and the overview,
[1:42:16] I can only say one more thing and that
[1:42:18] is mission accomplished.
[1:42:19] Thank you.
[1:42:27] [Applause]
[1:42:47] Mayor Gillmor: Next we have Intel
[1:42:48] which was our silver sponsor, they sponsored our stem zone.
[1:42:53] We have Margarita laid the facilities and engineering
[1:42:57] and operations director with us today.
[1:42:59] Margarita please come forward.
[1:43:07] >> Mayor and council members , on behalf of Intel we are
[1:43:16] honored to be a part of this campaign.
[1:43:18] Intel and Santa Clara have grown together for almost 60 years,
[1:43:21] from our earliest days this city has
[1:43:23] been more than a place of business
[1:43:24] it has been a true partner in innovation and growth
[1:43:27] and community.
[1:43:28] We are proud of the role that Intel
[1:43:30] has played in helping shape Silicon Valley.
[1:43:33] We know that none of this happens alone,
[1:43:35] it happens because of strong partnerships and a shared
[1:43:38] commitment to a better future.
[1:43:39] That is why this campaign is so meaningful,
[1:43:42] it celebrates the people and organizations
[1:43:44] and partnerships that help move our community forward.
[1:43:47] We are grateful to the city for this recognition
[1:43:49] and for the relationship that we have built together
[1:43:52] over the years.
[1:43:53] Thank you for including Intel in this important campaign
[1:43:58] to bring neighbors together to support community.
[1:44:00] We are honored to be part of this story
[1:44:02] and we are for what we will continue to accomplish together.
[1:44:06] Thank you.
[1:44:13] [Applause]
[1:44:32] Mayor Gillmor: Next we have Prologis
[1:44:33] which was our silver sponsor for the celebrate Santa Clara day,
[1:44:37] a day on the field event and we have one of their investment
[1:44:46] officers.
[1:44:47] Please come >> Good evening mayor and members
[1:44:53] of City Council and city staff and members of the Santa Clara
[1:44:58] community.
[1:44:59] Thank you for the recognition, we
[1:45:02] are honored to support the cities where the mission meets
[1:45:07] the Moment campaign and to celebrate Santa Clara as a world
[1:45:10] class city.
[1:45:11] This has been truly a historic year for Santa Clara,
[1:45:17] hosting the Super Bowl and the World Cup
[1:45:19] brought the attention of the world to this community
[1:45:21] and what made this campaign meaningful
[1:45:25] was it also created opportunities
[1:45:27] for Santa Clara residents to be a part of this excitement.
[1:45:31] The day on the field was a wonderful example,
[1:45:33] more than 15,000 people came together at Levi's Stadium,
[1:45:37] not simply as spectators but as a community.
[1:45:40] We were particularly proud that our support
[1:45:43] helped the city provide free meals for the kids
[1:45:47] and made the celebration more accessible to families
[1:45:51] throughout the city.
[1:45:52] We believe our responsibility extends beyond the properties
[1:45:55] that we build and own and operate,
[1:45:56] we want to be an active and constructive partner
[1:46:00] in the communities that we do business in.
[1:46:02] That means listening and participating in and supporting
[1:46:05] programs that bring people together
[1:46:07] to bring lasting value to build a closer community.
[1:46:11] We are grateful to the Mayor and City Council and City
[1:46:15] Manager and the entire city staff
[1:46:17] for giving this opportunity to contribute.
[1:46:20] We value our relationship with Santa Clara
[1:46:23] and look forward to continuing working together in the years
[1:46:26] ahead.
[1:46:27] What really brought me to excitement
[1:46:30] about this particular program was seeing everyone
[1:46:33] on the field.
[1:46:34] I think before you said 10,000, I counted 15,000,
[1:46:38] it was great to see all of the smiling faces, whether it was --
[1:46:43] let's just say 30,000.
[1:46:44] Thank you again for the recognition and congratulations
[1:46:48] to everyone who worked to make this campaign a success.
[1:46:51] Hopefully the staff gets some credit
[1:46:53] because that was a lot of work.
[1:47:02] [Applause]
[1:47:21] Mayor Gillmor: For our final sponsor
[1:47:22] we have our platinum sponsor, which was Devcon.
[1:47:27] Before you come up I am going to take some personal privilege
[1:47:33] and say a few words about you Gary because this is not
[1:47:37] your first sponsorship of major events in the city of Santa
[1:47:40] Clara.
[1:47:41] You sponsored a huge event for us for Super Bowl 50,
[1:47:45] it was the Huey Lewis concert at Santa Clara University
[1:47:49] if anyone remembers ten years ago.
[1:47:51] You were so generous and you sponsored that event
[1:47:57] and really stepped up this time and became our platinum sponsor.
[1:48:01] I just want to take a few moments to recognize someone
[1:48:06] who's generosity is truly remarkable,
[1:48:09] and whose generosity is both from his company and personally
[1:48:14] donating to the city.
[1:48:16] Gary is the owner of Devcon and is our top platinum sponsor.
[1:48:21] Gary your story is Santa Clara's story.
[1:48:24] You were raised here, you went to school here,
[1:48:27] and you have never forgotten where you came from.
[1:48:32] When you stepped up to fund all of our World Cup watch parties
[1:48:36] this year, and it was so fun, I hugged and kissed
[1:48:41] people I have never seen before, because I love soccer.
[1:48:44] But anyways, you didn't just write
[1:48:49] a check you gave your hometown a place
[1:48:51] to gather and cheer and celebrate together
[1:48:53] as one community.
[1:48:54] Because of you families who could not
[1:48:57] get through the gates at Levi's Stadium still
[1:49:00] got to feel the roar of the crowd,
[1:49:02] still got to share the excitement of the World Cup
[1:49:05] right here at home.
[1:49:07] And that is what it means to invest
[1:49:10] in the places that raised you.
[1:49:12] Gary, on behalf of the entire city,
[1:49:15] thank you for your generosity from both your company
[1:49:18] and personally, and thank you for your hometown pride,
[1:49:21] and for making sure that this moment belonged
[1:49:24] to every resident of Santa Clara,
[1:49:27] not just the ones with a ticket in hand.
[1:49:30] So I know you love to make big political speeches.
[1:49:33] If you would like to come forward and say a few words
[1:49:36] we would be honored to.
[1:49:37] Thank you Gary.
[1:49:44] >> Thank you very much mayor, I don't think I have much to say,
[1:49:46] but thank you Council for the appreciation that you're showing
[1:49:50] us tonight.
[1:49:51] Me and the other people here with me.
[1:49:53] Santa Clara is obviously --
[1:49:57] Devcon is a pretty big company and we
[1:49:58] work in Santa Clara, what motivated
[1:50:02] me to give to this cause is I went to Santa Clara High
[1:50:09] School and Santa Clara University
[1:50:11] and my heart and my spirit is really with this city.
[1:50:14] Even though Devcon has done some pretty iconic projects here,
[1:50:18] we built the stadium, we're doing a bunch of work for Nvidia
[1:50:23] which have some iconic buildings.
[1:50:28] We've also done all of the buildings at Santa Clara
[1:50:32] University forever.
[1:50:33] I was just happy to be able to give back
[1:50:37] to the community that I was raised in,
[1:50:40] and the fact that I was going to be able to make it a fun
[1:50:44] night and a fun week actually, for all the residents of Santa
[1:50:49] Clara.
[1:50:49] I grew up here, and it helped form me as a man
[1:50:54] and I wanted to give something back.
[1:50:57] And I was glad to be able to do that.
[1:51:00] So thank you for the recognition.
[1:51:08] [Applause]
[1:51:27] Mayor Gillmor: Gary I know you donated to San Jose as well
[1:51:30] but make sure you tell that mayor
[1:51:32] that Santa Clara is your favorite city.
[1:51:34] Make sure you do that.
[1:51:36] And on behalf of the city of Santa Clara,
[1:51:40] we received a donation from FIFA when
[1:51:47] we went to the mayor's conference in January
[1:51:49] we were sent 200 soccer balls.
[1:51:52] So they are sitting in my office but we blew them up today
[1:51:56] and we're going to give you each,
[1:51:58] you're the first to receive soccer balls on behalf
[1:52:00] of the city.
[1:52:01] So do we have those?
[1:52:03] And I'll invite you forward to take a photo
[1:52:06] with our entire city council.
[1:52:07] But you have to hold the ball.
[1:54:55] Mayor Gillmor: I guess we have to go on
[1:54:57] with the rest of the meeting.
[1:54:58] The fun is over everyone.
[1:54:59] No, we always have a good time here.
[1:55:02] The next item that we have on the agenda
[1:55:04] is the consent calendar, all items
[1:55:08] are approved with one motion unless a council member
[1:55:11] or a member of the public would like
[1:55:13] to pull an item from the consent calendar.
[1:55:16] I am going to be abstaining on item three B which
[1:55:20] is action on Historical Preservation Agreement for 1261
[1:55:25] Jackson Street.
[1:55:26] My office is very close to that, so I will be recusing myself
[1:55:30] from that item.
[1:55:31] I want to pull item three E, because when the city
[1:55:37] staff prepared this report they did not
[1:55:40] know I was going to the League of California Cities Conference.
[1:55:44] And I have an item on number four,
[1:55:47] I'm not pulling that but my comment
[1:55:49] is they are regular meeting minutes
[1:55:52] but they have like a three word sentence for each meeting that
[1:55:56] tells us absolutely nothing.
[1:55:58] I think we can do better in the future for the stadium authority
[1:56:03] manager meeting minutes.
[1:56:05] Vice records office?
[1:56:07] Can you turn on your microphone?
[1:56:13] Rest of the consent calendar?
[1:56:18] Hardy?
[1:56:18] We have a motion and a second.
[1:56:23] City Clerk noting the items that I recused and pulled.
[1:56:29] Anyone from the audience?
[1:56:31] Okay go ahead city clerk.
[1:56:49] Clerk: This includes the stadium minutes correct?
[1:56:52] So Council member Chahal?
[1:57:00] [Roll Call]
[1:57:13] Mayor Gillmor: Noting my abstentions,
[1:57:14] that passes unanimously of those present.
[1:57:20] Moving on, hold on a second.
[1:57:26] That brings us to public presentations.
[1:57:29] Do we have any public presentations?
[1:57:33] Howard?
[1:57:33] Please come forward.
[1:57:47] Howard was here, where is he?
[1:57:58] Clerk: We just got another speaker card, so let me --
[1:58:03] Mayor Gillmor: Here he is, Howard you are up.
[1:58:08] That's okay, we forgive you.
[1:58:19] >> I guess it's not part of it, but I was part of the economic
[1:58:32] development, I guess everything's over.
[1:58:34] But it's kind of neat to watch how the sausage is
[1:58:36] made as they say.
[1:58:38] I'd like to see more people get involved with the city,
[1:58:45] and the different things that went on.
[1:58:47] So many people lucked out on seeing some of this stuff
[1:58:53] and on voting what's going to happen.
[1:58:57] It's cool to be part of that.
[1:59:00] And it's nice to see the guys who put up the big money
[1:59:05] and made that come to be.
[1:59:10] I'm not complaining about much tonight except I'm still asking
[1:59:19] for our buddy up there in the first district to get some
[1:59:25] parking comments getting cut out and losing parking .
[1:59:33] And I make my money off those people so when it's down
[1:59:36] I'm down.
[1:59:38] So hopefully we can get that reliant parking lot
[1:59:44] opened back up for commuters.
[1:59:48] They're not utilizing the land, so maybe the city
[1:59:52] will start utilizing it again for themselves.
[1:59:55] But anyway, Albert wake up.
[1:59:59] District one.
[2:00:02] I don't have much more to say.
[2:00:06] Thank you for your time.
[2:00:09] Mayor Gillmor: Thank you Howard, next we have Chris.
[2:00:13] Chris come forward.
[2:00:19] >> Thank you mayor Gillmor and Council.
[2:00:23] This is a follow up to what I brought you last week so this
[2:00:26] is only three minutes so I guess this is a two part presentation.
[2:00:28] I think we all know that when candidates run for office
[2:00:33] it is optional whether they choose
[2:00:34] to have a ballot designation on the ballot or not.
[2:00:37] So the only purpose that there's a ballot designation is
[2:00:42] a political choice made by the candidate,
[2:00:44] and there are restrictions on what they can put on or can't.
[2:00:47] That's their choice, if they don't want a ballot designation
[2:00:49] they don't have to have one.
[2:00:51] As I shared last week a comment I'm going to share it again
[2:00:55] but the pass out that I gave to you, which
[2:00:58] the assistant clerk was helping me surface last Friday.
[2:01:04] Under the California Code of Regulations 20716,
[2:01:09] unacceptable ballot designations,
[2:01:11] a candidate may not use the word retired in his or her ballot
[2:01:17] designation if that candidate possesses
[2:01:19] another more recent intervening principle profession
[2:01:23] or occupation.
[2:01:25] So why is that relevant?
[2:01:27] It's relevant because in this race
[2:01:29] one of the candidates for mayor, Gary Ferraris
[2:01:34] submitted his request for a ballot designation.
[2:01:38] I have copies of it now, you can look at it directly,
[2:01:42] there had been some questions brought up last week in terms
[2:01:47] of the city clerk himself trying to talk to me after I presented
[2:01:50] and saying that nobody knows exactly what he
[2:01:53] does or doesn't do.
[2:01:55] And frankly I feel gaslit.
[2:01:57] And I would hope that the Council and the city residents
[2:02:01] do as well because the actual form itself that Gary signed.
[2:02:05] Is not illegal, I'm not accusing him of doing anything wrong,
[2:02:10] but you can see he put down his three choices in order.
[2:02:13] His first choice putting down his labor president supervisor,
[2:02:16] second choice retired city employee,
[2:02:19] and third choice is his current full time position
[2:02:22] which he has had for more than two years, labor representative.
[2:02:26] If you flip over to the second page
[2:02:30] and look at the very bottom, there is red ink that is there.
[2:02:36] And again this is the city's document, not mine.
[2:02:40] There have been questions last week about whether or not
[2:02:43] the California Code of Regulations
[2:02:45] is applicable at all to the city of Santa Clara.
[2:02:49] Well the city of Santa Clara City Clerk's office
[2:02:52] obviously considers that it is because if you read their
[2:02:55] for your reference attached is the election code sections,
[2:02:58] it lists some of document, those.
[2:03:00] And not the mine.
[2:03:02] There were questions last week about
[2:03:04] whether or not the California Co regulations is applicable at all
[2:03:08] to the city of Santa Clara.
[2:03:11] The city of Santa Clara City Clerk's office
[2:03:14] considers it is because if you read, for your reference,
[2:03:17] attached to our elections codes sections
[2:03:19] and it gives some of those and California Code of Regulations,
[2:03:24] CCR title two section 20711, which
[2:03:28] is part of the section between 2710 and 2719, you go on
[2:03:33] and it says you also may wish to consult CCR title two sections
[2:03:38] and it's right there.
[2:03:40] 20712220719.
[2:03:42] 20716 which I provided for the second week in the attachment
[2:03:49] is obviously the city Clerk's office is saying
[2:03:52] of course this is relevant.
[2:03:54] The argument that it's not relevant --
[2:03:57] I consider that a concern.
[2:03:59] The deeper concern and reason I'm here talking to you --
[2:04:02] I know the city clerk is not your employee.
[2:04:05] You don't have any direct oversight.
[2:04:07] The city attorney is your employee
[2:04:09] the city manager is your employee.
[2:04:11] I was told by the city manager, he
[2:04:13] knew nothing about any of this.
[2:04:15] Very difficult to make that conclusion
[2:04:18] because the rest of city clerk staff reports
[2:04:21] to the city manager and again, I want to thank the assistant city
[2:04:25] clerk.
[2:04:25] Nora was extremely honest and direct
[2:04:27] and told me yes, when this came in they went and talked
[2:04:30] to the city attorney.
[2:04:32] After having that discussion they
[2:04:35] took that information and then the city clerk
[2:04:37] obviously made his decision.
[2:04:39] I think for me bringing it forward because this whole sense
[2:04:43] that oh the city manager knew nothing and he's telling members
[2:04:45] of the public he knew nothing -- the city attorney is just kind
[2:04:49] of hiding over here not saying anything but obviously was
[2:04:51] involved.
[2:04:52] It's impossible for me to believe
[2:04:54] the city attorney could have a question
[2:04:56] about a mayoral candidate and not at least chat
[2:04:58] about it with the city manager or that the city manager had
[2:05:01] no concept that this discussion was going on.
[2:05:04] I'm bringing it to you for your consideration at least
[2:05:07] to follow up at least because honor I think is important.
[2:05:10] Thank you.
[2:05:12] >> Thank you Chris.
[2:05:13] Next we have Anthony Becker.
[2:05:17] Mr. Becker will have nine minutes.
[2:05:25] >> Welcome.
[2:05:30] So I would have been here on another topic tonight.
[2:05:34] Frankly I had to change ideas and shift
[2:05:36] what I was going to talk about.
[2:05:38] At the last meeting something was
[2:05:40] said at the end that was not on the agenda.
[2:05:43] I was told consistently --
[2:05:45] I was told since I was not there that I cannot refute the city
[2:05:50] manager said at the end of the meeting.
[2:05:51] I am here to refute the city manager said.
[2:05:55] City manager took a moment out of the meeting
[2:05:56] under the City Manager report to respond to my comments
[2:05:59] I made during public presentations
[2:06:00] about data centers and big data.
[2:06:02] The city manager took the time and had
[2:06:05] said it was patently false what I had said about him
[2:06:08] saying to me about big data.
[2:06:11] It's his right to deny it saying so.
[2:06:15] However, it's patently true because you, Mr. City manager,
[2:06:18] are the one who introduced me to the word Big Data.
[2:06:21] I know this because my response to you was like, big pharma?
[2:06:25] With a question mark.
[2:06:26] I know you were concerned about making waves with big data
[2:06:30] and that they will try to stop us from creating any regulations
[2:06:33] and moratoriums, even though we were not going to the ballot.
[2:06:37] I'm truly confused.
[2:06:39] Is that you never introduced me to the word big data
[2:06:43] or the concerns -- and make waves for big data?
[2:06:47] Just curious.
[2:06:48] I'm sorry to say to the city manager, I feel you are wrong.
[2:06:51] I remembered this term of big data
[2:06:53] since that first meeting we had.
[2:06:55] In fact, I mentioned all this in my letter
[2:06:58] to Erin Brockovich Crusade on data centers including
[2:07:02] the quote, on big data.
[2:07:04] But this denial of what you said also
[2:07:06] brings me to what I was pushing for before in my request
[2:07:09] to investigate the information to the Chronicle.
[2:07:12] When I first mentioned this in February shortly after the city
[2:07:16] manager and I would have small exchanges and pleasantries
[2:07:19] and he would speak to me about what
[2:07:21] I had said about the investigation
[2:07:23] or lack thereof into mayor and Council and the investigation,
[2:07:26] how I quoted him saying she's going
[2:07:28] to lie, referring to the mayor.
[2:07:30] The city manager kept speaking as if I was misremembering
[2:07:33] and if I could stop saying it.
[2:07:36] However, when I asked someone in staff about it
[2:07:39] they said you're being gaslit by the city manager
[2:07:42] and to misremembering.
[2:07:43] However, when I was asked --
[2:07:46] however, we all know we were here and we know what
[2:07:50] the concerns to investigate with the mayor were because her
[2:07:52] ability to be honest and transparent --
[2:07:55] everything pointing to her.
[2:07:56] There were so many questions.
[2:07:58] When the city manager said to me you
[2:08:00] know she's just going to lie and deny his response including
[2:08:03] his discussion with me on data centers and big data.
[2:08:05] I have grave concerns about the quality of the investigation
[2:08:08] into the FIFA link.
[2:08:10] I also have grave concerns about how the investigation was
[2:08:14] handled, how we managed it when we can't even
[2:08:17] have management or anybody in the city
[2:08:19] take responsibility for words they said or had
[2:08:23] and want investigative.
[2:08:24] Is there something -- is there going to be something or any
[2:08:27] responsibility and accountability for that
[2:08:29] investigations results?
[2:08:30] This makes me ask what else would you deny?
[2:08:33] From what I've heard when I was a council member,
[2:08:36] I know the city manager was yelling at a council
[2:08:38] member on the phone.
[2:08:39] Let's say this is true.
[2:08:40] Only because I heard it.
[2:08:43] That made me really concerned.
[2:08:45] However, this makes me feel more for a need and to be blunt,
[2:08:50] for all elected officials to be wearing body worn cameras
[2:08:53] so we can see who says what.
[2:08:56] I learned that city managers will deny things
[2:08:59] and I'm not surprised.
[2:09:00] I learned that in 2022 when I was first on Council.
[2:09:03] Deanna Santana when city manager told
[2:09:05] me and others to delete text messages which again, she'll
[2:09:09] probably deny.
[2:09:10] However, Councilman Jain was there to witness that.
[2:09:14] City manager additionally said about my comments
[2:09:16] that there was a joint dinner on this issue of data centers.
[2:09:19] That was not primarily the issue.
[2:09:22] I pushed for a sole meeting between the two bodies
[2:09:24] not at dinner where there were distractions of food and time
[2:09:28] constraints I think we only had an hour.
[2:09:30] I was talking about hands on meeting
[2:09:32] with only the subject being about data centers
[2:09:35] and possible regulation.
[2:09:36] Ask any of those commissioners if they ever
[2:09:38] got a chance to have a sole meeting with the Council
[2:09:41] on just data centers and if there was enough time.
[2:09:43] The answer will be a big no.
[2:09:45] The Planning Commission was the biggest voice on this issue
[2:09:48] and they were well informed.
[2:09:50] I listened and pushed for it so therefore there
[2:09:53] was never a big conversation between the two bodies
[2:09:55] or the future of data centers.
[2:09:57] What's going to stop you all from doing that now?
[2:10:00] San Jose just regulated data centers
[2:10:02] like many other communities in the city in this nation.
[2:10:05] But the city manager and mayor's response to city manager
[2:10:08] by saying nothing mattered if anything I said is true,
[2:10:11] that goes against the stupid report from 2024 that said
[2:10:17] Kevin, Karen -- which is a head scratcher --
[2:10:22] use city meetings to harass, air grievances and attack members
[2:10:26] of the community.
[2:10:27] Here we are doing the same.
[2:10:29] What is this?
[2:10:30] Hypocrisy or democracy?
[2:10:32] Can't be both.
[2:10:33] But then again it's all double standards as I've noticed.
[2:10:36] No concerns about statements that were made.
[2:10:38] You know she's going to lie, that big data statement --
[2:10:42] I mentioned in the past --
[2:10:45] but also to silence on other things
[2:10:47] like the former member telling me
[2:10:49] and my husband about his ketamine use
[2:10:52] in a way of getting his boyfriend pharmacist to get
[2:10:54] us anything we wanted.
[2:10:55] And a current member who witnessed
[2:10:57] the whole thing that currently praises the mayor's leadership.
[2:11:00] What kind of leadership is that?
[2:11:04] I know you all reached out to others with concerns
[2:11:07] about what I may have said.
[2:11:09] That's the concern I have to.
[2:11:11] It's also the same double standards and the mayor's ethics
[2:11:14] and -- or Mayor Kennedy -- breaking the law as the council
[2:11:19] member with her husband and avoiding all consequences
[2:11:21] and even the mayor --
[2:11:23] as well from past situations and the current one about --
[2:11:27] on the FIFA information.
[2:11:29] But again, nothing is ever done.
[2:11:32] All double standards.
[2:11:33] Everyone's above the rules.
[2:11:36] No one is denied anything except for Sir James, Mary Gilmore's
[2:11:41] close friend, denying any allegations for all of them.
[2:11:45] Nobody else has denied it.
[2:11:46] Will he be right on schedule to speak right after me?
[2:11:50] Is Mayor Gilmore texting him to do it tonight?
[2:11:52] You never know because they're never telling us
[2:11:54] what their texts are.
[2:11:55] Based on the decision to speak out
[2:11:57] against the member of the public at the end of the meeting,
[2:11:59] and they were not there to defend themselves
[2:12:01] nor on the agenda, the mayor saying what I said was not true
[2:12:05] and does not earn a response.
[2:12:06] However, she's saying the exact same thing in an unethical based
[2:12:10] standard that she pushes for and complains to the grand jury
[2:12:13] about.
[2:12:14] Mayor, I also see you crack from afterwards.
[2:12:18] And abusing your role.
[2:12:20] Ask any colleagues if she does that and ask any or.
[2:12:23] Any public servant no matter what
[2:12:25] their role therein, whether it be city manager, mayor
[2:12:29] or all the way across every position,
[2:12:31] should be focused on what's best for the community
[2:12:35] and not their self-serving needs.
[2:12:37] Is disappointing I have to come back here and have
[2:12:40] to defend myself for comments that
[2:12:42] were made in the past meeting.
[2:12:45] That reminds me about another issue which
[2:12:47] is about the ethics consultant and why you're not
[2:12:49] taking care of that even though election has started
[2:12:51] and there's a lot going on that's
[2:12:53] happened since the start of this election as you know.
[2:12:56] My question is that I hope there's an apology at hand
[2:13:01] somewhere down the road.
[2:13:02] I understand the city manager's position
[2:13:04] and I understand even the city's position and staff.
[2:13:07] Again, one person does not run the city.
[2:13:10] People shouldn't be intimidated by that one person and three,
[2:13:14] people should be transparent.
[2:13:15] This is what government is all about and the ethics of what we
[2:13:19] all talked about for the last 3 to 4 years is really just --
[2:13:24] really exhausting.
[2:13:25] Again, my question was why does somebody take the time out
[2:13:29] of the meeting just like the mayor --
[2:13:31] when you couldn't do the same thing in the past?
[2:13:34] Especially (inaudible)?
[2:13:37] I think we're living in a hypocrisy and not a democracy.
[2:13:41] I think the cards prove that already.
[2:13:44] Thank you.
[2:13:46] >> Thank you very much.
[2:13:47] Next we have Brian.
[2:13:50] Brian?
[2:13:51] Go ahead.
[2:13:53] >> Thank you.
[2:13:54] I hope this is within the purview.
[2:13:59] Dolly Parton died at 80.
[2:14:03] I've got a ways to go but hopefully I make it.
[2:14:09] Another -- our debate is sharing this person's name so --
[2:14:16] he's a representative of a large part of what the City Council
[2:14:22] has to deal with and something happened and he was caught
[2:14:25] in a perplexed situation.
[2:14:27] I just want to say to his family, there is healing
[2:14:33] and I hope healing for you.
[2:14:34] Especially the kids.
[2:14:36] And I don't ever rejoice when someone I might be a political
[2:14:43] opponent of --
[2:14:46] I think that has caused enough damage in our country.
[2:14:51] So to that family, I hope -- going through what you're going
[2:14:57] through.
[2:14:57] I don't condone what was done but apparently --
[2:15:03] responsibility or some people may not --
[2:15:07] I'm just saying there's young people that are involved
[2:15:09] and any family that's hurting, just like the gentleman who
[2:15:14] spoke before, I never rejoice in what happened,
[2:15:21] and there is healing.
[2:15:22] I'm not making a statement about what was said.
[2:15:26] There is healing for people.
[2:15:27] Thank you.
[2:15:28] >> Thank you Brian.
[2:15:30] Next we have number 0183.
[2:15:35] Go ahead.
[2:15:37] Good evening.
[2:15:39] My name is James.
[2:15:43] I just heard a remarkable and fantastic tale of convicted
[2:15:50] felon and Perjurer Anthony Becker who enlisted the city
[2:15:54] manager, former state legislators and current state
[2:15:58] legislators -- body cameras on elected officials and Mayor
[2:16:04] Gilmore and -- (inaudible) not like a tale written by Homer
[2:16:14] or Virgil or even -- sounds more like an episode of Gumby
[2:16:20] and the Blockheads.
[2:16:21] In this case the blockhead doesn't have a square head.
[2:16:26] It's sort of oval and bald.
[2:16:33] Anyway in this case there's two blockheads.
[2:16:37] It's just bad and pathetic that Mr. Becker again thinks --
[2:16:43] now he's gone after Mr. --
[2:16:46] I've never met Mr. Grove in.
[2:16:48] Let me say for the record, I think he's a wonderful person.
[2:16:51] My dog thinks so too.
[2:16:53] And as far as Mr. York is concerned, all I can say
[2:16:59] is it's not like Gilgamesh who traveled
[2:17:03] to find the spirit of youth.
[2:17:06] In his case he traveled to a trailer park.
[2:17:09] It's rather disappointing and not something
[2:17:13] to look at or for young people to see
[2:17:17] as a role model of course.
[2:17:19] They could have a role model of Mr. Becker in terms
[2:17:26] of his fantastical journey, which is once again lacking
[2:17:32] the truth.
[2:17:33] Thank you.
[2:17:35] >> Thank you.
[2:17:36] City Clerk, do we have assistance?
[2:17:39] Do we have any other public speakers?
[2:17:41] Is there anyone else who would like to make a public statement?
[2:17:44] We will move on then.
[2:17:47] We moved item --
[2:17:49] I'll take it before the consent item I pulled.
[2:17:52] Council member Jin-- item number ten,
[2:17:57] action on a Council written request
[2:17:59] submitted by Council member Jain to place the item
[2:18:04] on a future agenda regarding a dedicated manager
[2:18:06] responsible for sustainability activities such as increasing
[2:18:09] recycling and reducing water usage
[2:18:10] and increasing composting and reducing carbon emissions
[2:18:13] and tracking related metrics.
[2:18:16] This is just a recommendation to put it on a future council
[2:18:20] meeting for discussion.
[2:18:22] Council Member Jain?
[2:18:26] >> Thank you.
[2:18:27] I've been advocating for this for 15 years now.
[2:18:29] Before I was on planning commission
[2:18:31] and before on City Council and I'm
[2:18:33] going to read from the zero 30, which
[2:18:36] is a request to have this Agendized for future council
[2:18:40] meeting.
[2:18:41] The city used to have a sustainability manager who
[2:18:43] reported to the city manager and that person
[2:18:45] ended up working another issues like public relations
[2:18:49] while still being in the role of a sustainability manager.
[2:18:52] We now have a management analyst who
[2:18:55] is supposedly dedicated for sustainability
[2:18:57] but is working on a number of issues
[2:18:59] like supporting the neighborhood University Relations Committee.
[2:19:02] With a $1.7 billion overall city budget
[2:19:07] that eclipses cities that are larger
[2:19:10] and population than Santa Clara, we
[2:19:12] deserve to have a full time sustainability manager.
[2:19:15] Freemont, Mountain View and Palo Alto
[2:19:18] all have full time sustainability managers.
[2:19:21] Santa Clara is a very aggressive climate action
[2:19:24] plan in terms of carbon emissions
[2:19:26] but we don't seem to be tracking our emissions
[2:19:28] and how we're doing relative to our stated goals.
[2:19:32] Silicon Valley has a fiscal year 2024 operating budget
[2:19:36] of $909 million with electricity sales of $723 million
[2:19:42] per year with a total carbon emissions from electricity sales
[2:19:47] is immense.
[2:19:48] We need a dedicated manager who is
[2:19:52] responsible for all kinds of activities,
[2:19:54] like increasing recycling, reducing water use,
[2:19:58] increasing composting, reducing carbon
[2:20:01] emissions, decarbonization and tracking all those numbers.
[2:20:05] Individually, our departments have sustainability activities
[2:20:10] but there doesn't seem to be any one
[2:20:12] to coordinate those activities and to aggregate the impacts.
[2:20:16] We also need to update our Climate action plan which
[2:20:20] was last updated in 2022.
[2:20:22] So in our Climate action plan, we
[2:20:26] have the target of 80% carbon reduction Citywide by 2035,
[2:20:32] which is not as aggressive as Palo Alto which is
[2:20:36] trying to achieve that by 2030.
[2:20:37] But that is a very aggressive goal
[2:20:40] and we need somebody dedicated to making
[2:20:42] sure we meet that target.
[2:20:46] So I'm advocating that with our immense budget
[2:20:52] we set aside a position dedicated to reducing our carbon
[2:20:59] footprint.
[2:21:00] Thank you.
[2:21:01] >> A motion to put it on a future agenda?
[2:21:04] >> That is a motion but I believe we have some --
[2:21:08] >> I will second that motion.
[2:21:11] >> So council member Jain made a motion to place this on a future
[2:21:17] agenda.
[2:21:17] Seconded by Council member Park.
[2:21:20] Council member Hardy?
[2:21:26] >> I was going to make the motion, so that's fine.
[2:21:28] >> Council member Park?
[2:21:30] >> I second the motion.
[2:21:33] >> So knowing that it's going on a future agenda
[2:21:37] and our discussion should be related to putting it
[2:21:39] on a future agenda and your thoughts on that, we have --
[2:21:47] >> (inaudible)
[2:21:49] >> Somebody needs to mute themselves.
[2:21:50] Okay.
[2:21:51] City clerk?
[2:21:54] Is anyone here in the audience that
[2:21:58] would like to speak on this?
[2:22:00] Please come forward.
[2:22:02] >> May we have cards?
[2:22:04] >> Other people here?
[2:22:05] The people here first.
[2:22:07] Go ahead city clerk.
[2:22:10] >> Struthio followed by a p.
[2:22:14] Here in the audience.
[2:22:17] Please come forward and please direct your comments on
[2:22:21] whether or not we should put it on a future agenda.
[2:22:24] >> Thank you.
[2:22:26] Welcome.
[2:22:27] >> Good evening.
[2:22:28] I'm a high school junior and I'm also a Santa Clara resident.
[2:22:31] I'm a member of Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action.
[2:22:35] Climate change is not a future problem.
[2:22:38] It's here and it really does impact our lives in ways
[2:22:41] that we don't always recognize.
[2:22:43] Do you know that heat wave we had in March?
[2:22:47] The scientists have said that would
[2:22:49] have been considered impossible if not for climate change.
[2:22:53] And whether it's the issues like air pollution,
[2:22:57] environmental justice, food insecurity and even
[2:23:00] data centers, there are long term
[2:23:03] environmental and social impacts are more widespread and often
[2:23:08] far more widespread than they seem on the surface.
[2:23:11] That's why having a sustainability manager
[2:23:13] on city staff would really instill in me the confidence
[2:23:16] that this environmental perspective is being represented
[2:23:19] and considered thoroughly in the city staff today.
[2:23:22] Therefore I urge you to vote yes on item ten
[2:23:25] so we can start beginning this process to hiring
[2:23:28] a sustainability manager even if it is putting
[2:23:30] that on a future agenda.
[2:23:32] Neighboring cities have already hired full time sustainability
[2:23:36] managers and I do believe this is crucial to effectively
[2:23:41] implementing a climate action plan
[2:23:43] and to overall be better prepared to build
[2:23:46] a more sustainable come a healthier and greener future
[2:23:49] in Santa Clara.
[2:23:50] Thank you for your time and consideration.
[2:23:53] >> Thank you very much and I would ask the audience to keep
[2:23:56] focused on whether or not we should put this on the agenda.
[2:24:00] Please come forward followed by Bruce.
[2:24:05] Welcome.
[2:24:17] >> Good evening everyone.
[2:24:18] My name is Abby Monica and I'm a junior attending
[2:24:20] the high school, a resident of Santa Clara
[2:24:23] and member of Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action.
[2:24:26] I'm here to support item ten.
[2:24:29] As a resident and youth climate activist
[2:24:31] I care about the future of our city
[2:24:33] and I believe Santa Clara should be taking more significant steps
[2:24:36] towards being sustainable.
[2:24:38] Santa Clara has a $1.7 billion budget
[2:24:41] which is larger than most cities that
[2:24:43] have already employed full time sustainability managers.
[2:24:46] For city of our size and our resources
[2:24:49] sustainability should be a priority.
[2:24:51] A climate action plan is only as effective as our ability
[2:24:54] to implement it to.
[2:24:56] Having a full time sustainability manager
[2:24:58] would offer the expertise and accountability
[2:25:00] needed to monitor emissions and create
[2:25:03] plans to decarbonize our city.
[2:25:05] As a young resident I will be reaping the long term
[2:25:08] consequences of the decisions made today.
[2:25:10] I urge you to vote yes on item ten
[2:25:13] and begin the process of hiring a sustainability manager so
[2:25:16] that Santa Clara is better equipped
[2:25:18] to meet Climate action plan commitments
[2:25:20] and build a more sustainable future.
[2:25:22] Thank you. >> Thank you.
[2:25:25] Bruce followed by Elaine.
[2:25:29] Welcome.
[2:25:31] >> Good evening.
[2:25:32] My name is Bruce and I'm a resident of Mountain View.
[2:25:36] For the last 20 years I have strove or is it
[2:25:40] striven or just tried really hard to make Mountain View
[2:25:44] a zero emissions city, stealing a little bit of the wording
[2:25:47] from your city logo.
[2:25:49] Your city motto.
[2:25:50] Here's why I think you should hire a sustainability director
[2:25:56] and increase the sustainability staff.
[2:25:59] For the first ten years I worked in Mountain View
[2:26:02] to make progress on greenhouse gas reduction,
[2:26:06] we had one staff member.
[2:26:08] A great staff member but a one man army doesn't win any wars.
[2:26:13] In 2018 I led a task force of citizens
[2:26:17] in our top three recommendations out of 36 recommendations
[2:26:21] or hire a Chief Sustainability officer,
[2:26:24] give that person a staff and give that person
[2:26:27] a substantial budget.
[2:26:28] The City Council agreed to do all those things.
[2:26:31] Over the last three and a half years,
[2:26:34] our sustainability manager, Danielle Lee,
[2:26:37] has grown her staff to include herself
[2:26:40] and four full time direct reports and two Fellows.
[2:26:43] A seven person department working on reducing emissions.
[2:26:47] What's been accomplished over the last 20 years
[2:26:50] in Mountain View is a 50% reduction on a per capita basis
[2:26:54] in greenhouse gas emissions.
[2:26:56] A great deal of that is due to the electricity
[2:26:59] we get from Silicon Valley clean energy.
[2:27:01] As you know, Santa Clara is proud of its very low cost,
[2:27:06] highly reliable electricity system.
[2:27:08] It's also one of the most highly polluting electricity
[2:27:12] systems in California.
[2:27:13] To reduce your emissions, you'll need
[2:27:16] to reduce the emissions from electricity.
[2:27:19] Urge you to support the motion.
[2:27:22] >> Thank you.
[2:27:23] As a reminder, if we can keep our comments to whether or not
[2:27:26] we should put this on the agenda.
[2:27:27] I know it's hard but if we can focus on that.
[2:27:30] We have Elaine followed by Chanel.
[2:27:33] When it does come back to the agenda
[2:27:36] we will have full discussion about this.
[2:27:39] Welcome.
[2:27:40] >> Good evening Mayor Gilmore and City Council.
[2:27:43] My name is Elaine Lee.
[2:27:46] The city's 2022 Climate Action Plan
[2:27:50] requires quotes reporting on cap progress through Community
[2:27:53] dashboard as well as quote annual progress reports
[2:27:56] and frequent updates of the city's greenhouse gas emission
[2:28:00] inventory.
[2:28:01] In November 2023, I contacted a to talk about the dashboard.
[2:28:07] I got no response.
[2:28:09] In February 2024 I contacted her again and then learned
[2:28:15] that there was no dashboard.
[2:28:17] In January 2025 I made a public comment
[2:28:21] at a City Council meeting just like standing here
[2:28:24] before you requesting annual updates on the city's progress.
[2:28:28] As a result, I was introduced to Rena and in March 2025
[2:28:34] she emailed me that the dashboard
[2:28:37] quote should take six months from beginning
[2:28:39] to end to complete.
[2:28:41] Now it is August 2026, more than four years
[2:28:46] after the cap was approved.
[2:28:48] There's still no dashboard and no other reports on cap
[2:28:51] progress..
[2:28:53] California Senate Bill number 32,
[2:28:55] we need a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
[2:29:01] to meet our state's goals.
[2:29:03] If we don't track our progress, we
[2:29:06] can't see where we are lagging and what activities need more
[2:29:10] focus and support.
[2:29:11] A full time dedicated sustainability manager
[2:29:14] will help us get there.
[2:29:16] This issue is within the city's jurisdiction
[2:29:19] and doesn't appear to be addressed elsewhere.
[2:29:22] So bring it at a future meeting to consideration.
[2:29:27] Thank you very much.
[2:29:28] Next we have Chanel followed by Betsy followed by Brian.
[2:29:33] Welcome.
[2:29:38] >> Good evening Mayor Gilmore and council members.
[2:29:41] I am Chanel, a 16 year old resident of Santa Clara County.
[2:29:46] And a current student at the high school.
[2:29:49] I'm here not only on behalf of Limerick High School
[2:29:53] but also the entire district and Silicon Valley Youth program.
[2:29:59] We are here because we don't want Santa Clara to be behind.
[2:30:04] California has already been making substantial progress
[2:30:08] towards sustainability.
[2:30:09] For example, achieving more than two thirds of renewable energy
[2:30:14] accounting for California's total power grid as of 2025,
[2:30:20] and according to San Jose Council member David Cohen,
[2:30:23] that number is about 90% as of August 2026.
[2:30:29] I don't see such progress in Santa Clara,
[2:30:32] especially with the prevalence of AI data centers
[2:30:36] that are extremely damaging to the environment with at least
[2:30:40] 55 data centers in our city.
[2:30:43] I do not want to see a Puerto Rico water shortage
[2:30:48] 2.0 just because of your incompetence
[2:30:51] in environmental affairs.
[2:30:53] Moreover, many other adjacent cities have a sustainability
[2:30:57] manager, so I don't see why we can't.
[2:31:01] But we could change that, especially
[2:31:04] with our effluent budget of $1.7 billion.
[2:31:08] And that starts with getting a sustainability manager.
[2:31:13] Only then will we be able to start catching up with state
[2:31:17] sustainability progress.
[2:31:19] It's only natural that you put this on a future agenda
[2:31:23] and hire a sustainability manager.
[2:31:26] Thank you.
[2:31:27] >> Next we have Betsy.
[2:31:29] Is Betsy online?
[2:31:30] Go ahead Betsy.
[2:31:32] Unmute yourself.
[2:31:35] >> Hello.
[2:31:37] Betsy speaking for myself.
[2:31:39] I don't think I need to reiterate
[2:31:42] what our young people especially are saying about this topic.
[2:31:49] Please put this on a future agenda
[2:31:52] and we'll see you again soon.
[2:31:54] Thank you.
[2:31:55] >> Thank you Betsy.
[2:31:56] Next we have Brian.
[2:31:57] Go ahead.
[2:32:03] >> Thank you.
[2:32:04] I'd like to see it on a future agenda.
[2:32:10] And as quickly as possible.
[2:32:15] Suda has asked about this and I agree about that.
[2:32:18] Before you put it on the agenda, I don't know if portal is
[2:32:20] the right way but -- a lot of us want to do research.
[2:32:24] I want to show you why you should have a sustainability
[2:32:27] manager but -- part of the discussion of when you put it
[2:32:31] on the agenda should be what does it mean,
[2:32:35] what are going to be the qualifications --
[2:32:37] because that will come up when you discuss it.
[2:32:40] Please put it on a future agenda and if there's some way to get
[2:32:46] other groups like other groups that meet with the city --
[2:32:53] like where they --
[2:32:55] I forget -- where they meet to also -- that gets on the agenda.
[2:33:04] You know what I'm trying to say.
[2:33:05] Sorry.
[2:33:06] >> That's okay.
[2:33:07] All right is that it Brian?
[2:33:10] >> It is.
[2:33:11] I'm tongue tied today.
[2:33:13] >> Thank you so much.
[2:33:14] Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue?
[2:33:17] We have a motion and a second to place this on a future agenda.
[2:33:21] Assistant City Clerk, when you're ready.
[2:33:45] >> Council member?
[2:33:46] >> I was going to say Register your vote.
[2:33:51] [calling vote]
[2:34:03] >> That passes unanimously of those present.
[2:34:03] Thank you and thank you for all who participated.
[2:34:05] Next item is consent item pulled for discussion.
[2:34:09] I would normally put this at the end of the agenda
[2:34:11] but the conference is coming up soon.
[2:34:13] I pulled item three E which is action
[2:34:16] to designate a voting delegate and alternate delegate
[2:34:19] for the 2026 League of California Cities Annual
[2:34:21] Conference.
[2:34:22] Staff didn't know I was going to be attending.
[2:34:25] I would like the council to appoint me
[2:34:28] as the voting delegate and council member
[2:34:31] Park as the alternate.
[2:34:38] >> I'd like to make that motion.
[2:34:39] >> We have a motion by Council member Hardy seconded by Vice
[2:34:42] Mayor Gonzalez.
[2:34:44] Any public comments on that?
[2:34:48] Any discussion?
[2:34:51] >> City clerk?
[2:35:26] >> Council member Khalil?
[2:35:27] >> Yes.
[2:35:29] >> Hardy?
[2:35:30] Yes.
[2:35:31] Park?
[2:35:31] Yes.
[2:35:38] Jain?
[2:35:38] Yes.
[2:35:39] Gonzalez?
[2:35:39] Gilmore?
[2:35:42] Yes.
[2:35:42] >> That passes with those on the --
[2:35:46] I guess and Council member Joel.
[2:35:48] Thank you very much.
[2:35:49] Next item we have is a public hearing on item number five.
[2:35:54] Public hearing action on appeal (PLN26-00318)
[2:36:08] of a Project Located at 860 and 858
[2:36:10] Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street
[2:36:16] of an Approval of an Architectural Review Permit
[2:36:18] (PLN24-00533) for the Demolition of Existing Buildings
[2:36:23] and Construction of Three Separate Multi-Family Buildings
[2:36:26] Resulting in 14 Townhomes and a Duplex Building With Commercial
[2:36:26] Space and Determination of Statutory Exemption from CEQA
[2:36:28] per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025))
[2:36:42] . (inaudible)
[2:37:43] >> All right. (inaudible) we'll take a pause to get our fourth
[2:37:54] member.
[2:38:11] >> Vice mayor Gonzalez?
[2:38:12] Council member Jane has his hand up.
[2:38:14] I'm not sure if he wants to say something.
[2:38:18] Not Jain.
[2:38:19] Shahal.
[2:38:23] >> Should I wait for Council member to be back?
[2:38:25] >> Let's wait for her to come back.
[2:38:28] >> Sure.
[2:38:29] Thanks.
[2:38:46] Thank you.
[2:38:50] Did you want to mention something on this item
[2:38:52] before we go to the process?
[2:38:57] >> That's correct.
[2:38:59] Yes.
[2:39:00] So I just wanted to -- >> Hold on.
[2:39:05] There's a few -- there's a few steps that lead up to I think
[2:39:11] the disclosure that you're going to make.
[2:39:13] If you could hold on that.
[2:39:15] We can take that in the course of the conduct
[2:39:19] of the public hearing, the presiding officer
[2:39:22] has a process to go through first.
[2:39:25] If I'm guessing right on what you are intending to say.
[2:39:29] >> Yes.
[2:39:31] >> Very good.
[2:39:33] >> I'll follow your instructions.
[2:39:35] >> Thank you.
[2:39:37] >> Thank you.
[2:39:38] So the mayor went through the item itself here but basically
[2:39:42] what we're going to review the townhouse project at 860 and --
[2:39:49] 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street.
[2:39:53] On an appeal brought by neighboring residents following
[2:39:57] approval -- this development review --
[2:40:01] hearing on June 17th 2026.
[2:40:03] With that I will open up the public hearing
[2:40:07] and we'll declare that open now.
[2:40:10] Before we have any member -- we can have Council member
[2:40:15] disclosures.
[2:40:16] Is that what you wanted to address?
[2:40:20] >> That's correct.
[2:40:22] So go ahead.
[2:40:29] >> This is the right time, right?
[2:40:31] >> Yes it is.
[2:40:33] City council member ex parte disclosures if any.
[2:40:38] >> Thank you.
[2:40:39] So I want to disclose that on 22nd of June the council members
[2:40:46] -- the appeal process is going on.
[2:40:50] I met the appellant Mr. Michael Fisher at the project site
[2:40:57] and he did talk to me, basically disclosed --
[2:41:03] exchanged emails with the staff all the reasons why he went
[2:41:08] to appeal and I did look at the project site at that visit.
[2:41:13] Thank you.
[2:41:15] >> Thank you.
[2:41:16] Is anybody else from the council wants
[2:41:18] to have an ex parte disclosure?
[2:41:21] Seeing none we'll continue.
[2:41:24] At this time we'll ask staff presentations.
[2:41:29] >> Thank you Vice Mayor.
[2:41:31] Members of the council and members of the public.
[2:41:35] This item is before you.
[2:41:37] It's important to note that under the city's zoning code,
[2:41:40] a project of this type would only typically require
[2:41:43] architectural review.
[2:41:45] However there's an appeal process
[2:41:47] and the city's appeal process, unlike our process
[2:41:50] for single family homes, comes directly to the City Council.
[2:41:54] And so the project is before you tonight
[2:41:57] to hear an appeal by neighbors of the Architectural review
[2:42:01] permit approval.
[2:42:02] You are hearing this in a quasi judicial setting.
[2:42:06] This means this is an official court proceeding
[2:42:10] where you will weigh the evidence presented
[2:42:12] in making your decision.
[2:42:13] It's also important to note, this is a de Novo hearing
[2:42:17] meaning that you are not bound by the information that
[2:42:20] was known and presented during the prior review permit process
[2:42:25] and you may consider new evidence presented here tonight
[2:42:29] both written and verbal.
[2:42:32] Many factors are at play in this appeal.
[2:42:35] They include the California Housing Accountability
[2:42:38] Act the Bonus Law and the California Environmental Quality
[2:42:43] Act.
[2:42:44] Also are Local General Plan and Zoning code apply.
[2:42:49] Additionally the appellant has raised concerns with regards
[2:42:52] to the El Camino Real specific plan, neighborhood compatibility
[2:42:56] and they request design changes related to height and setbacks.
[2:43:01] And in considering this appeal, the City Council
[2:43:04] will be asked to make findings based
[2:43:06] on applicable, objective standards
[2:43:09] and tonight's staff presentation will
[2:43:11] be presented by Community Development Director Asha Hamid
[2:43:14] and I will now invite her to the podium.
[2:43:23] >> Vice mayor Gonzalez, can I also make another disclosure?
[2:43:27] I did receive a couple of emails from the appellant,
[2:43:31] Michael Fisher, during this process when they were hosting
[2:43:34] a meeting and I forwarded those to the city attorney and --
[2:43:39] can be public record as such and maybe --
[2:43:42] to the post meeting agenda item.
[2:43:45] To this agenda.
[2:43:46] Thank you.
[2:43:48] >> Thank you.
[2:43:55] >> Good evening vice mayor and members and members
[2:43:57] of the public.
[2:43:59] My name is Afshan Hamid, the Community Development director.
[2:44:06] And let me just figure out the technology first.
[2:44:10] Here we go.
[2:44:13] Tonight is an appeal of a project which
[2:44:16] is located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso
[2:44:22] Street and it is for an approval of an architectural Review
[2:44:26] permit which will allow the demolition of existing buildings
[2:44:30] and the construction of three separate multifamily buildings
[2:44:35] yielding 14 townhomes and a duplex building
[2:44:40] with commercial space.
[2:44:42] It is statutorily exempt from CEQA through AB 130.
[2:44:53] Pursuant to the provisions of City Code, City Council
[2:44:56] serves as the final review authority for appeals
[2:44:59] for Architectural Review for non single family projects
[2:45:02] and as a city manager just explained, in our procedures,
[2:45:09] in our code, single family appeals first
[2:45:11] go to the planning commission and then to city Council.
[2:45:15] In this case, this is a multifamily project.
[2:45:18] And a multifamily project which is reviewed at the design review
[2:45:23] hearing.
[2:45:24] The appeal comes to the City Council.
[2:45:27] The second bullet here in accordance with 18.144030 E,
[2:45:33] the council is also -- also will hear the appeal as a de Novo
[2:45:41] for this project.
[2:45:42] But within the applicable constraints of the state
[2:45:45] housing laws, including the Housing Accountability
[2:45:48] Act and the state density Bonus Law as well as CEQA AB130.
[2:45:55] As City Manager already explained,
[2:45:57] what this means is that Council will make its own determination
[2:46:01] based on the record presented.
[2:46:03] The City Council can consider new evidence or evidence
[2:46:07] not previously considered.
[2:46:09] The decision tonight is subject to the state laws, including
[2:46:17] HAA in the state density bonus laws
[2:46:19] and those laws prevail over any local requirements.
[2:46:27] This is a timeline of the project.
[2:46:32] The project was first filed in October of 2024.
[2:46:37] In July of 2025 a tribal consultation was initiated
[2:46:43] and it was completed that same year in September.
[2:46:47] In September of 2025, an online and in person community
[2:46:52] meeting was held.
[2:46:54] On April 14th of 2026 we have a project clearance committee
[2:47:00] and the Project Clearance Committee deemed the project
[2:47:03] complete and cleared.
[2:47:05] On May 19th of 2026 the El Camino Real specific plan was
[2:47:11] adopted by the City Council and it became effective as of June
[2:47:18] 18th 2026 and June 17th, the application was reviewed
[2:47:22] and approved by the Development Review Officer and on July 24th
[2:47:28] 2026, an appeal was filed by the adjacent neighbors.
[2:47:34] August 13th 2026, staff did meet with Mr. And Mrs.
[2:47:38] Fisher and they are the appellants to discuss
[2:47:41] their concerns and also staff explained the recent changes
[2:47:46] in state law since their own application was filed.
[2:47:50] Some points of clarification here.
[2:47:54] The project was submitted in October 2024 and the project was
[2:47:59] deemed in substantially complete on April 14th of 2026 and then
[2:48:05] scheduled for design review hearing through a public notice
[2:48:09] process.
[2:48:09] And overall, as this project is going forward,
[2:48:14] the project will have had three opportunities
[2:48:16] to be heard before the public.
[2:48:18] The first was a community meeting
[2:48:21] and the second was a publicly noticed design review hearing
[2:48:24] and the third is the appeal that is being heard tonight
[2:48:28] before the council.
[2:48:31] In regards to the last bullet, Council,
[2:48:35] as you're aware, since 2017 numerous state
[2:48:39] laws were passed or amended including the Housing
[2:48:43] Accountability Act and State density bonus laws
[2:48:46] to address the state wide shortage of housing,
[2:48:50] which limits the ability of local governments
[2:48:53] to restrict the development of new housing.
[2:49:02] I will walk you through the existing site.
[2:49:10] So first of all, this is the existing site
[2:49:15] which is graphically shown, bound by red.
[2:49:19] So this is the site that is proposed
[2:49:22] for development and to the north is Civic Center Drive
[2:49:25] and to the south is El Camino Real
[2:49:28] and to the east is Alviso Street and to the west is Lafayette
[2:49:35] Street.
[2:49:36] To the north, the surrounding uses, there are commercial,
[2:49:42] auto oriented office and gym and to the south
[2:49:45] is a commercial two story hotel which is here.
[2:49:49] To the east there are already existing two story townhomes
[2:49:56] and then across Alviso Street there are three story townhomes
[2:50:01] and then to the west there is a one story residences as well as
[2:50:07] commercial office uses.
[2:50:10] The general plan designation is community
[2:50:13] mixed use and the zoning is mixed use community commercial.
[2:50:17] Under the General Plan CMU and MUCC zoning,
[2:50:25] the proposed family is permitted use.
[2:50:28] The only entitlement required for this
[2:50:30] is a design review hearing for the architecture
[2:50:33] which is the land use approval at issue in this appeal.
[2:50:38] I just want to point out one other thing.
[2:50:43] The existing site is three parcels.
[2:50:48] They will do a lot merger through investing tentative map
[2:50:53] and that will come before the council
[2:50:55] as a separate action pending the status of this appeal.
[2:51:04] A little bit more about the project site
[2:51:07] and the project itself.
[2:51:09] The site is an unusual and constrained project site.
[2:51:14] And it has a narrow leg which fronts onto Alviso Street.
[2:51:22] And there is a much wider portion that
[2:51:26] fronts onto Civic Center Drive.
[2:51:30] Just making sure this is working.
[2:51:33] So Civic Center Drive is to the north,
[2:51:37] Alviso Street is to the east.
[2:51:41] There are three buildings proposed on the site.
[2:51:45] Building one is townhomes and it is eight townhomes
[2:51:50] and it is four stories tall.
[2:51:53] Building two is six townhomes and it's also four stories tall.
[2:52:00] Building three is the separate building here.
[2:52:04] It has a commercial front that faces Alviso Street
[2:52:09] and it has a duplex unit on the second floor
[2:52:13] and on the ground floor is actually two separate ADUs.
[2:52:19] A little bit about the parking.
[2:52:23] The project is within a half mile of transit.
[2:52:28] So AB2097 which is a state law applies and there are no parking
[2:52:34] requirements for this site.
[2:52:36] However, the applicant in each of the townhome units
[2:52:39] is providing two tandem parking spaces per unit.
[2:52:44] So we can see those.
[2:52:46] Each of the townhome units has parking.
[2:52:49] In addition, there is also parking for the duplex units
[2:52:55] here.
[2:52:55] These are assigned to the duplex units
[2:52:58] and there's also a guest parking space here
[2:53:02] and there is also an unassigned space here
[2:53:07] which is ADA compliant.
[2:53:13] This is an enlarged view of building three.
[2:53:18] And the focus here is that there is a perimeter wall that
[2:53:25] goes along the entire project site
[2:53:28] and that perimeter wall is identified here.
[2:53:32] It is also identified here.
[2:53:36] That perimeter wall goes along the entire project site.
[2:53:43] The appellant for this project is just to the north.
[2:53:50] They do have three single family or three townhomes that are
[2:53:57] already -- okay.
[2:54:00] They're single family homes?
[2:54:03] Thanks for the correction.
[2:54:04] Thank you.
[2:54:06] Thanks for the correction.
[2:54:08] There is one home a two story home that was built in 1935
[2:54:13] and it's important to note, that project is not
[2:54:17] listed on the historic inventory or on the National Historic
[2:54:21] Register.
[2:54:24] We'll just go back and thanks for that correction.
[2:54:28] There are three -- three single family homes and two story
[2:54:35] in height and there's a home that was built in 1935.
[2:54:52] So there are a total of 16 units which include
[2:54:57] the duplex and the townhomes.
[2:55:00] There will be two ADUs.
[2:55:05] Building one is eight townhomes and it's four stories tall.
[2:55:10] It is an attached home product and building two
[2:55:15] is six townhomes.
[2:55:19] It is a four stories as well and it's also for sale
[2:55:23] and it is an attached townhome.
[2:55:26] Building three is a duplex with two ADUs at the ground floor
[2:55:36] and -- of commercial space on the ground floor.
[2:55:39] I want to explain the elevations a little bit.
[2:55:44] So for the townhome buildings, what you're seeing here
[2:55:48] is an eight story townhome product
[2:55:52] and this elevation here faces the neighbors.
[2:55:56] And this will face the interior courtyard for the parking.
[2:56:01] It is the same elevation for the eight townhome product
[2:56:06] as well as for the six townhome products.
[2:56:09] The same elevations.
[2:56:11] For the duplex commercial and the ADU building,
[2:56:18] the front elevation faces Alviso and this is commercial
[2:56:22] and here you can see the duplex.
[2:56:25] And the ADU is at the ground floor in the back.
[2:56:30] This is the rear elevation of the project
[2:56:33] and here you can see the ADUs on the ground floor
[2:56:38] and the commercial is towards the front.
[2:56:41] A little bit about the affordable housing --
[2:56:45] there are two affordable units and the payment
[2:56:48] of an in lieu fee for the four remaining fractional units
[2:56:51] and that is consistent with 15% requirement.
[2:56:55] The applicant is meeting the city's requirement
[2:56:59] for affordable housing, which is 15%.
[2:57:02] And they are providing the affordable units.
[2:57:05] As the applicant is meeting the city's affordable housing
[2:57:09] criteria, they are entitled to the state density bonus law.
[2:57:15] The density bonus law allows the applicant to an unlimited number
[2:57:19] of waivers, as they are proposing for for this project
[2:57:25] -- for waivers for this project.
[2:57:27] A waiver -- and I'll give you a brief explanation --
[2:57:31] is applied to the physical attribute of the project.
[2:57:34] In this case it is to reduce setbacks
[2:57:37] and to increase the height.
[2:57:39] And a waiver allows a developer to modify the zoning code
[2:57:45] provision.
[2:57:46] The applicant is also entitled to one concession.
[2:57:52] And that concession is to reduce the floor area ratio and that
[2:57:57] will apply to the commercial portion and reduce
[2:57:59] the commercial space from 2665ft² to 715ft².
[2:58:06] So a concession actually lowers a project cost.
[2:58:21] This is the elevation, the rendering
[2:58:25] provided you a little bit of the perspective.
[2:58:27] This is an elevation of the townhome building type.
[2:58:32] And over here, what I wanted to clarify
[2:58:36] is this is the front elevation that is facing the neighbors.
[2:58:41] Again, it's four stories and this is the elevation
[2:58:45] that's facing the rear.
[2:58:47] This is the interior parking court and as you can see,
[2:58:51] these are the garages that are facing the interior parking
[2:58:54] court and there are Juliet style balconies facing
[2:58:58] the interior parking court.
[2:59:00] The elevation that is -- the front elevation or facing
[2:59:04] the neighbors -- at the third floor there is a terrace.
[2:59:09] You can see the terrace here.
[2:59:11] That terrace is actually set back 15ft and that provides
[2:59:17] the new owners of the townhomes to have a place to sit outside.
[2:59:28] Terrace also here's the elevation
[2:59:32] and you can see the terrace.
[2:59:34] It helps to articulate the building.
[2:59:37] There was a community meeting that was held
[2:59:39] and it was held online and in person.
[2:59:43] Seven members of the public.
[2:59:45] There were no members present online.
[2:59:48] Overall the public comments were about the lack
[2:59:52] of on street parking and the existing width of Civic Center
[2:59:56] drive and concerns over park privacy.
[2:59:59] The applicant did provide responses
[3:00:02] and the applicant addressed the comments
[3:00:05] in that each townhome unit will provide two car garage
[3:00:09] and the two duplex units will have a parking
[3:00:16] and ADUs are exempt from parking requirements
[3:00:19] and that is a state law regarding
[3:00:20] the exemption for ADUs.
[3:00:22] There will be a six foot masonry wall and landscaping
[3:00:25] along the perimeter to provide additional privacy.
[3:00:36] Um I do want to talk about the waivers and concessions here
[3:00:41] and explain more detail.
[3:00:45] Because the project includes the affordable housing units,
[3:00:48] the applicant is utilizing the state density bonus law
[3:00:52] to request for waivers and one concession
[3:00:56] from certain Santa Clara City code development standards.
[3:00:59] The two affordable housing units --
[3:01:04] one will be in the townhome and the other will be in the duplex.
[3:01:10] And it meets our affordable housing ordinance as well.
[3:01:15] The four waivers are first the reduction in the rear setback.
[3:01:20] Ten feet is required and they are proposing four feet 11in
[3:01:24] for the first building which is the eight unit townhome.
[3:01:30] Waiver of the front setback requirement along Civic Center
[3:01:33] drive to two feet nine inches where between 5 to 10ft is
[3:01:39] required.
[3:01:40] Waiver of the multi-story setback requirements
[3:01:44] and waiver of the height limit to allow
[3:01:47] an increase in building height.
[3:01:50] So the limit is 40ft and the applicant is proposing 44ft
[3:01:54] and then the concession is to reduce the commercial FAR
[3:01:59] to 715ft² where 2665ft² is required in the muck zoning
[3:02:08] code.
[3:02:09] I do want to explain a few things under the Housing
[3:02:14] Accountability Act.
[3:02:15] If a housing development complies
[3:02:18] with the applicable objective standards,
[3:02:21] in effect, then the application was determined to be complete.
[3:02:27] The city may not disapprove the project
[3:02:30] or require a lower density project
[3:02:33] unless the project would result in a specific impact
[3:02:37] on public health or safety.
[3:02:42] In this case the project would be
[3:02:44] required to meet all the codes for building and fire
[3:02:49] and comply with the building permit requirements.
[3:02:53] Staff does find that the project is
[3:02:56] consistent with the applicable development
[3:02:58] standards for the mixed use community commercial Zoning
[3:03:02] District as modified by the requested state density
[3:03:06] Bonus law for waivers and concessions
[3:03:09] and there are no identified or specific public health or safety
[3:03:15] impacts meeting the Housing Accountability Act standard.
[3:03:23] A development review hearing was conducted on June 17th 2026 per
[3:03:32] the City Code and the project was heard by the Development
[3:03:36] Review Officer.
[3:03:37] At the hearing, four members of the public
[3:03:41] spoke in opposition to the project.
[3:03:44] The comments included concerns the project design isn't
[3:03:49] consistent with the surrounding neighborhood,
[3:03:51] specifically the adjoining townhomes.
[3:03:53] Speakers also raised concerns regarding the proposed building
[3:03:57] height, lack of multi-story setbacks
[3:04:00] and potential privacy impacts from the proposed balconies.
[3:04:05] After considering all the comments and applicability
[3:04:08] of state laws, the Development Review Officer
[3:04:12] approved the project.
[3:04:19] There are some project features that I
[3:04:24] would like to share tonight.
[3:04:26] There is landscaping which includes a mixture of plant
[3:04:32] species and trees for the planting
[3:04:35] along both frontages common pedestrian walkways,
[3:04:37] common open space and landscaping
[3:04:40] along the entire project perimeter.
[3:04:42] For the screening they are proposing a six foot
[3:04:46] tall masonry wall with stucco along the perimeter
[3:04:49] of the entire site and the project
[3:04:51] is within a half mile of transit and under a B 2097,
[3:04:56] no parking is required for this site.
[3:05:00] The parking that is provided is a total of 32 spaces.
[3:05:04] So for the townhomes, each townhome
[3:05:07] will have two spaces in the attached garage
[3:05:10] so that is 28 spaces.
[3:05:12] With a duplex there will be one assigned and covered space
[3:05:16] for each duplex so that's two spaces total.
[3:05:19] For the commercial there is one parking from Alviso Street
[3:05:24] and that is unassigned.
[3:05:26] And there will be one assigned guest parking lot and as stated,
[3:05:30] the ADUs under state law are exempt from the parking
[3:05:34] requirements.
[3:05:34] There is a private open space on the project and it's about
[3:05:40] 2000ft².
[3:05:40] Well, let me explain this one.
[3:05:44] There is private open space which consists of terraces
[3:05:47] and they allow the interior space on the upper floor to be
[3:05:51] set back by approximately 15ft and also to allow
[3:05:55] for the articulation of the upper floors.
[3:05:59] Additionally there's 2000ft² of amenity space on the project
[3:06:03] site at the ground floor and that will include seating,
[3:06:08] table, barbecue and a usable lawn with landscaping.
[3:06:15] On August 13th the notice of Public Hearing for this item was
[3:06:22] mailed to 160 property owners and tenants within 500ft
[3:06:27] of the site.
[3:06:28] The same notice was also sent for the design review hearing
[3:06:32] that was held in June of 2026.
[3:06:36] For public comments were received.
[3:06:41] After the agenda was posted for tonight's meeting,
[3:06:44] a letter from the adjacent property,
[3:06:46] which states concerns regarding the additional height,
[3:06:50] reduced setbacks and waiver of the setback requirements
[3:06:54] and an additional letter from the appellant raising
[3:06:57] additional points in support of the appeal,
[3:06:59] a letter from the California Housing Defense Fund
[3:07:03] in support of the project and its compliance with state laws
[3:07:07] and then there's also a letter from the applicant
[3:07:10] or the property owner responding to the appeal letter.
[3:07:14] Previously written comments were submitted for the June 17th 2026
[3:07:20] and those were included as part of the DRH staff report.
[3:07:32] The action considered tonight is statutorily
[3:07:36] exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
[3:07:43] under AB130.
[3:07:45] AB130 exempts qualifying projects
[3:07:47] from formal environmental review and there is a criteria
[3:07:50] in order to meet this.
[3:07:52] I will briefly go through that criteria.
[3:07:55] The project site is less than 20 acres
[3:07:58] and this project site is 0.61 acres
[3:08:00] and the project site is incorporated
[3:08:03] in the municipality of the city of Santa Clara
[3:08:06] and was previously developed as Urban Use
[3:08:09] and it joins other urban uses.
[3:08:12] It is consistent with the zoning code and the general plan.
[3:08:16] The project density here that is proposed
[3:08:19] is 26.2 dwelling units per acre which
[3:08:23] is above the minimum density of 15 dwelling units per acre.
[3:08:28] The project is not located in a coastal zone, farmland, wetland
[3:08:34] or hazmat site or earthquake or fault zone
[3:08:37] or within a special flood area.
[3:08:39] Or on a conservation plan or within habitat
[3:08:43] for special species or under a conservation easement.
[3:08:47] The project will not demolish historic structures
[3:08:50] on the national state or local registrar
[3:08:52] and the project is not designated
[3:08:54] as a hotel, motel or transit launch or transient lodging.
[3:08:59] It will be required to prepare an environmental assessment.
[3:09:03] And that is a condition of approval for this project
[3:09:08] and that is following the city's process
[3:09:11] and the project has completed a tribal consultation process
[3:09:16] and the city met with Tammy and Nation
[3:09:18] and the Malekula tribe of San Francisco Bay area
[3:09:23] and that was completed in September of 2025.
[3:09:30] So on June 24th, 2026, the applicant's attorney submitted
[3:09:35] an appeal letter included as attachment five and they raised
[3:09:41] five grounds for the appeal.
[3:09:45] And I will walk you through those five points.
[3:09:50] The project is ineligible to use the CEQA exemption under AB130.
[3:09:59] They allege it's inconsistent with the May 2026 El Camino
[3:10:02] real specific plan that was adopted by Council.
[3:10:05] The city needs to provide more evidence supporting
[3:10:09] requested waivers and concessions,
[3:10:11] or that the Architectural Review findings related to neighborhood
[3:10:16] compatibility and harmonious development,
[3:10:18] and number five that the appellants are
[3:10:21] requesting design changes to reduce the height and setbacks.
[3:10:25] Over the next few slides I will address each
[3:10:28] of these points in more detail.
[3:10:33] The first is the exemption under AB130.
[3:10:40] The appellants allege the project
[3:10:43] is ineligible to use the statutory exemption as amended
[3:10:47] for a B 130 based on the General Plan inconsistency
[3:10:52] and they cite the transition policies that
[3:10:55] require a qualitative judgment.
[3:10:58] The city's response is that the project
[3:11:01] relies on the AB130 statutory exemption
[3:11:06] as it's a qualifying infill residential project.
[3:11:08] On a site generally not more than 20 acres.
[3:11:12] The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding
[3:11:16] character of the neighborhood because they
[3:11:18] include compatible building color common contemporary
[3:11:21] Spanish architecture design, double pane windows
[3:11:24] common metal railings.
[3:11:26] The features and the proposed design
[3:11:28] are true to the architectural form
[3:11:30] and they are appropriate for the neighborhood.
[3:11:33] AB130 provides a housing development project
[3:11:38] shall be deemed consistent with the applicable General
[3:11:41] Plan and the zoning ordinance based on substantial evidence.
[3:11:45] Hears substantial evidence supports
[3:11:47] that the community common mixed use
[3:11:50] designation authorized the proposed residential and
[3:11:53] commercial uses.
[3:11:55] They are permitted under our zoning code.
[3:11:58] In addition, approval of the state density Bonus law
[3:12:02] for concessions and waivers may not be used as grounds
[3:12:05] of finding that a project is inconsistent with the general
[3:12:09] plan, so to the extent that the appellant's objections are
[3:12:12] related to the height, the setback or --
[3:12:17] those factors cannot be considered.
[3:12:23] The appellants allege that the project is inconsistent with
[3:12:28] the El Camino real specific plan that was adopted on May 19th
[3:12:32] 2026 and remember, it went into effect in June 18th of 2026.
[3:12:38] The city's response is that the proposed project was submitted
[3:12:42] in October of 2024 and it was deemed complete
[3:12:46] and cleared in April of 2026.
[3:12:49] Prior to the adoption of the El Camino Real specific plan.
[3:12:54] It cannot be retroactively applied.
[3:12:57] Under the Housing Accountability Act,
[3:12:59] the project is evaluated and under the applicable objective
[3:13:03] General Plan, zoning subdivision design review standards
[3:13:07] in effect when the application was deemed --
[3:13:11] the city may not evaluate this project for the purposes
[3:13:15] of the Housing Accountability Act,
[3:13:18] disapproval or reduce the density against the development
[3:13:23] standards adopted in May 2026 after the project was deemed
[3:13:28] complete.
[3:13:32] The applicant's -- the appeal applicants allege that the city
[3:13:38] should have required additional evidence from the applicant
[3:13:42] for economic necessity and site constraints to justify
[3:13:45] the granting of the waivers and concessions.
[3:13:49] The city's response on the concessions
[3:13:51] is that legally for concession, an applicant does not
[3:13:55] have to prove economic infeasibility
[3:13:57] or submit a pro forma or other similar evidence.
[3:14:02] The city bears the burden to prove
[3:14:04] a concession would not be economically feasible
[3:14:07] and this is state law.
[3:14:10] Here the project site has an unusual L shaped configuration
[3:14:14] with limited street frontage and the larger part of the site
[3:14:17] is situated behind that frontage.
[3:14:20] Only a limited portion of the site
[3:14:22] has street exposure and visibility
[3:14:25] and direct pedestrian access associated
[3:14:27] with the viable commercial space.
[3:14:32] And in regards to the waiver, the developer does need to show
[3:14:38] a factual basis for the waiver but the city cannot require
[3:14:41] the removal of amenities or redesign the project merely
[3:14:45] to eliminate the need for the waivers.
[3:14:48] The setbacks, the setbacks and the height waivers
[3:14:51] are necessary due to the constraint lot configuration
[3:14:55] which limits the horizontal area available for development.
[3:14:59] Building envelopes refer the constraint
[3:15:01] by the physical space for vehicular, emergency
[3:15:05] and pedestrian access, parking, landscaping,
[3:15:08] stormwater facilities, utility access, common
[3:15:12] and private open space.
[3:15:18] And under the Architectural Review findings,
[3:15:22] the appellant states that the city cannot make two
[3:15:26] of the architectural review findings related
[3:15:28] to the neighborhood compatibility and harmonious
[3:15:31] development.
[3:15:32] The city's response is that the law does not
[3:15:38] authorize subjective compatibility criteria
[3:15:40] to serve as additional development standards
[3:15:43] for disproving or reducing the density of an otherwise
[3:15:47] objectively compliant housing development project.
[3:15:50] The city may still make locally required architectural review
[3:15:54] findings where the record supports them
[3:15:56] and the evidence supporting those findings
[3:15:58] is in the staff report.
[3:16:03] In regards to the requested design changes,
[3:16:06] the appellants ask that the project
[3:16:09] be redesigned to reduce the height
[3:16:13] and increase the setbacks, which are
[3:16:16] the waivers that the applicant has requested the state density
[3:16:20] bonus law for.
[3:16:22] The city's response is first that the strict application
[3:16:25] of the development standards would
[3:16:28] preclude the construction of the project
[3:16:30] at the allowable density.
[3:16:31] The applicant proposed the required affordable units
[3:16:35] as they are entitled to those waivers.
[3:16:38] Secondly, staff believes the current architectural design is
[3:16:42] of a high caliber and compatible with the surrounding
[3:16:46] developments and finally, the appellants
[3:16:49] want to constrain the uses allowed at the commercial space.
[3:16:54] However this is not one of the relevant topics
[3:16:56] for architectural review.
[3:17:00] Tonight staff's recommendation is to determine that the project
[3:17:06] be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
[3:17:11] for AB130, and second, that the Council adopt the resolution
[3:17:17] overruling the appeal and uphold the decision to approve
[3:17:22] the Architectural Review permit for the demolition of existing
[3:17:25] buildings, construction of three separate multifamily buildings
[3:17:30] including an eight unit townhome building,
[3:17:33] six unit townhome building and a two unit residential building
[3:17:37] with two accessory dwelling units and a 758ft² of commercial
[3:17:43] space located at 860 and 850 Civic Center Drive and 1526
[3:17:48] Alviso Street which is subject to findings and conditions
[3:17:52] of approval.
[3:17:53] Staff is here for any questions.
[3:17:56] Thank you.
[3:17:58] >> Thanks for the presentation.
[3:18:00] We'll see if there's any questions. (inaudible)
[3:18:06] questions for Director or staff?
[3:18:09] I'll start with Council member Hardy.
[3:18:13] >> Thank you.
[3:18:14] I was taking copious notes and I'll
[3:18:16] see if I can read my own handwriting.
[3:18:18] I was surprised.
[3:18:21] 715ft² for commercial is very small.
[3:18:25] I was wondering if that is set up
[3:18:29] so it can be coffee house or something?
[3:18:36] That does require more infrastructure.
[3:18:37] I was surprised about the setback.
[3:18:41] I understood fire needed at least five feet to.
[3:18:44] I do know in historic situations where we have zero lot line
[3:18:52] garages that if it's historic we've allowed that.
[3:18:56] But -- and it was just less than five feet.
[3:19:01] So that was a question.
[3:19:04] When I looked at the renderings, I wasn't really clear.
[3:19:10] The terrace where it says the 15 foot setback --
[3:19:15] is at the top of the buildings at 44ft?
[3:19:17] I wanted to make certain I understood that.
[3:19:20] Also, I was a little confused, when I think of an ADU,
[3:19:29] I think of something separate from it main buildings.
[3:19:33] So because you're saying the Adu does not have to have parking
[3:19:39] and has different requirements --
[3:19:42] I was wondering, what is the criteria
[3:19:46] to call it an ADU when it's part of that building?
[3:19:52] Above it you were saying duplex.
[3:19:56] I want to also understand from a legal point of view,
[3:20:00] this may be for the city attorney --
[3:20:03] so you're suggesting a resolution overruling the appeal
[3:20:09] but if there's no action taken, doesn't the approval stand?
[3:20:18] I want to understand because if I understand this right,
[3:20:25] this is approved.
[3:20:27] And we have an appeal -- and for the appeal to stand you would
[3:20:35] have to pass that.
[3:20:36] If we don't pass anything, isn't that just
[3:20:39] mean what was before stands?
[3:20:43] But yet staff turned around and said
[3:20:45] he wanted a resolution overruling the appeals.
[3:20:49] So from a legal point of view I want to understand that.
[3:20:53] Thank you.
[3:20:55] >> Council member Jain?
[3:21:04] >> I believe you said (inaudible) an unlimited number
[3:21:07] of -- and one concession.
[3:21:12] And I guess wouldn't that concession
[3:21:15] allow for them to have zero commercial?
[3:21:19] And the other thing is it seems like they could just
[3:21:27] reduce the setbacks to zero for the front setback
[3:21:30] and get more space.
[3:21:32] Is that allowable?
[3:21:35] I think Council Member Hardy was correct
[3:21:38] that certain setbacks are required for fire safety,
[3:21:43] so the space between the building and the masonry wall
[3:21:46] needs to allow firefighters to get in there.
[3:21:50] Is that the only constraint?
[3:21:52] Otherwise it could go to zero setbacks.
[3:21:55] I didn't quite understand the private open space.
[3:22:00] That is a 15 foot terrace.
[3:22:04] Is that available to all the residents or just the
[3:22:09] two residents that are where that terrace is?
[3:22:12] And then the 2000ft² of amenity space --
[3:22:17] you said there's going to be barbecues there and tables?
[3:22:22] Can you explain that again what's in that amenity space?
[3:22:26] And finally, how does that impact the parks impact fee?
[3:22:39] >> Council member?
[3:22:40] >> Thank you.
[3:22:40] Thanks for the report.
[3:22:41] I have a question.
[3:22:44] First question is how do we differentiate
[3:22:46] between architecture and design guidelines for a single family
[3:22:53] neighborhood and community design guidelines as mentioned?
[3:22:57] Versus the objective design standards?
[3:23:05] (inaudible) I know we're talking about objective design standards
[3:23:08] as design guidelines.
[3:23:09] How we distinguish between those two.
[3:23:12] My other question, I had the same question
[3:23:16] about the fire safety.
[3:23:18] How the setbacks will make this development --
[3:23:33] (inaudible) there's a fire next to chick fil A and --
[3:23:36] we had very small setbacks.
[3:23:38] I just want to confirm if fire department has approved it
[3:23:44] and what are the basis for that.
[3:23:47] My other request is I know you showed the elevations all
[3:23:52] by themselves within -- for the new development.
[3:23:57] And the board has some partial elevations
[3:24:01] along with the existing developments.
[3:24:05] I would like that you elaborate on that, show --
[3:24:11] along with the existing single family houses.
[3:24:16] Thank you.
[3:24:18] >> Council member Park?
[3:24:20] >> Thank you very much. (inaudible) I think
[3:24:25] their questions are my questions as well.
[3:24:27] I did have a note about side by side elevation map.
[3:24:31] It looks to me like there's no sunlight from the south at all.
[3:24:35] Or from the west after 1 p.m.
[3:24:39] And especially during winter hours.
[3:24:41] In England they used to have daylight laws
[3:24:43] to prevent this kind of thing.
[3:24:45] But I don't know that people remember what those are.
[3:24:49] Looking at four storeys less than 20ft away,
[3:24:52] even though you say it's a three storey site,
[3:24:55] there's three storeys plus a wall which makes it more than
[3:24:58] three storeys.
[3:24:59] Less than 20ft away --
[3:25:01] I thought about that.
[3:25:02] That's from the back of this wall to the gate over here.
[3:25:05] Away from two story residential.
[3:25:08] And you've got windows on every elevation.
[3:25:12] So it looks like there are privacy concerns
[3:25:16] from every aspect.
[3:25:17] This is a concern.
[3:25:20] I'm looking at the waivers.
[3:25:25] I appreciate council member's question
[3:25:27] of could they just reduce everything to zero and get
[3:25:30] the biggest largest thing?
[3:25:31] What would prevent them from doing that?
[3:25:34] Even the concessions like reducing from 10ft to 4ft from 5
[3:25:39] to 10ft to 2.2ft nine inches -- reducing the commercial from
[3:25:46] almost 2700ft² down to 715 --
[3:25:50] what do you intend to do with that commercial space?
[3:25:53] I feel at some point this is just
[3:25:56] trying to inflate whatever's there
[3:25:59] to the maximum allowable size.
[3:26:01] I think at some point, it's unfortunate
[3:26:04] that everything staff has stated is a state law or something.
[3:26:07] This is a big problem where the state
[3:26:09] is taking over local control.
[3:26:12] It means any designs that the city has,
[3:26:15] any vision for the way the city should look, any city standards,
[3:26:20] any city style just goes out the window
[3:26:22] because well, the state says you're just
[3:26:25] like every other city next to you.
[3:26:27] We don't care about details.
[3:26:29] We understand you can tell how your neighborhood differs
[3:26:32] from every other neighborhood and people who live in cities
[3:26:35] can tell how your city differs from every other city,
[3:26:38] but we don't care.
[3:26:39] We're the straight and we'll treat everyone the same.
[3:26:41] We don't care about your neighborhoods or cities
[3:26:43] or the differences in style or differences -- we don't care.
[3:26:48] I think this is a big problem.
[3:26:50] We're supposed to be the Mission City.
[3:26:52] The study of what's possible.
[3:26:55] It looks like what's possible is we can fit a lot more --
[3:26:59] >> If I might just remind council members,
[3:27:03] it's important that this just be questions at this time
[3:27:06] because we still have public testimony.
[3:27:09] If council can be focused on questions as opposed to thoughts
[3:27:14] -- which are certainly reasonable and appropriate
[3:27:16] thoughts but not at this time.
[3:27:18] >> I will also ask about the affordable housing ordinance
[3:27:21] that the city has.
[3:27:23] I think Council Member Jain brought this up.
[3:27:30] Can you tell us more about the affordable housing ordinance?
[3:27:32] It requires that developers put in affordable housing
[3:27:35] in the amount that immediately come automatically
[3:27:38] grants them a state bonus density law bonus.
[3:27:44] I'd like to know a little bit more about that
[3:27:47] until we counter something like that.
[3:27:50] I'd also like to know about the timelines of why our El Camino
[3:27:54] specific plan so late that it could have prevented something
[3:27:58] like this.
[3:27:58] We talk about our housing element --
[3:28:02] and people in our window -- and I did talk to some
[3:28:07] of the developers and some of the planning people that I
[3:28:10] talked to previously.
[3:28:12] I know staff has also talked to these people.
[3:28:14] I'd like to know a little bit about all the city
[3:28:19] city deadlines that were missed that allowed these kinds
[3:28:24] of projects to come before us.
[3:28:26] I'd like some answers there.
[3:28:28] Thank you.
[3:28:30] >> Do you have another question?
[3:28:40] >> So in the timeline, you said that this project was deemed
[3:28:43] complete a month before the El Camino real plan was approved.
[3:28:50] I believe part of the reason is before the El Camino real plan,
[3:28:56] we didn't have objective design standards.
[3:28:59] Is that why there's no requirement for
[3:29:04] articulation had this been approved after?
[3:29:08] Would that have forced it to have some articulation?
[3:29:15] I just want to make sure -- to understand better what is
[3:29:25] different between this project and maybe some future projects.
[3:29:33] Maybe let's have a couple questions.
[3:29:36] As far as the terraces, are those on the third --
[3:29:42] for some reason they look like they
[3:29:44] were on the fourth story from the picture.
[3:29:53] And the commercial -- is it going to be a warm show or just
[3:29:58] a commercial building?
[3:30:01] And with that, I don't know if you
[3:30:04] are able to answer the questions now?
[3:30:08] >> Vice Chair Gonzalez?
[3:30:10] Council has his hand up.
[3:30:14] Baby thank you.
[3:30:17] I have a follow up question. (inaudible) but we did pass some
[3:30:37] objective design standards for -- under our zoning board.
[3:30:45] (inaudible) when the projector was deemed complete or was it
[3:30:47] passed before that?
[3:30:48] That's my question.
[3:30:52] It looks like those are all the questions from Council.
[3:31:08] >> Thank you so much.
[3:31:09] Council member Hardy?
[3:31:11] I will begin with your questions.
[3:31:14] You asked that 715ft² is small and will it be a coffee house
[3:31:20] and what kind of infrastructure will be required?
[3:31:23] The developer is here tonight and so is the architect.
[3:31:27] We can ask them on that one.
[3:31:29] I'm just going to make a little note.
[3:31:32] Fire needs five feet.
[3:31:35] Y less than five feet?
[3:31:40] The California Building Code regulates buildings
[3:31:43] based on fire separation distance.
[3:31:45] This is related to a zoning setback but --
[3:31:51] depending on the distance between an exterior wall
[3:31:54] and the relevant property line or --
[3:31:57] between buildings on the same lot common
[3:31:59] the California Building Code imposes progressively more
[3:32:03] stringent requirements.
[3:32:05] What the waiver is for is from the zoning regulations
[3:32:08] and not from the California Building Code.
[3:32:11] I also want to say that when projects come before
[3:32:14] and they apply for an application,
[3:32:18] they go through what's called a project review committee, PCC.
[3:32:25] In that committee there are multiple departments
[3:32:29] that all meet under a regular basis, planning and building
[3:32:34] and SB and water, fire.
[3:32:37] Police.
[3:32:38] Public works.
[3:32:40] And the multiple divisions from public
[3:32:43] works including transportation.
[3:32:45] They all review it against the code
[3:32:48] to make sure the project can move forward.
[3:32:50] Does the CBC in this case can't allow construction quite close
[3:32:56] to or essentially at a -- provided that the construction
[3:33:01] meets the applicable fire resistance opening requirements?
[3:33:06] There isn't a general saying for example
[3:33:09] that every residential building must
[3:33:11] be five feet from the property line.
[3:33:14] The code adjusts the required construction
[3:33:16] based on the fire separation.
[3:33:18] I wanted to comment about the terrace at the top
[3:33:22] of the building's.
[3:33:24] This came up from a couple different council members.
[3:33:27] Can we go back to the elevation drawings so I can show that?
[3:33:41] So the townhomes are four stories tall.
[3:33:48] The terrace is at the fourth floor.
[3:33:54] But essentially it sets back 15ft to.
[3:33:57] At the fourth floor is where the terrace occurs
[3:34:00] and it's a 15 foot deep setback.
[3:34:08] You asked about the ADUs and generally we
[3:34:14] think there should be separate from the main buildings.
[3:34:16] They can be attached.
[3:34:18] ADUs can come in multiple forms.
[3:34:24] And what is the criteria to call this on ADU?
[3:34:32] Essentially a bedroom, a bathroom and a kitchen.
[3:34:35] It can be called an Adu.
[3:34:37] It can be a minimum of -- a minimum of 500,
[3:34:41] a little bit less.
[3:34:44] It can be a minimum of 700.
[3:34:56] There's a question regarding the overruled the appeal.
[3:35:01] Should we save that for the end or do you
[3:35:03] want to respond to that now?
[3:35:05] Abbey is here and he's our assistant director.
[3:35:09] Alexander Abbey, assistant attorney.
[3:35:12] I think it's your question, why are we having a resolution
[3:35:15] and why are we taking any action?
[3:35:17] When you have an appeal it says a city council
[3:35:20] must schedule a hearing within 60 to 120 days of the outset.
[3:35:25] It doesn't specify what happens if we fail to do that.
[3:35:28] It doesn't say then there's automatically
[3:35:30] an approval or disapproval.
[3:35:32] But it does say that all appeal hearings
[3:35:35] are de Novo which you heard the director mention before.
[3:35:38] It means you're basically starting anew.
[3:35:40] It says you can consider evidence that
[3:35:42] wasn't already in the record.
[3:35:44] New evidence added.
[3:35:46] The resolution you have before you,
[3:35:48] it took into account the prior architectural approval
[3:35:51] but it also incorporates additional information
[3:35:54] that's been received since then, different analysis by staff.
[3:35:59] You have a thick memo in your packet.
[3:36:02] I think it's memo attachment number six
[3:36:04] that contains a lot of facts behind staff decision.
[3:36:08] That's why you have a new resolution today.
[3:36:11] It's basically looking at those findings
[3:36:12] again for the council with additional evidence.
[3:36:18] I wanted to respond to Council member Jain and Park.
[3:36:26] Jain, I believe you asked about commercial space.
[3:36:28] This is going down to about 20% of their requirement.
[3:36:30] Could this go to zero?
[3:36:33] We have developers ask for that all the time.
[3:36:37] We have never said yes except in one circumstance.
[3:36:41] We're working on the station area plan right now
[3:36:44] and we don't have a station area plan
[3:36:46] although we do have a chart in the general plan that
[3:36:49] says there has to be commercial square footage in the plan.
[3:36:53] It doesn't have a number next to it.
[3:36:54] It could be one square foot.
[3:36:57] In that one circumstance for a project that
[3:37:00] was in the stationary plan, we let them go from one square foot
[3:37:04] down to zero square foot.
[3:37:05] We've never granted a concession for commercial space
[3:37:08] to go all the way down to zero.
[3:37:11] In fact, at first grant Productions
[3:37:14] in commercial square footage.
[3:37:16] Unfortunately ACD has since issued
[3:37:18] a series of advice letters saying
[3:37:20] that commercial square footage is subject to concessions.
[3:37:24] They can request reductions in square footage
[3:37:27] of commercial space.
[3:37:29] So begrudgingly we've started allowing reductions
[3:37:32] in commercial square footage.
[3:37:34] Except for that one limited circumstance,
[3:37:35] we've never allowed it to go to zero.
[3:37:39] Can they ask for anything, Council member Park?
[3:37:42] They do ask for anything.
[3:37:45] But again, we negotiate with every developer.
[3:37:49] We sit down when they have these requests.
[3:37:52] We make them show us diagrams and we've had many meetings
[3:37:55] with developers.
[3:37:56] I've sat in many of those where we've looked at,
[3:37:58] did you have this 45 degree setback, how many
[3:38:02] units will be eliminated?
[3:38:04] How much of the project will be reduced by this?
[3:38:07] We have a lot of back and forth and in many cases
[3:38:10] we tell developers we are denying those waivers.
[3:38:13] And many more cases we say we are granting them.
[3:38:16] We have limited ability to say no as a director was mentioning.
[3:38:21] In every case we do our best to hang on to as much
[3:38:25] of the standards as we can and we all feel your frustration
[3:38:30] at the erosion of local control because that's
[3:38:33] something we are dealing with every day
[3:38:34] and the state continues to pull it back
[3:38:36] and all I can tell you is we are putting up as much of a fight
[3:38:41] as we can.
[3:38:42] That's the position we are in now.
[3:38:45] We've got some commercial.
[3:38:46] Is a site with a limited frontage
[3:38:49] so we thought it was reasonable in this case
[3:38:51] because the commercial viability wouldn't be that great given
[3:38:55] how much of the lot area is behind the frontage.
[3:39:01] That is where we are at on that.
[3:39:05] >> I might follow up on one other legal aspect
[3:39:07] of Councilmember Hardy's question.
[3:39:09] You had asked for clarification on if no action is taken,
[3:39:14] does the underlying action taken by the design Review officer
[3:39:20] stand?
[3:39:20] That in fact is correct.
[3:39:23] Our appeal process contemplates the Council
[3:39:28] as the final decision maker, as part
[3:39:32] of the administrative appeal process.
[3:39:35] You will typically have not always get
[3:39:38] a recommendation for staff as to what staff
[3:39:40] thinks your decision should be.
[3:39:43] And so per attorney -- that's why you've got a full
[3:39:52] recommendation for staff with additional information
[3:39:55] to support what that action might be tonight.
[3:40:00] If the council is unable to reach any agreement on what
[3:40:06] that appropriate action should be, in effect thus no action
[3:40:11] taken by you and the legal effect of that
[3:40:14] would be that the administrative determination by the Design
[3:40:18] Review Officer with respect to these projects which
[3:40:21] was an approval would stand and stay in place.
[3:40:32] >> Thank you to our attorneys.
[3:40:34] Council member Jain, you asked about the state density bonus
[3:40:37] law and the unlimited waivers and if there's a concession.
[3:40:39] I believe that was a respondent to yes,
[3:40:41] they can go down to zero commercial if they wanted to.
[3:40:45] You also asked about the setbacks.
[3:40:47] I think it responded to the setback question
[3:40:50] through Council member Hardy's response.
[3:40:53] You asked about the amenity space
[3:40:55] and you wanted to know a little bit more
[3:40:57] about what's included in that amenity space.
[3:41:00] Can you please pull up the Powerpoint so I can show that?
[3:41:05] Let me see.
[3:41:09] So this is the Amenity space here.
[3:41:13] This is building three and this is Alviso Street.
[3:41:18] The townhomes come with a six story townhomes are here.
[3:41:22] This is the amenity space and it's 2000ft².
[3:41:24] It will have a seating area, table and chairs and a barbecue.
[3:41:30] And a little lawn area as well.
[3:41:34] You asked about if a park fee is applicable.
[3:41:37] This will go through our park ordinance
[3:41:40] and they will evaluate.
[3:41:43] It will most likely not be a public park.
[3:41:46] It will be a privately maintained space.
[3:41:50] You asked -- >> I guess I'm saying will they get the half
[3:41:58] credit for that space?
[3:42:00] >> They will have to pay the In-lieu fee.
[3:42:04] >> Yes but we give them a half credit if it meets certain
[3:42:07] requirements.
[3:42:16] >> I'm looking to my friends on the right for that assistance
[3:42:19] about the half credit.
[3:42:24] Yes.
[3:42:28] We will get back to you on that one.
[3:42:32] And I know they are busy researching answers.
[3:42:39] You asked a question that if this project was deemed
[3:42:44] complete, if the SCR was adopted maybe
[3:42:48] a month before this project, would there
[3:42:54] be more articulation?
[3:43:01] In other words would the ACR apply to this project?
[3:43:03] This was deemed complete and at the concurrently
[3:43:06] we are running the ACR and it was
[3:43:09] going through the multiple reviews including
[3:43:11] the new Environmental Review.
[3:43:14] I think what's important to know is --
[3:43:20] because they are meeting our affordable housing ordinance
[3:43:23] and providing the number of affordable units
[3:43:26] that are required for this project,
[3:43:27] they can do unlimited waivers and still apply and get
[3:43:33] those waivers and concessions.
[3:43:37] >> You're saying it doesn't matter whether that --
[3:43:40] >> They can ask for waivers and concessions if they do
[3:43:43] affordable units.
[3:43:44] It is a state law.
[3:43:53] >> I will pipe in, it's always dangerous to have Laura next
[3:43:56] to you.
[3:43:56] Again, we negotiate with every developer.
[3:43:58] I wouldn't put it as blanket as the director where she's
[3:44:01] being a little pessimistic.
[3:44:03] I would say they would have the ability
[3:44:06] to request additional waivers and we would hopefully
[3:44:09] push back on that.
[3:44:11] And likewise -- I will disagree with --
[3:44:15] we will not agree to a zero square footage commercial.
[3:44:21] >> But they would ask under the Affordable Housing Ordinance --
[3:44:24] a required number which is 15% under our affordable housing
[3:44:31] ordinance.
[3:44:31] They can request unlimited waivers
[3:44:34] and then they're required concessions.
[3:44:36] And then we evaluated according to state law.
[3:44:41] >> I'm still trying to understand what is the point
[3:44:43] of objective design standards if they can get all the waivers
[3:44:46] they want?
[3:44:55] >> Why don't I take that one.
[3:44:56] We totally understand the point you are making.
[3:44:57] I think the reality of the situation,
[3:44:59] not just for Santa Clara but other cities
[3:45:00] is there's been a myriad of state laws
[3:45:03] that have taken away local control.
[3:45:06] With the express benefit to have more housing.
[3:45:09] It's quite possible we will have more housing,
[3:45:13] but communities built that don't reflect the intent of what
[3:45:18] our local rules say.
[3:45:19] The state knew that when they adopted a number of their laws.
[3:45:23] The reasons are many.
[3:45:25] We sit here with the legislative context
[3:45:28] that we do with a number of state laws
[3:45:31] and we're only talking about a few here today.
[3:45:33] We haven't even talked about Senate Bill 330
[3:45:36] which is your very next item.
[3:45:42] Two (inaudible) like a specific plan.
[3:45:50] Absolutely this community went through a very elongated process
[3:45:53] to arrive at a vision for El Camino Real.
[3:45:56] With this project for various reasons
[3:45:58] has double dashed to get waivers from things
[3:46:01] that the community and then council adopted.
[3:46:03] Unfortunately that's where we are.
[3:46:25] >> Council member Chahal you asked what is the difference
[3:46:28] between design guidelines versus objective design standards
[3:46:30] and how do we distinguish?
[3:46:31] Design guidelines are just that, guidelines.
[3:46:35] We cannot hold them.
[3:46:37] Their suggestions.
[3:46:38] And they are visions.
[3:46:41] But objective design standards are under the state law
[3:46:47] and if a community adopts objective design standards,
[3:46:52] then we can work with the developer
[3:46:55] to hold the developer to those standards.
[3:46:58] So there's a lot of benefit when we talk about local control.
[3:47:02] Local control comes from adopting objective design
[3:47:06] standards which is why the staff has been bringing those
[3:47:09] to you in specific plans or for multifamily.
[3:47:13] And we're continuing to pursue those to keep some community
[3:47:18] character.
[3:47:28] >> I have a follow up on that. (inaudible) the conversation
[3:47:31] regarding objective design standards and state laws.
[3:47:33] I do remember as City Manager also mentioned --
[3:47:38] we were always told that if we do have objective design
[3:47:42] standards, that is the only way --
[3:47:47] maintain control of land use and zoning decisions.
[3:47:53] And I'm hearing today that state law --
[3:48:01] (inaudible) I want a clarification on that
[3:48:03] because we're always told -- design standard.
[3:48:06] Yes, you can override the state laws with those basically.
[3:48:18] (inaudible) but I want to have that clarification.
[3:48:20] >> So objective design standards do give us,
[3:48:24] help us set a certain vision for community character.
[3:48:27] We did that for example in the El Camino real specific plan.
[3:48:33] And the objective design standards kind of help
[3:48:37] for example, if you have 100% blank wall, you cannot --
[3:48:42] if you have a street frontage, we don't want 100% blank wall.
[3:48:47] We want a facade that is pedestrian
[3:48:49] friendly, transparent, open and creates
[3:48:52] a dialog with the street.
[3:48:54] And we put down standards such as -- let me explain.
[3:48:59] Like every 25ft there needs to be an opening.
[3:49:04] Or take some kind of articulation.
[3:49:07] When a developer submits a waiver, they can reduce that.
[3:49:12] And again, this is something that we,
[3:49:16] as we're going and working with developers, we have a baseline.
[3:49:21] And that is what they ask us for a waiver for
[3:49:25] or a concession for.
[3:49:27] But we are working with the vision
[3:49:31] that the council has adopted.
[3:49:34] And the vision and the input that the community
[3:49:37] has given to us.
[3:49:41] >> My point is the city has a right to strictly adhere
[3:49:45] to objective design standards and not to --.
[3:49:48] Is that correct?
[3:49:58] >> This is a very nuanced conversation and yes,
[3:50:00] we should adopt objective design standards because what will hold
[3:50:06] is objective design standards.
[3:50:08] And that is where we are all going.
[3:50:12] All the cities are going.
[3:50:14] But there can be waivers and there can be concessions.
[3:50:19] Unlike the city attorney said, when a project comes in,
[3:50:23] it's like a negotiating point.
[3:50:26] We talk when we go back and forth
[3:50:29] so we still retain a certain amount of control for the city.
[3:50:35] >> Those will be discretionary.
[3:50:36] If city doesn't want -- >> Council member,
[3:50:40] if you have questions -- reiterate those questions.
[3:50:45] We're not going to go back and forth here.
[3:50:53] >> Vice-Mayor, this is -- it's pertaining to the same question.
[3:50:56] That's why I'm discussing it.
[3:50:59] >> Go ahead and ask your question.
[3:51:02] >> My question is if the design standards --
[3:51:07] is the city's discretion whether to give that or not.
[3:51:13] >> I know my city attorney is coming but there is not
[3:51:18] a discretion to grant these waivers.
[3:51:22] Again, this is called the state density bonus law.
[3:51:27] If they meet the criteria through the 15%
[3:51:32] affordable housing compliance, we
[3:51:35] have to grant those waivers or concessions.
[3:51:40] >> Let me finish this sentence.
[3:51:41] She teed it up for me well.
[3:51:44] We have to grant those waivers.
[3:51:46] If the waiver is necessary, to achieve the density
[3:51:50] allowable under the density bonus law.
[3:51:53] So it's about fitting the project on the site.
[3:51:57] If the developer says hey, look double Dutch with this density
[3:52:02] bonus, this isn't the biggest site,
[3:52:03] I can't really fit the project I want on this site
[3:52:07] unless you waive some of these standards.
[3:52:09] If it's necessary for them to achieve the allowable density
[3:52:12] including the bonus on the site, then we
[3:52:14] have to grant the waiver unless there's public health and safety
[3:52:18] findings.
[3:52:19] You could say well, can't you just redesign
[3:52:25] it come and get rid of a courtyard?
[3:52:27] Those are the court said well, we're
[3:52:30] not allowed to make them get rid of amenities in the process.
[3:52:34] That's why it turns into a negotiation
[3:52:35] because we always push back and they always say yeah well,
[3:52:39] we've got to have this beautiful fountain in the middle.
[3:52:42] It's too high.
[3:52:44] There's a push and pull.
[3:52:55] >> I think we covered Councilmember --
[3:52:56] we also covered your setback reduction.
[3:52:58] For the fire space, we've already covered that question.
[3:53:02] Councilmember Chahal, you also asked
[3:53:06] about the objective design standards for the El Camino
[3:53:09] real specific plan and under the zoning code, do they apply?
[3:53:14] In this case El Camino real specific plan
[3:53:17] was adopted by council in May of 2026.
[3:53:20] This project was deemed complete in April of 2026.
[3:53:25] We cannot retroactively apply.
[3:53:30] >> My question was different.
[3:53:31] My question was we didn't have objective design standards
[3:53:34] approved -- when was that passed in -- ?
[3:53:43] >> Let me take this.
[3:53:46] >> Councilmember, at a high level,
[3:53:48] what I hear you saying is hey, we were told that if we have
[3:53:52] objective design standards, that's a buttress and protection
[3:53:55] for our community and the development community will have
[3:53:58] to meet our objective design standards.
[3:54:00] Not sure when you were told that but let me say at a high level,
[3:54:04] I know that was the case in the past.
[3:54:08] Cities thought that and I remember
[3:54:10] working with council members in a different city on that topic
[3:54:14] and everybody was moving to have objective design standards.
[3:54:17] What has happened is the landscape of laws in California
[3:54:21] has constantly changed.
[3:54:22] So the density bonus law was amended in 2025,
[3:54:27] October 10th 2025, to adjust this point.
[3:54:33] The new changes took effect January 1st 2026 and it allows
[3:54:38] for waivers, even when you have objective design standards.
[3:54:43] And so there's just a constant changing landscape
[3:54:46] that the legislature is doing to essentially provide tools
[3:54:52] so that cities have less and less discretion
[3:54:54] so we will have more housing.
[3:54:57] There are still benefits to having objective design
[3:55:01] standards absolutely.
[3:55:03] We have done them in the El Camino real specific plan
[3:55:05] and we'll keep doing them but we also
[3:55:07] have state law that constrains us.
[3:55:10] We are here with one of those >> Thank you.
[3:55:19] >> Yet the other side of it is we have objective design
[3:55:21] standards because we can no longer impose objective
[3:55:25] subjective cannot be applied to multifamily residential
[3:55:29] developments.
[3:55:29] Things like neighborhood compatibility,
[3:55:33] architectural design, subjectively.
[3:55:35] So we have objective standards because that's
[3:55:38] the only thing we can apply.
[3:55:40] They can request waivers to some of those standards.
[3:55:47] That's why we need the objective standards.
[3:55:52] >> Council member Chahal, you also asked that we adopted
[3:55:58] objective design standards for multifamily as part
[3:56:02] of our zoning code and do they apply.
[3:56:05] So the objective design standards for multifamily
[3:56:09] were in effect in April and there is a provision
[3:56:13] that application submitted prior to the adoption
[3:56:16] are not subjected to those objective design standards
[3:56:20] for multifamily.
[3:56:22] This is separate from the ones that were adopted in the El
[3:56:25] Camino real specific plan.
[3:56:29] >> Thanks.
[3:56:31] And then you asked about the elevations.
[3:56:35] And partial elevations with existing development
[3:56:38] and single family homes on both sides.
[3:56:41] I don't know if we can bring those up.
[3:56:46] I don't have those.
[3:56:48] Let me see if I have them.
[3:56:59] I know I have some images of the actual project site,
[3:57:05] the one on the bottom is the collision center
[3:57:07] where the project or the proposed project will go.
[3:57:11] These are the commercial and the duplex
[3:57:15] and then I have the townhome floor plans.
[3:57:24] I don't have that context, the contextual ones.
[3:57:30] Let me work on council member parks questions.
[3:57:36] You commented that there's no sunlight from south and west.
[3:57:41] A shadow study is not required for this project.
[3:57:47] Council member Park, you also asked about four storeys less
[3:57:52] than 20ft away and that there's windows on every elevation
[3:57:55] and privacy concerns.
[3:57:57] The only thing I would comment is
[3:58:01] that yes, there are windows on all the elevations
[3:58:05] but they are also building code requirements for life safety.
[3:58:11] There's a reason that there's windows on elevations.
[3:58:20] The new asked about the waivers.
[3:58:23] We've covered that question.
[3:58:24] You asked about reducing it from 2700 common the commercial space
[3:58:29] down to 715ft².
[3:58:31] We covered that.
[3:58:33] You made a couple statements and those statements not questions
[3:58:40] -- you also asked about the affordable housing ordinance.
[3:58:45] And if there's affordable housing that
[3:58:52] is provided in the amount required by the ordinance,
[3:59:00] is the state Density Bonus law granted?
[3:59:03] I think we've talked about this a few times.
[3:59:08] Your question is how do we >> I can respond to.
[3:59:17] So all of our density bonus provisions
[3:59:19] are in chapter 18.64 of our code and suffice
[3:59:19] to say there are a lot of tables in this section
[3:59:22] and we have to amend it every couple years
[3:59:24] when state law changes.
[3:59:26] But basically it goes through a formula
[3:59:28] and if you provide this many units
[3:59:30] at this level of affordability, here's
[3:59:32] the percentage density bonus you get
[3:59:34] but more relevant for tonight's discussion,
[3:59:36] it says exactly how many concessions
[3:59:39] slash incentives you get.
[3:59:41] For moderate income housing which
[3:59:42] is what's being provided here, if you provide
[3:59:45] 10% of the units at moderate income
[3:59:47] you get one incentive or concession.
[3:59:49] If you provide 20% at moderate you get two incentives.
[3:59:54] So they are providing exactly 15%, actually 14.2 because --
[4:00:00] so they get one concession incentive.
[4:00:03] Remember, something that reduces the cost of the project
[4:00:06] overall and that's what they're using
[4:00:08] for their commercial square footage.
[4:00:10] Waivers are about -- and if they are subject to the bonus law
[4:00:14] they get unlimited waivers.
[4:00:23] >> Council, going back to your question on the elevations,
[4:00:25] Leslie and Xavier our planning manager has brought up
[4:00:28] the elevations on the screen.
[4:00:39] >> I can't see but (inaudible).
[4:00:43] >> They do show the elevations in context,
[4:00:45] one on Civic Center Drive and the other is --.
[4:00:58] >> A 4.5 page I think.
[4:01:00] Thank you.
[4:01:01] >> Yes.
[4:01:01] Council member Park, you asked about the El Camino
[4:01:03] real specific plan and why it was delayed.
[4:01:06] There was an El Camino real specific plan first brought
[4:01:11] to council but the council approved not to adopt it.
[4:01:15] Staff came back after council direction was provided
[4:01:19] to amend the El Camino Real specific plan
[4:01:23] and that also entailed doing environmental review,
[4:01:26] doing public outreach and this was all brought to you
[4:01:30] when we came back in May and we also
[4:01:32] did a study session with council and walked counsel
[4:01:35] through the entire project.
[4:01:39] So was there a specific question on this?
[4:01:43] >> I specifically what were the timelines so we could see what
[4:01:46] the times were.
[4:01:48] When you say we talked about this
[4:01:50] and we had work that needed to be done,
[4:01:52] I don't think that tells the full story.
[4:01:55] I asked other questions as well which is when you say --
[4:02:00] the study is not required, my question was can you tell us
[4:02:04] what the shadows would be if there were a shadow story like
[4:02:06] are my statements correct?
[4:02:08] Is there sunlight during winter?
[4:02:11] Is there sunlight after 1 p.m.?
[4:02:15] At any time of the year?
[4:02:17] When we talked about the windows,
[4:02:19] I understand you said that we've got some safety concerns.
[4:02:22] We don't seem to have any fire safety concerns comment
[4:02:26] meaning at some point you're saying this is a zoning
[4:02:28] requirement that we don't have these
[4:02:30] but there's no fire requirement.
[4:02:32] You said they did -- what is the fire reports?
[4:02:36] Can we hear what the report is?
[4:02:38] All of the El Camino specific plan --
[4:02:44] all the things brought before council seemed to be this much
[4:02:48] too late.
[4:02:48] Like I'd mentioned before and this is a comment,
[4:02:52] but part of my question -- the housing element came before
[4:02:56] Council for approval on the night it needed to be approved
[4:02:59] by the state.
[4:03:01] There was no chance that the housing element would
[4:03:04] have been approved and not getting the housing element
[4:03:07] approved has opened us up for a lot of things
[4:03:10] like builders remedy coming in.
[4:03:11] What I'm hearing and it's disappointing,
[4:03:14] we are always this late for something and now you're telling
[4:03:17] us even if we were in time, the state laws obviate
[4:03:21] our requirements and this is -- can you tell us the timelines
[4:03:26] that were in effect?
[4:03:28] Can you tell the timelines that were --
[4:03:33] for El Camino specific plan?
[4:03:36] I remember these came before council in 2021. (inaudible)
[4:03:47] this is the El Camino real specific plan.
[4:03:49] This is one of the most important streets in our city.
[4:03:53] For us to kind of delay -- four years later,
[4:03:58] to have something like this -- seems out of character
[4:04:03] for something important.
[4:04:04] I want to know what those were.
[4:04:08] >> I know we are dealing with this project today.
[4:04:11] I understand the frustration.
[4:04:13] I wasn't here in 2021 but even so, I can tell you that those
[4:04:17] frustrations -- but as far as this project,
[4:04:25] I think she's addressed the Camino real plan.
[4:04:30] >> For this project, I still want the other questions about
[4:04:35] -- is my thought about shadow correct?
[4:04:38] The privacy -- I understand you're saying we have these
[4:04:41] things.
[4:04:42] Can you detail what those are and contrast them
[4:04:44] with the fire safety concerns that the council members
[4:04:48] have had?
[4:04:49] You state them.
[4:04:50] In some cases you've said we've talked about a lot
[4:04:52] and we don't have to talk about that more.
[4:04:56] That's fine but in those cases, can you reiterate the answer?
[4:04:59] Is it yes or no?
[4:05:01] But simply saying that we've talked about this a lot
[4:05:04] doesn't actually tell the story or give the public the answers
[4:05:07] they're looking for.
[4:05:08] I can see them shaking their heads and nodding
[4:05:12] and at some point we are not trying
[4:05:15] to say we are stating everything in a checklist.
[4:05:17] At some point we're trying to make communications clear
[4:05:20] and if I'm repeating myself it's because communication is not
[4:05:24] clear.
[4:05:25] You may have asked them in the Or answered them in the past
[4:05:28] but if you can distill what the answer is
[4:05:29] that would be better than telling us
[4:05:31] that we've discussed it in the past.
[4:05:33] Thank you.
[4:05:36] >> As far as the shadow study, that wasn't done --
[4:05:39] I don't think I'll ask our director to sit here and tell me
[4:05:41] exactly at 1:00 what the shadow is.
[4:05:44] If you can just address the questions as best you can,
[4:05:47] we'll move forward.
[4:05:49] >> I'm not asking for a shadow study but -- >> (inaudible)
[4:06:05] >> Why don't I take the one about fire and be brief.
[4:06:05] The question was with the proposed setback,
[4:06:06] is there a fire at risk?
[4:06:07] The answer that was provided was fire looked at it
[4:06:12] and has approved it and there is no set required
[4:06:19] setback for fire risk.
[4:06:22] The California Building Code will allow buildings to about
[4:06:27] each other if the construction type is --
[4:06:31] we see it all the time.
[4:06:32] You see buildings above each other
[4:06:34] and there's no precise required setback.
[4:06:36] There's a construction methodology
[4:06:38] that would need to be met depending
[4:06:39] on how close the buildings are.
[4:06:41] It is allowed.
[4:06:43] Your fire department has review this application
[4:06:46] and hasn't objected.
[4:07:02] >> Okay.
[4:07:03] Councilmember Park, are there any remaining questions
[4:07:03] you would like me to respond to?
[4:07:04] >> The ones I just asked.
[4:07:06] I mean are my thoughts correct about shade
[4:07:09] when I'm asking for a shadow study?
[4:07:11] I'm just asking if there's a general -- we've got again,
[4:07:16] for story units, less than 20ft away from two story residential.
[4:07:22] My concern is there -- we're looking for standards from
[4:07:27] objective design which don't seem to matter but we don't have
[4:07:30] standards for fire safety or privacy.
[4:07:33] We talked about fire safety.
[4:07:35] I don't know if there was a study done.
[4:07:38] Is it only on one side?
[4:07:40] As long as one side is built to certain fire
[4:07:43] safety standards and everything's okay?
[4:07:45] What are the privacy concerns?
[4:07:48] What are the concerns that staff considered
[4:07:51] when approving this project?
[4:07:52] I want to know what those aspects of this project.
[4:07:56] Thank you.
[4:07:58] >> As stated, we can only consider those items
[4:08:00] in the development standards.
[4:08:03] A shadow study is not a required part of that standard.
[4:08:08] So I want to make it abundantly clear, that's not required
[4:08:12] and it's not objective.
[4:08:14] So we cannot include it.
[4:08:16] Plus we did do a shadow study if you recall as part of the El
[4:08:21] Camino real specific plan where we looked at certain --
[4:08:24] some of the properties.
[4:08:25] We didn't look at every property.
[4:08:27] We demonstrated how it would apply.
[4:08:30] Councilmember, that was shown in --
[4:08:35] shown in illustrated in diagrams and shown to council,
[4:08:39] both of the study section as well as the final approval
[4:08:43] for the El Camino real specific plan.
[4:08:46] For this specific project, a shadow study
[4:08:49] was not required as stated.
[4:08:51] Is not part of the development standards.
[4:08:54] We can ask if the developer or the architect
[4:08:58] conducted any shadow studies.
[4:09:02] >> Again, with the privacy studies --
[4:09:03] it's funny to hear you say that shadow studies weren't required
[4:09:06] and they're not objective.
[4:09:08] There's nothing more objective than a shadow
[4:09:11] study at some point.
[4:09:12] If somebody does a shadow study and somebody
[4:09:14] wants to refute that they can refute that.
[4:09:16] But at some point (inaudible) the sun is there
[4:09:26] and the shadows are there.
[4:09:27] Maybe I'll just add Council member Park, our zoning code --
[4:09:29] they don't require shadow studies.
[4:09:31] There is a requirement for them in the planned area which
[4:09:36] requires that if there is public open space nearby in some
[4:09:43] circumstances --
[4:09:44] four storey buildings may need a shadow study.
[4:09:47] But there's no public open space of this project.
[4:09:51] With respect to the privacy concerns,
[4:09:54] these were raised with the developer
[4:09:57] on a number of circumstances including at the development
[4:10:00] review hearing.
[4:10:01] The developer did make certain adjustments
[4:10:04] to the project throughout the application process.
[4:10:08] But declined to make additional changes related to privacy
[4:10:12] and response --.
[4:10:15] So developer can address that more specifically.
[4:10:19] But we've brought that issue up with the developer
[4:10:23] and they are complying with development standards
[4:10:26] that we have.
[4:10:29] >> My questions were along the lines of what is the city doing,
[4:10:34] what kinds of things are we doing.
[4:10:36] Even if not required, what work is the city doing to ensure that
[4:10:40] the public is being protected, that the residents that are
[4:10:44] there are being -- that we are considering them?
[4:10:49] We are not sacrificing existing residents
[4:10:52] because of what the state seems to allow for future development.
[4:10:58] My question is how are we double Dutch we're supposed
[4:11:02] to represent the residents.
[4:11:03] At some point we have a financial fiscal responsibility
[4:11:06] but I think that comes after our responsibility to our residents.
[4:11:10] I want to know how -- how our defense of the residents came
[4:11:16] to this conclusion?
[4:11:19] >> Let me take that.
[4:11:20] Part of the concerns you have raised is privacy.
[4:11:23] I will say at its core, privacy is subjective.
[4:11:28] We've said why we are not allowed
[4:11:30] to have subjective standards.
[4:11:32] An objective standard is building heights, setbacks,
[4:11:37] and we have those.
[4:11:40] When the city developed the El Camino real specific plan,
[4:11:44] privacy -- when those items were talked about --
[4:11:48] I know it was forefront among many issues.
[4:11:50] Again calling to town we have is our objective standards
[4:11:55] that are in part given because of privacy
[4:11:58] can be waived due to state law and the density bonus.
[4:12:02] So I wouldn't say that the city did not consider privacy.
[4:12:05] We do not think about that, we didn't have that as a criteria.
[4:12:09] We just sit here once again with the context of state law
[4:12:14] giving an applicant the ability to waive standards,
[4:12:18] objective standards that the city has put into its long term
[4:12:22] plan.
[4:12:24] >> I want to be clear what I heard.
[4:12:26] I think what you said earlier and I'll check the video later,
[4:12:28] is this privacy can be waived due to state law.
[4:12:31] This is an important point but I want
[4:12:33] to verify that that's what was stated.
[4:12:45] >> Objective standards related to privacy may be waived
[4:12:48] depending on the circumstances.
[4:12:48] Subjective standards related to privacy
[4:12:50] are likely unenforceable.
[4:13:04] >> Do we have a few more questions?
[4:13:05] >> Let me take one look.
[4:13:05] Councilmember Gonzalez?
[4:13:07] Your questions were are there terraces on the third floor
[4:13:11] or the fourth floor?
[4:13:12] I think I've clarified.
[4:13:14] They are on the fourth floor.
[4:13:16] And you asked if there's one commercial requirements.
[4:13:21] We can ask the developer and the architect.
[4:13:26] They're here tonight.
[4:13:29] >> Thank you.
[4:13:31] I think those are the questions the council had of staff.
[4:13:35] Next we're going to hear from the appellant.
[4:13:38] We'll move on to Michael and Cheryl
[4:13:41] Fisher who have up to ten minutes
[4:13:44] and give their presentation.
[4:13:48] The hearing has been open since the beginning.
[4:13:53] Sorry.
[4:14:05] >> Hello?
[4:14:06] >> She's going to speak? >> Good evening.
[4:14:12] Thank you Council members. (inaudible) I'm a senior partner
[4:14:16] who has focused on only environmental land use law
[4:14:16] for the past 26 years and then looking at this and hearing
[4:14:18] about the state density bonus and how much the state has taken
[4:14:22] away at discretion, from the city,
[4:14:25] it's frustrating that not one person has addressed our letter
[4:14:31] from this morning dated August 25th,
[4:14:34] and looking more at these issues.
[4:14:37] The main problem with this project is that the two
[4:14:42] accessory dwelling units which are a mere 520ft² each,
[4:14:47] one bedroom, will not be able to be sold.
[4:14:52] The conditions of approval for the project --
[4:14:56] requiring an affordable housing agreement density bonus
[4:14:59] agreement -- which would establish the affordable sales
[4:15:03] price under condition H three and under the city's own density
[4:15:08] Bonus agreement, provisions and 18.64 of the city code --
[4:15:14] there are provisions requiring that there's a deed restriction
[4:15:19] being recorded and that the initial purchasers be low
[4:15:22] income.
[4:15:23] These are all the requirements in order
[4:15:26] to back into an affordable housing component
[4:15:30] and part of the ability for the developer
[4:15:33] allegedly to be getting all those waivers
[4:15:37] and concessions under the state density bonus law.
[4:15:40] No one has mentioned the separate accessory dwelling
[4:15:44] law which is in chapter 13 of the Planning and Zoning
[4:15:47] which precludes ADUs from being sold or conveyed
[4:15:57] absent an ordinance pursuant to 1033, Government Code section
[4:15:59] 66342, that ADUs be allowed to be conveyed as condominium
[4:16:10] units.
[4:16:10] There's a bunch of requirements.
[4:16:10] So the city does not have such an ordinance.
[4:16:13] Those units cannot be conveyed in that manner.
[4:16:17] Also the developer could be a nonprofit
[4:16:20] in order to allow for ADUs to be conveyed separately
[4:16:30] from the main units.
[4:16:31] Again, there's nothing in the record
[4:16:33] that shows they're a nonprofit.
[4:16:35] The initial appeal letter was focused mainly
[4:16:37] on a scanty record and lack of evidence
[4:16:40] that was before the administrative decision making
[4:16:43] body.
[4:16:44] And looking at this further, and as your city manager noted,
[4:16:47] this is an ever evolving, constantly changing landscape.
[4:16:52] Basically it's unenforceable.
[4:16:57] HCD has also recommended against the use of deed restricted ADUs
[4:17:03] to qualify for the state Density Bonus law,
[4:17:05] if the proposed primary units as here are for sale,
[4:17:08] and the deed restricted ADUs would be only for rent.
[4:17:13] Unless there's a robust, adequately funded monitoring
[4:17:17] program put into place.
[4:17:19] Because otherwise we can't track who actually is
[4:17:22] occupying these units for rent.
[4:17:25] And the city lacks such well-funded monitoring programs.
[4:17:29] The council, reviewing this de Novo,
[4:17:33] has a discretion to deny the project and grant the appeal,
[4:17:38] send it back to staff, send it back to the developer
[4:17:41] and make them look at a smaller project
[4:17:43] and maybe make them do actual affordable units that
[4:17:47] are of average bedroom size which is also required
[4:17:51] by the city code, and which are dispersed throughout the project
[4:17:54] site.
[4:17:55] The site is so oddly shaped and maybe that's
[4:18:00] why they've taken the approach they have
[4:18:02] to try to squeeze as much in.
[4:18:04] But the council is not required to approve this.
[4:18:07] Unless you have questions for me,
[4:18:10] I'd request that the Council grant the appeal or hand
[4:18:14] the project to staff and the developer
[4:18:15] and I will cede the rest of my time to my client.
[4:18:28] >> I shouldn't have to use my ten minutes correcting city
[4:18:30] errors and there's a lot of them.
[4:18:30] First off, this is that neighborhood context
[4:18:30] we're talking about.
[4:18:31] I saw no images of this in the January of 2020 council
[4:18:35] meeting I presented a case that this
[4:18:38] is the most significant nod to the mission of Santa Clara,
[4:18:42] if you look at the lines.
[4:18:43] It's a clear nod to our emblem.
[4:18:46] I shouldn't have to use my time for all this nonsense.
[4:18:50] This should be presented as the context of the neighborhood.
[4:18:54] This is the house and this is the neighborhood,
[4:18:57] the single family homes.
[4:18:58] This is the most significantly impacted and it's not 12ft away.
[4:19:02] It's 5 or 10 or less than ten.
[4:19:05] The attorneys need to be educated.
[4:19:08] My project was not double dashed same zoning.
[4:19:11] My project was not allowed to have commercial.
[4:19:13] Development across the street, not allowed to have commercial.
[4:19:17] So lots of education needs to be recurring here.
[4:19:22] So the Mission estates project, it was previously -- sorry.
[4:19:27] I have a whole speech but I've only got four minutes.
[4:19:35] Let's see.
[4:19:36] So I want to speak to staff.
[4:19:41] There's a lot of staff problems here.
[4:19:43] I don't know if I have time to speak of it.
[4:19:46] The overall problem we want to address
[4:19:49] is modern high density development
[4:19:51] next to existing neighborhood and create a scene.
[4:19:53] That scene needs to be addressed.
[4:19:56] No staff seems to give a damn.
[4:19:57] Attorneys don't seem to give a damn and city manager doesn't
[4:20:00] seem to give a damn.
[4:20:01] There's a problem and it's way bigger than my project.
[4:20:04] Goodness.
[4:20:05] This is all over the city, not just me.
[4:20:10] So my project was based on the concept
[4:20:14] of a eligibility equals listed.
[4:20:17] That means historical resource, if it's eligible,
[4:20:21] it's the same legal standing as listed.
[4:20:24] Fast forward today.
[4:20:26] The whole development in the standards
[4:20:28] are in concrete and stucco and tile.
[4:20:31] I was originally proposing to build an eight unit three story
[4:20:35] townhome in city staff said heck no.
[4:20:39] I eventually got a four unit development based on this
[4:20:43] concept, this legal determination from city staff
[4:20:46] that listed -- eligible equals listed.
[4:20:50] It's my house which is eligible to be historically listed is --
[4:20:56] the same legal standing as an actual listed resource.
[4:21:00] My house is clearly a resource.
[4:21:03] Nobody's talked about it and it's a resource,
[4:21:06] and whether it's eligible or listed is a discrepancy here.
[4:21:09] It was beaten into me so many times
[4:21:13] in these meetings with my planner,
[4:21:15] whom apparently lied to me and was inept,
[4:21:19] but this case, this eligibility equals listed.
[4:21:22] So much so that we were just bled dry.
[4:21:26] We spent over a quarter million dollars in $2,017 or whatever
[4:21:31] approving each of these units just nothing to do with private
[4:21:36] property.
[4:21:36] This was city satisfaction dollars.
[4:21:39] And finally, at the end of our process we had --
[4:21:46] after a much longer process than these folks are enduring,
[4:21:54] at the end we had our approval set up for a meeting at the PCC
[4:21:59] meeting.
[4:22:00] We were due for staff approval.
[4:22:02] Far more effort than these folks have put into it.
[4:22:06] My planner comes to me in the hallway and says hey Michael,
[4:22:10] I need to --
[4:22:12] we need to postpone periods over two years of involvement
[4:22:16] and lots of dollars.
[4:22:17] We need to give another developer this slot.
[4:22:20] I didn't come to learn until later
[4:22:23] that this was to make me the first Guinea
[4:22:26] pig under the premise that eligible
[4:22:29] equals listed and eligible resource has
[4:22:32] the same legal standing as a listed resource.
[4:22:34] They called my project complicated and then they made
[4:22:39] us the first Guinea pigs of the $50,000 parking fee.
[4:22:42] It was a simple and non-controversial project
[4:22:46] and we agreed to everything the city said.
[4:22:49] So this erroneous legal counsel to the city --
[4:22:53] furthermore, we scheduled and paid
[4:22:56] for a fee to register our house as a historical resource.
[4:23:00] But because the city staff was so rude and beat this
[4:23:03] in and took so much money and time from us, we decided well,
[4:23:07] since historical eligible resource --
[4:23:10] which my house is a resource -- it's exactly the same legal
[4:23:15] standing as a listed resource, why bother with the fee and with
[4:23:19] the listing?
[4:23:20] We would love to list our house.
[4:23:23] This is nuts.
[4:23:25] Staff needs to be educated.
[4:23:27] I got 47 seconds left and it's like two hours and 50 people
[4:23:31] against ten minutes and double Dutch a few people.
[4:23:34] It's ridiculous.
[4:23:36] Furthermore, I've dedicated my life to this.
[4:23:42] Originally we're going to tear down a house
[4:23:44] and build three story townhomes.
[4:23:46] We were restricted and not allowed commercial and over two
[4:23:49] story.
[4:23:50] The development across the street was also restricted
[4:23:53] double dashed eligible historic resource which is --
[4:23:57] I don't know if you've seen it.
[4:24:02] Lots more to say but you should fund my 152 --
[4:24:09] June 17th approval date for this project and the June 18th
[4:24:12] specific plan was approved.
[4:24:15] I smell a rat.
[4:24:27] >> Thank you.
[4:24:28] Any questions for the appellant?
[4:24:28] Council?
[4:24:29] I don't see any hands up.
[4:24:39] So with that we are going to -- we will move
[4:24:43] on to the applicant.
[4:24:45] The applicant will have ten minutes.
[4:24:49] Mr. Damien Ospino, Ospino enterprises.
[4:24:54] We'll get that presentation here together.
[4:24:58] >> A good evening.
[4:24:59] Damien Spino.
[4:25:01] Family business.
[4:25:02] My mother and father brought this property in 1972
[4:25:07] and operated it as a machine shop for 30 years.
[4:25:13] Father's dream was someday it will develop the property.
[4:25:18] While this coming Friday we had a memorial for our father.
[4:25:23] We lost him a year ago.
[4:25:26] My family says we're through.
[4:25:29] We're going to develop it.
[4:25:32] This is my 60th year working real estate with my family.
[4:25:39] So I appreciate what you do for me.
[4:25:45] My name is Kurt and I'm a principle
[4:25:49] of Anderson Architects.
[4:25:50] Can you pull my -- we started this project in 2024 and we said
[4:25:58] double Dutch if you could pull it double Dutch you can see
[4:26:01] right here --
[4:26:11] (inaudible) February 1st 2024.
[4:26:12] We did the initial pre op.
[4:26:12] And then we did the formal submittal in October 2024.
[4:26:14] We had seven revisions we went through.
[4:26:17] Staff held our feet to the grindstone.
[4:26:19] Part of that commercial space -- that's what we agreed
[4:26:23] to on a concession and that commercial space is strictly
[4:26:26] for -- available to the community and for the --
[4:26:29] and that's all.
[4:26:31] So that whole negotiation with staff.
[4:26:34] They did a great job.
[4:26:36] Our team talked about -- they really worked with us to get
[4:26:41] where we're at.
[4:26:42] So then you see -- it was 929.
[4:26:53] (inaudible) the appellant was at our community meeting at --
[4:26:56] we didn't hear from them until the date -- they had issues.
[4:26:59] The day of the direct hearing they came
[4:27:01] and they read a letter by their attorney.
[4:27:04] We didn't have a chance to respond to either comment.
[4:27:08] So let me talk about a couple things.
[4:27:10] We talk about commercial.
[4:27:11] We work with Fire and they reviewed it and these units will
[4:27:16] be a tight, three A building that will be --
[4:27:19] we've agreed to increase fire activity units to make the fire
[4:27:23] department happy.
[4:27:24] As 80 years are actually part of the condo above.
[4:27:29] Is basically a three story unit.
[4:27:31] The Adu is part of that and they'll be sold as a stack.
[4:27:35] Those condoms will have them as part of it.
[4:27:38] The ducks are at the fourth level.
[4:27:42] (inaudible) can you go to the next slide please?
[4:27:50] Next one please.
[4:27:51] You can see the building steps down
[4:27:54] on the outer edges to the east and to the west.
[4:27:57] The building is only three stories, not four.
[4:28:00] The four stories on the Civic Center side.
[4:28:03] We talk about terrace fees.
[4:28:07] We talked about the fire review and the ADU.
[4:28:16] We work very closely with staff.
[4:28:18] A lot of revisions to get to this point.
[4:28:20] Now we'll turn it over to our attorney.
[4:28:23] >> How are you?
[4:28:25] Good evening mayor mayor vice mayor and Council member.
[4:28:28] Thank you for your time.
[4:28:29] I don't want to belabor and tell you all the bad news
[4:28:32] of laws at play here.
[4:28:34] I submitted a letter earlier today
[4:28:36] that plays out the state laws at play
[4:28:38] and that protect my client's project.
[4:28:40] In response to the attorney for the appellate that
[4:28:45] spoke before, I do want to make clear,
[4:28:50] the affordable units will not be the ADUs proposed.
[4:28:59] My understanding is one of the affordable units offered
[4:29:02] for sale separately is a townhome
[4:29:02] and the other will be one of the condominium units.
[4:29:05] Those will be distributed throughout the development
[4:29:07] and will be offered for sale. (inaudible)
[4:29:18] will be comparable to the market rate units in the project.
[4:29:21] So they will be sold as part of the condominium units and state
[4:29:27] housing law and -- state Adu law is clear.
[4:29:31] You can't use the presence of ADUs
[4:29:32] being sold with primary units as a basis to disapprove of project
[4:29:36] or find it inconsistent with zoning.
[4:29:41] I work on housing development projects throughout the state
[4:29:45] and I've worked on dozens if not hundreds at this point.
[4:29:48] In every jurisdiction I go into, I
[4:29:51] hear similar concerns and concerns
[4:29:53] about neighborhood character.
[4:29:55] I hear concerns from neighbors that
[4:29:57] would prefer different heights come on different articulation
[4:30:00] and colors.
[4:30:01] And the type of subjective concerns
[4:30:04] that were enforceable to us for decades upon decades.
[4:30:08] Really up until the last seven years.
[4:30:12] Unfortunately comet while I understand how passionate people
[4:30:15] are, people are passionate about their neighbors and the way
[4:30:19] their views look from the backyards --
[4:30:21] the state has recognized that we have a severe illness and that
[4:30:25] illness is a severe housing supply shortage.
[4:30:28] That shortage is worse in California
[4:30:32] than most states in the Union and worse
[4:30:34] in Santa Clara than most counties in the state.
[4:30:38] The HHA and density bonus law have been described by various
[4:30:43] courts as strong medicine, which for you unfortunately means that
[4:30:48] where our project complies with the applicable objective general
[4:30:53] plan zoning, subdivision design standards adopted and in effect
[4:30:57] at the time -- housing Development project application
[4:31:01] is deemed complete.
[4:31:02] You cannot disapprove that project unless very rare health
[4:31:08] and safety findings which have to be based on objective
[4:31:11] and adopted health and safety standards can be found.
[4:31:14] Those findings can be made here.
[4:31:17] Also the density bonus law comes into play
[4:31:20] because there's such a shortage of affordable housing.
[4:31:22] My client's project benefits from significant protection
[4:31:25] of the Density Bonus law which staff did every single
[4:31:37] (inaudible) aspect of that law.
[4:31:40] I just say the project is entitled
[4:31:41] to unlimited number of waivers.
[4:31:41] I've worked on multiple projects where
[4:31:43] 62 100 waivers are requested in those projects and are approved.
[4:31:47] In my experience, I will say this design does a pretty darn
[4:31:52] good job comparably with complying
[4:31:54] with the objective standards that you have
[4:31:57] or that weren't effects when that application was deemed
[4:32:01] complete.
[4:32:02] The only finding you can make to disapprove a waiver,
[4:32:06] which can be requested for any development standard that would
[4:32:10] physically preclude the development as designed --
[4:32:14] developer does get to choose their design
[4:32:15] and their configuration and unfortunately,
[4:32:17] if we request a waiver to allow for that configuration
[4:32:21] and design, the courts have constrained cities significantly
[4:32:25] and I can assure you that no findings are available here
[4:32:29] to disapprove the waivers we've requested, the limited
[4:32:32] number of waivers.
[4:32:34] We talked about concessions and I
[4:32:36] can assure you that the concessions requested
[4:32:38] by my client would result in actual cost reductions
[4:32:41] and would not result in health and safety impacts. (inaudible)
[4:32:49] we we've requested waivers and concessions
[4:32:53] to completely eliminate commercial footage requirements
[4:32:56] on the ground floor.
[4:32:57] The that this project is providing
[4:33:00] a viable commercial space I think sets it apart from others.
[4:33:05] I'm trying to think what else I want to address here.
[4:33:10] >> There's two points I wanted to make.
[4:33:14] We keep talking about El Camino Real.
[4:33:17] If we were under El Camino specific plan,
[4:33:20] you would use double density stacking.
[4:33:23] I can put 42 units on this site and I can go 70ft tall,
[4:33:28] four stories plus a 35 --
[4:33:32] I can put 44 units.
[4:33:35] If we chose to go under SB 79 which is just adopted July 21st,
[4:33:41] that density would be 100 dwelling units.
[4:33:45] That means I can put 61 units on this site and double the state
[4:33:50] density double stacking, 122 units --
[4:33:54] 100ft tall.
[4:33:55] This is under the density that would be allowed under the El
[4:33:59] Camino real specifically.
[4:34:01] I want to share that.
[4:34:03] That's important to know because we keep
[4:34:04] talking about El Camino Real.
[4:34:09] >> I'll conclude I understand appellant is frustrated.
[4:34:12] He proposed a project when the world was different in 20 17.
[4:34:17] The critical factor there is that was before 2019
[4:34:20] where the crescendo of housing laws began to pass.
[4:34:24] We're in a different world.
[4:34:26] For secret purposes all we're concerned with are actual listed
[4:34:30] historical buildings .
[4:34:37] We appreciate your time and appreciate
[4:34:41] staff's hard It's a difficult place for staff to be
[4:34:44] in right now.
[4:34:44] But state law is what it is.
[4:34:45] It's enforceable and a CD is enforcing state law
[4:34:48] as are our applicants.
[4:34:50] Thank you.
[4:34:52] >> Any questions for the applicant?
[4:34:54] Council member Jain?
[4:35:04] >> I you'd mentioned that it's viable commercial space,
[4:35:06] then you had said that it would be only a community room.
[4:35:09] I'm trying to understand what that means.
[4:35:11] If it's a community room, will it have a restroom?
[4:35:15] How will it be reserved?
[4:35:18] By members of the public?
[4:35:20] And then if it's a viable commercial space,
[4:35:25] will it have straps and vents?
[4:35:30] Grease traps and vents?
[4:35:33] >> Any other council members?
[4:35:36] >> Good questions.
[4:35:37] What we've agreed with staff is that it
[4:35:40] would be a community meeting room available by appointment.
[4:35:44] It would be fully furnished.
[4:35:47] Is a restroom in the space.
[4:35:50] That's available by rental through the HOA.
[4:35:54] It's also where the HOA has their monthly meetings
[4:35:57] or quarterly meetings.
[4:35:58] It is available to give you on a --
[4:36:01] but it's not going to be (inaudible) an office
[4:36:12] for a business.
[4:36:12] It won't be a restaurant in those things.
[4:36:12] Part of that was -- we worked with staff was part was
[4:36:14] the trash collection and everything else.
[4:36:16] That was important to determine how much trash bins that we'll
[4:36:21] have to supply for that space.
[4:36:23] It's going to be limited to a limited use. (inaudible)
[4:36:35] then for the HOA itself.
[4:36:41] >> Number of meetings per month -- one month, two a month,
[4:36:43] three a month -- >> We'd be happy to limit that.
[4:36:43] Once a month or whatever.
[4:36:44] It's not going to be every day obviously.
[4:36:51] (inaudible) But whatever is it reasonable --
[4:37:04] >> Can I propose number?
[4:37:05] >> Yeah.
[4:37:05] >> Three a month?
[4:37:05] >> That's what I was thinking but sure.
[4:37:07] That's fine.
[4:37:08] Okay?
[4:37:10] >> Will there be --
[4:37:11] I know you said there's a restroom in there.
[4:37:14] If it were to be converted to a coffee shop,
[4:37:17] does it have grease traps or vents?
[4:37:20] >> We don't have the infrastructure for any type
[4:37:22] of restaurant and it's not a viable location for that.
[4:37:27] You have a narrow street --
[4:37:29] I'm in my 50th year doing architecture.
[4:37:33] It's a crappy place for a commercial facility
[4:37:35] or for a type of retail.
[4:37:37] It wouldn't make sense or last.
[4:37:42] >> Thank you.
[4:37:43] I don't see any other council members questions so thank you.
[4:37:47] We'll go to the public at this time.
[4:37:49] We'll do public testimony and each member of public
[4:37:53] will have two minutes to speak.
[4:37:55] I see a hand up.
[4:37:57] Is there anybody here from the public that wants to speak
[4:38:00] or address -- >> We have cards. (inaudible)
[4:38:13] >> Thank you for taking my question.
[4:38:15] So council members I have two minutes.
[4:38:15] I'm actually the one right next to the building
[4:38:17] which is blocking all the windows. (inaudible)
[4:38:25] they are the two story single family homes.
[4:38:28] I'm pretty frustrated listening to this whole conversation.
[4:38:28] I understand the developers have their laws in the city approves
[4:38:29] it but it seems like the city never
[4:38:31] consider the residents already live there. (inaudible)
[4:38:38] blocking the windows.
[4:38:42] They're not talking about 20ft.
[4:38:44] They're talking less than three feet.
[4:38:44] We send a letter to city and city
[4:38:45] says the setback could be zero.
[4:38:47] That's in the letter to US.
[4:38:49] Basically they say they can build it
[4:38:50] all the way to the wall.
[4:38:51] So there's no sunlight in all the windows will be blocked.
[4:38:55] And on top of that, the parking -- right now obviously --
[4:39:01] it's fairly limited and people parking illegally next
[4:39:05] to my driveway.
[4:39:07] Now with these additional townhomes and commercial spaces,
[4:39:14] I'm sure not everybody going to park their cars on the parking
[4:39:19] garage every day.
[4:39:21] There's no way to park.
[4:39:24] So all these things -- it's really impacting us.
[4:39:29] One of the neighbors already moved.
[4:39:31] We are thinking are we going to stay here or move somewhere
[4:39:35] else?
[4:39:35] So the city didn't consider any of the existing
[4:39:40] people who live there.
[4:39:42] They couldn't even figure out if that's
[4:39:44] townhome or single family.
[4:39:45] I'm so frustrated on that.
[4:39:48] I know there's city laws and county laws and frankly I
[4:39:53] don't follow all the differences but it seems like all
[4:39:57] the decision making is -- of course the developer has
[4:40:00] their rights but the person who tried to approve this project
[4:40:05] or not really has to consider the people who live there
[4:40:08] overall.
[4:40:08] Thank you for your time.
[4:40:12] >> Thank you.
[4:40:25] >> My name is Jane and I'm next door which is 1530 aviso.
[4:40:28] I'm the owner of that.
[4:40:29] So I have just three questions.
[4:40:31] So what is the cumulative impact for all
[4:40:36] of those waivers together for the residents of that?
[4:40:39] We're in the single family homes,
[4:40:43] so now all of a sudden you're blocking all of our windows.
[4:40:49] We really respectfully request the city and the provider --
[4:40:56] analysis showing the impacts on the adjacent home and then
[4:41:00] privacy analysis -- identify upper storey windows come
[4:41:05] a balcony and other area facing the neighborhood residents
[4:41:10] and also comment like building cross sections and visual
[4:41:14] simulations showing the proposed projects in relation
[4:41:18] to the adjacent homes.
[4:41:20] We also need the exact dimension of the proposed setback.
[4:41:27] And also we need the explanation of whether alternative design
[4:41:34] could achieve the housing objective
[4:41:37] with less impact on this existing neighborhood
[4:41:42] residences.
[4:41:43] Thank you for your consideration.
[4:41:58] >> Thank you Cheryl Fisher.
[4:42:04] >> Thank you for having me and letting me talk.
[4:42:06] Michael is my husband and we built that development for 2017.
[4:42:09] At the request of basically the city.
[4:42:11] They asked us to make two story homes.
[4:42:15] They asked us to have setbacks.
[4:42:18] They asked us to maintain the character.
[4:42:22] They said no, you can't have commercial.
[4:42:24] You have to have setback.
[4:42:25] We had to do several redesigns, even move our whole house back.
[4:42:30] We had to move it back because they
[4:42:32] decided to implement a setback.
[4:42:35] We widened the street and did so much for that.
[4:42:39] So I think you guys have more authority
[4:42:44] than you think you have.
[4:42:46] Do not be bullied by somebody saying oh, the state says this
[4:42:50] and we have no discretion.
[4:42:52] That's not true.
[4:42:54] You do have discretion.
[4:42:56] In this particular case, those particular ADU units
[4:43:04] and all that stuff for affordable housing
[4:43:08] that doesn't fit.
[4:43:09] That's not true.
[4:43:09] The affordable housing units they said they have their
[4:43:09] are not the way they're supposed to be.
[4:43:11] It should be two townhomes, not just one ADU and one townhome.
[4:43:25] You should not be bullied.
[4:43:26] If we have to be the test case to go to court
[4:43:26] and have the state ferret out this issue, we can.
[4:43:29] But it would be an issue where the state sits there and says
[4:43:32] how much control does the local government have
[4:43:35] over its own city?
[4:43:37] El Camino specific plan double Dutch how much control
[4:43:40] do you have?
[4:43:41] All these objective standards -- are you going to sit there
[4:43:44] and spin your wheels forever and get nothing accomplished
[4:43:47] because we're afraid of this state thing that hasn't even
[4:43:51] been tested in the courts yet?
[4:43:54] And maybe it needs to.
[4:43:56] That's what happened with the 80 used to begin with.
[4:44:01] >> Thank you.
[4:44:02] Now we'll go to Catherine Romano.
[4:44:07] Maybe this is Kathleen.
[4:44:09] Can you hear me?
[4:44:12] Thank you for your time and I apologize
[4:44:14] that I'm not there in person.
[4:44:17] I'm a historical landmarks commissioner
[4:44:19] and I would have been there in person
[4:44:21] if I had realized this was coming up today.
[4:44:23] It seems to be confusion around the fact of whether 820 Civic
[4:44:29] Center is historical or not.
[4:44:32] I did a simple Google search and found the minutes from the HLC
[4:44:37] commission from 11/1/2018 where they recognized Civic Center
[4:44:50] Drive as a historic landmark.
[4:44:51] I cannot find any records of this development coming in front
[4:44:54] for approval.
[4:44:55] And I believe I heard the development say
[4:44:57] that only one of the reasons that this could be denied
[4:45:01] was because of a historical property and it's not.
[4:45:04] It is a historical property.
[4:45:06] I'm confused as to why this was missed.
[4:45:10] You can't go strictly off of the HR I pdf
[4:45:14] document on the website.
[4:45:16] That is a stale document and you have to go through the minutes
[4:45:19] and look for supplemental additions.
[4:45:22] I would like to recommend that this
[4:45:25] needs to come in front of HLC first before anything else can
[4:45:28] be decided.
[4:45:29] Thank you.
[4:45:30] I yield the rest of my time.
[4:45:33] >> Thank you.
[4:45:34] Are there any speakers here in the audience?
[4:45:37] And we have no one else online, correct?
[4:45:46] Hold on.
[4:45:47] So now we'll have the applicant rebuttal
[4:45:50] so the applicant will have five minutes.
[4:45:53] Damien and -- has the opportunity to make a rebuttal.
[4:45:59] You have up to five minutes.
[4:46:04] The applicant.
[4:46:09] Did you have any rebuttal statements
[4:46:12] that you want to address.
[4:46:20] You have five minutes.
[4:46:23] >> Yeah just to clarify, my understanding is that 820 is not
[4:46:27] part of this project.
[4:46:43] >> All right.
[4:46:44] >> I don't have any rebuttals at this point.
[4:46:46] Typically I think the appellate would speak
[4:46:46] but I think we've made our discussion pretty clear
[4:46:48] and I've laid out the state laws at play.
[4:46:51] This project would not impact and would not
[4:46:54] demolish any historic structures listed
[4:46:56] in the state or local registry.
[4:47:00] That's not a basis to disapprove the project.
[4:47:04] >> Thank you.
[4:47:05] With that we will go to the appellate Pemex
[4:47:08] so the appellate will have five minutes.
[4:47:11] Michael and Cheryl Fisher.
[4:47:15] >> Thank you.
[4:47:15] I don't know if anyone wants to speak.
[4:47:18] First off, 820 civic is within 150ft.
[4:47:23] So it is relevant.
[4:47:27] The 42 townhomes across the street
[4:47:30] were also brought into that historical requirement.
[4:47:34] As far as --
[4:47:37] I was blown away by -- not I'm okay with state laws.
[4:47:42] I'm blown away by city staff horrible and awful treatment
[4:47:48] of myself and then switching the totally opposite direction
[4:47:51] and horrible awful treatment on the flip side of myself.
[4:47:56] We got both ends in this one.
[4:48:00] So staff's behavior was abhorrent.
[4:48:03] In general.
[4:48:05] Give me 5000 minutes to be specific.
[4:48:09] Did you want double Dutch I want to say a couple
[4:48:12] things about the public meeting process which
[4:48:14] is one of the specific things I was appalled at.
[4:48:17] First public meeting was voluntary.
[4:48:20] I didn't even think it counted so I didn't take it seriously.
[4:48:23] I thought okay here comes the robust meeting
[4:48:26] process after this.
[4:48:28] Never came.
[4:48:29] So I was shocked and disgusted.
[4:48:32] The first public meeting was -- they'd already made up
[4:48:36] their mind.
[4:48:38] Horrible stuff.
[4:48:40] The planning -- what's the word --
[4:48:43] the planning captain or whatever the guy's name is --
[4:48:47] whatever the position is, the guy in charge of approval --
[4:49:02] I'll try to be brief.
[4:49:03] They presented the project and when the citizens of Santa Clara
[4:49:03] spoke, he became physically uncomfortable and awkward.
[4:49:05] When I personally spoke, I think -- maybe it's recorded.
[4:49:11] I think I was reasonable and brief
[4:49:13] but I ended with excuse me, I lost my train of thought.
[4:49:18] That was my quote.
[4:49:19] This person became giddy like a school child.
[4:49:24] It was disgusting and he quoted and said,
[4:49:28] no, we'll just move on.
[4:49:31] He used that to cut me off.
[4:49:32] It was disgusting and not acceptable
[4:49:34] in the city of Santa Clara staff.
[4:49:39] Also, one of the things they say is that --
[4:49:44] one of the things they say is sequa is not required
[4:49:48] and there's no public health and all that other stuff.
[4:49:50] In all honesty, it's an auto body repair place
[4:49:55] right next to us and there's no environmental study.
[4:49:57] It's an auto body shop.
[4:49:59] Logic will tell you hey, you might need to do that.
[4:50:02] But they're saying we don't need to do an environmental study
[4:50:05] and that is a health risk and that is in the law of.
[4:50:09] So there are -- there's lots of things that we're trying to put
[4:50:15] this development as this great ADU,
[4:50:25] affordable housing project but it's not.
[4:50:27] It's like putting a square peg in a round hole.
[4:50:27] You guys are doing well when it comes
[4:50:30] to trying to meet your government and state
[4:50:33] quotas for building these houses and developments.
[4:50:37] You want to do it right.
[4:50:39] I mean -- you remember the development agency back in --
[4:50:45] they had this great idea to make it all wonderful and partner
[4:50:49] with developers and all this other stuff and it turned out
[4:50:51] just to be -- it got banished because it was --
[4:50:57] it basically was a scam and a lot of people took advantage
[4:50:59] of it.
[4:51:00] I don't want that to happen here with all of these things going
[4:51:03] on and with all the objective evidence and all the objective
[4:51:08] standards, with --
[4:51:11] with sequa and all of these -- all of these things.
[4:51:15] Everyone is jumping into it and I
[4:51:17] don't want it to end up as a scam which
[4:51:19] is what the redevelopment Agency turned out to be.
[4:51:22] You guys have the opportunity to thoroughly look at this,
[4:51:26] to thoroughly examine the law and to thoroughly
[4:51:30] examine what was said and how you're doing it.
[4:51:34] You don't have to turn over a project like that just
[4:51:36] because they say yeah, you have to
[4:51:38] because that's what the state says.
[4:51:40] The state doesn't necessarily say that.
[4:51:42] If you look into state law it doesn't say that.
[4:51:46] You have to make sure there's health and safety.
[4:51:48] If it's an auto body thing they should do CEQA.
[4:51:59] You want to make sure affordable housing is actually affordable
[4:52:02] and can be sold separately and it's not just an Adu which
[4:52:02] isn't the same as a townhome that's
[4:52:03] three bedrooms two baths and all that other stuff
[4:52:05] and that's what they're using as their affordable housing thing.
[4:52:10] You can't even sell that separately.
[4:52:12] It comes in the same thing.
[4:52:15] Those townhomes that have to be -- they have to be --.
[4:52:21] There's a lot there.
[4:52:23] >> Thank you.
[4:52:35] >> Now we'll go back to staff.
[4:52:36] City manager?
[4:52:36] >> We'll come forward.
[4:52:36] There's a couple items we'd like to correct for the record.
[4:52:39] And respond to one of the public comments.
[4:52:59] >> Thank you.
[4:52:59] Just to briefly correct the record,
[4:52:59] you already heard in the applicant's response,
[4:53:00] the accessory dwelling units are not
[4:53:03] the affordable units for this.
[4:53:05] You heard a lot of testimony from the appellate attorney
[4:53:08] about concern over the transferability
[4:53:10] of the accessory dwelling units because she mistakenly
[4:53:14] thought those were the affordable units
[4:53:16] and just to be crystal clear, one of the affordable units
[4:53:20] is one of the townhouses and another one of the units
[4:53:22] is one of the two condos in the duplex.
[4:53:26] The ADUs are not part of that analysis.
[4:53:30] Another speaker mentioned well, maybe it's
[4:53:34] time to test these laws.
[4:53:36] Why don't we just go to court and test them just to be clear,
[4:53:39] they're actually is a rather robust body of laws upholding
[4:53:45] the density bonus statutes.
[4:53:46] They change year to year but there's a robust body of cases
[4:53:52] and unfortunately a lot of enforcement letters
[4:53:55] governing the density bonus statutes
[4:53:58] and how they apply to cities.
[4:54:00] And they are frequently most of the time
[4:54:02] not favorable to city discretion.
[4:54:04] There's a lot of discussion about historic eligibility,
[4:54:10] historic nature of an adjoining property.
[4:54:13] To be crystal clear, there is no property
[4:54:17] that is on the city's historic resource inventory.
[4:54:21] If there were it would have affected whether we could have
[4:54:24] used the exemption and it would have required a referral HLC>
[4:54:37] the applicant filed an application for designation
[4:54:39] years ago and that application was withdrawn.
[4:54:39] It's not on the registry and therefore it's not relevant.
[4:54:42] Finally, somebody mentioned there's an auto body shop here.
[4:54:49] Shouldn't this be a case where we do some hazmat analysis?
[4:54:53] The project is conditioned by the fire department
[4:54:56] to do both phase one and actually
[4:54:59] even phase two environmental assessment if the department
[4:55:02] determines it's warranted.
[4:55:06] The letter the appellant submitted today
[4:55:09] said there wasn't enough of a condition requiring a phase one
[4:55:14] environmental assessment.
[4:55:15] They are concerned it wouldn't be enforceable
[4:55:18] and that's one of the requirements
[4:55:20] to use the CEQA exemption that there'd be a phase one
[4:55:31] environmental assessment.
[4:55:32] This is for smaller projects not moving --
[4:55:32] phase one environmental assessment may be adequate
[4:55:32] in they're saying no, you should have been more overt
[4:55:35] in your condition require the phase one.
[4:55:37] To be clear, the condition says do
[4:55:40] a phase two and the second part says it's possible only
[4:55:46] phase one would be required.
[4:55:48] Here's the thing.
[4:55:49] Phase one is already done and was completed in August of 2025
[4:55:53] and already submitted to the city.
[4:55:55] There's no risk that phase one will not be done.
[4:56:00] Do you have anything to add?
[4:56:05] >> I had some -- just as background,
[4:56:09] there was no historic preservation ordinance back
[4:56:16] in 2014 when the appellant's project was coming through.
[4:56:21] The Historic preservation ordinance was adopted in 2017
[4:56:27] and if they would submit an application today
[4:56:32] for a designation, staff would look at that application
[4:56:38] and most likely go through the steps in the process.
[4:56:41] For designation.
[4:56:44] >> One more correction for the record.
[4:56:46] This is an architectural review approval.
[4:56:49] The city code identifies what we can and cannot include
[4:56:53] as conditions of approval in an architectural review approval.
[4:56:57] Typically things like the way parking is laid out.
[4:57:00] Regrettably we cannot condition two way commercial space is used
[4:57:05] as part of an architectural review.
[4:57:08] It's not germane to the jurisdiction you have tonight.
[4:57:14] >> Thank you.
[4:57:16] So with that we'll close public hearing.
[4:57:19] If we can get a motion to close?
[4:57:24] >> Motion to close public hearing.
[4:57:26] >> Second.
[4:57:26] We have a motion and a second.
[4:57:29] This is the city clerk.
[4:57:32] Can we --
[4:57:58] [taking votes]
[4:58:14] >> Now we will go to the --
[4:58:15] I see Council member Jain.
[4:58:23] >> I had a question for staff.
[4:58:24] HLC Commissioner Kathleen Romano mentioned
[4:58:27] there were minutes from the HLC designating 820
[4:58:30] as a historic property but apparently
[4:58:33] it didn't show up in the registry.
[4:58:34] >> The applicant withdrew the application and it never made it
[4:58:35] to Council.
[4:58:37] >> I see.
[4:58:39] Thank you.
[4:58:53] >> Anyone else?
[4:58:54] >> Twice.
[4:58:54] Any other -- comments and debate?
[4:59:01] Council member Jain?
[4:59:17] >> I learned a lot today.
[4:59:17] I learned that our hands are really tied here.
[4:59:17] Based on these new state laws that have gone in.
[4:59:19] These automatic waivers come unlimited waivers, concession --
[4:59:23] I don't see any room to wiggle here.
[4:59:29] And I will make a motion to overrule the appeal.
[4:59:39] >> I will second that and I will say my state Senator
[4:59:43] and my state Assembly member are going to get an earful.
[4:59:50] >> Staff recommendation was to overrule the appeal and there
[4:59:53] was also the determination for the CEQA exemption?
[5:00:06] Staff recommendation?
[5:00:07] >> It might be worth reading that into the record comment
[5:00:10] member chair comment member chair --
[5:00:10] that's a new title for you.
[5:00:11] Staff's recommendation is determine
[5:00:14] the project be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
[5:00:25] Code 2108066 and conduct the public hearing
[5:00:27] and consider all evidence presented
[5:00:27] and unless you determine that the exemption is inapplicable
[5:00:30] or that the project would result in a specific adverse public
[5:00:33] health or safety impact, as you've
[5:00:35] heard about your discretion, staff's
[5:00:37] recommending that the resolution be adopted which would overrule
[5:00:40] the appeal and uphold the decision
[5:00:43] to approve the Architectural review permit for the project
[5:00:47] as described.
[5:00:48] Subject to the conditions of approval.
[5:00:53] >> Thank you.
[5:00:54] We have Council member Chahal?
[5:01:07] go ahead.
[5:01:18] >> Thank you Vice mayor.
[5:01:19] So I will not be supporting the motion
[5:01:19] and I'll give you multiple reasons for that.
[5:01:21] If you look at the resolution, let's go point by point.
[5:01:24] The resolution clause three B, it
[5:01:26] states that the design and location of the proposed
[5:01:31] development and its relationship to neighboring developments
[5:01:34] and traffic is such that it will not
[5:01:37] impact the desirability of investment or occupation
[5:01:41] in that neighborhood.
[5:01:43] It will not interfere with the -- that is completely wrong.
[5:01:51] It is impacting the neighborhood.
[5:01:54] It is impacting the residents and existing residents
[5:01:58] on that development basically.
[5:02:01] So I don't think that's a true statement.
[5:02:06] Let me go to clause three C, that the design and location
[5:02:12] of the proposed development is such
[5:02:14] that it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
[5:02:18] And it's such that not to be determined -- the harmonious --
[5:02:23] by the zoning code.
[5:02:25] Again, that's not right.
[5:02:27] This is a impact in the neighborhood in the harmony.
[5:02:32] A couple of neighbors have come forward.
[5:02:35] It's stressful for them to have living in a shaded houses where
[5:02:41] -- they own that property and in the context that they had
[5:02:45] a different view when they owned it.
[5:02:47] If I had that property in that location right now,
[5:02:52] I too would be stressed.
[5:02:56] So I don't agree with that.
[5:03:00] Let's go to 3D, that the granting of such approval will
[5:03:05] not under that circumstances -- effect adversely the health,
[5:03:10] comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working
[5:03:15] in the neighborhood.
[5:03:16] That's wrong.
[5:03:17] Residents have come forward that it
[5:03:19] will impact their comfort and their welfare and the mentally.
[5:03:29] Let's go to three, that the proposed development --
[5:03:34] and drawings are consistent with the set of --
[5:03:40] for architecture review as approved and updated from time
[5:03:45] to time by the Council.
[5:03:47] If you go further on that, the last sentence of that paragraph
[5:03:51] says incorporate a design compatible with the surrounding
[5:03:56] pattern.
[5:03:59] And convenient layout of -- it is not compatible with
[5:04:04] the existing surrounding development.
[5:04:06] For those reasons I will not be supporting the motion.
[5:04:09] Thank you.
[5:04:11] >> Council member.?
[5:04:13] >> I have a couple questions about historic preservation
[5:04:16] and resource inventory which I've been told it's not up
[5:04:19] to date and that -- that the website is not accurate.
[5:04:25] I want to know if that's true and why.
[5:04:28] I've been told that there is a meeting on November 1st 2018
[5:04:38] recognized Civic Center Drive --
[5:04:41] I'm being told that the applicant withdrew
[5:04:44] the historic application twice.
[5:04:46] I kind of want to understand that.
[5:04:51] I want to know -- we kind of clarified.
[5:04:58] I had a question about what the affordable units would be.
[5:05:01] I know there was a lot of confusion around the ADUs
[5:05:07] but I was told the affordable units are basically
[5:05:14] one townhouse and one condo.
[5:05:15] I'm also aware that they don't meet the 15% of affordable units
[5:05:16] with that number of.
[5:05:17] I want to know how much below the 15% affordable units
[5:05:20] can developers build?
[5:05:23] Before -- and augment with fees before we don't allow this.
[5:05:29] It's important.
[5:05:30] I also think and this is my comment that legally required
[5:05:37] or not, the city needs to consider
[5:05:39] the welfare of its residents.
[5:05:41] At some point double Dutch and I've said this,
[5:05:44] every development comes in and every big developer
[5:05:47] comes in and says we'll be your future neighbors
[5:05:49] and I'll say you're not our friends and not
[5:05:51] our future neighbor.
[5:05:52] You're a.
[5:05:52] At some point there needs to be some consideration of the actual
[5:05:57] friends come with the actual neighbors because --
[5:06:02] nobody likes this but I'll tell a story and it's about a farmer
[5:06:07] that had 50 sheep and his son I 50 sheep and said I'd like
[5:06:09] to add that 50 sheep to my flock.
[5:06:12] So he treated those 50 sheep well and gave them
[5:06:16] the food from the original 50 sheep
[5:06:17] and after wiki said what do you think kimchi
[5:06:19] you want to join the flock?
[5:06:20] They said you've treated us well but in treating us well
[5:06:25] we've seen how you treated your original flock.
[5:06:27] And we feel that when a new flock comes, we join their flock
[5:06:32] and another flock and another 50 sheep came along
[5:06:34] and we were worried about how you would treat us
[5:06:37] since we've seen how you treated your original flock.
[5:06:40] No, we will not be joining your flock.
[5:06:43] I think this kind of story was made exactly
[5:06:45] for things like this.
[5:06:47] And staff is not going to look out for the welfare
[5:06:50] of the residents -- at some point it looks like Mr.
[5:06:54] Fisher was not treated well but I can't talk to that.
[5:06:57] But at some point I can talk to the residents.
[5:07:01] When we're saying that we've got no sunlight come what
[5:07:04] we're trying to avoid saying there's no sunlight by saying
[5:07:07] there's no requirement for a shadow study --
[5:07:10] shouldn't need to be a shadow study to see how the light would
[5:07:14] be affected.
[5:07:15] It's kind of a shame that staff won't come out
[5:07:18] and just say that.
[5:07:19] When we look at privacy, I think it's
[5:07:23] a shame that staff will not just come out
[5:07:26] and say privacy won't be affected.
[5:07:28] It's a shame that we don't have any kinds of considerations
[5:07:32] for privacy.
[5:07:34] We go back to state law and we go back to the waivers
[5:07:39] and minimum requirements and I think it's a shame that we are
[5:07:42] looking at so many waivers and ignoring the feedback --
[5:07:48] I think it's justified.
[5:07:50] And the argument coming against it is a legal argument.
[5:07:54] I've said this many times that the legal argument is the lowest
[5:07:57] bar.
[5:07:58] At some point legal requirements don't guarantee
[5:08:02] that people are served.
[5:08:04] In fact I'd say in some cases when the legal requirement goes
[5:08:08] against people's welfare, and the legal requirement
[5:08:12] is not a good requirement.
[5:08:13] Legal does not mean good and good does not mean legal.
[5:08:16] I've stated this many times, even to the city attorney.
[5:08:19] Even the worst attorney, in the worst city attorney
[5:08:25] would still be legal.
[5:08:28] This is not a bar that we should be touting as we're doing well.
[5:08:32] It's something we need to look at as well, this is a baseline
[5:08:37] but even though it's theoretically good,
[5:08:40] what is the actual effect?
[5:08:43] The actual effect on the people has been ignored
[5:08:45] and that's a shame.
[5:08:47] I would like my other questions answered.
[5:08:51] Historic preservation.
[5:08:52] If the applicant submitted an application for Historic
[5:08:58] to be on the historic inventory list,
[5:09:01] it seems like they were told they
[5:09:03] didn't need to because eligibility was
[5:09:06] the same as being on the list.
[5:09:08] That's not exactly true.
[5:09:10] How would that change the calculus of this?
[5:09:15] And how much below 15% affordable can developers build?
[5:09:21] And still augment with fees?
[5:09:23] It seems that's just a trick, which
[5:09:27] is I can build whatever I want and I can augment it with fees.
[5:09:32] Because as long as I hit that 15% I'm
[5:09:34] going to get my density bonus and then we're
[5:09:37] going to have discussions about what the state law requires
[5:09:40] us to do.
[5:09:42] I appreciate Councilmember Chahal's comments.
[5:09:56] Planning commissioners are supposed to make findings
[5:09:58] and I think it's difficult to make findings in this case.
[5:09:58] The findings don't matter because well, we've
[5:09:59] got this state law legal requirement.
[5:10:00] But I'll leave the answers for staff.
[5:10:03] Thank you.
[5:10:24] >> Thank you Council member..
[5:10:25] First, we just checked regarding the historic resources inventory
[5:10:25] and the inventory is up to date.
[5:10:27] In fact we updated it back in February 2026
[5:10:30] as a city Council meeting and that did come to council
[5:10:36] and the website should also be up to date.
[5:10:39] So wanted to make a note.
[5:10:42] You also asked why did the applicant withdraw twice.
[5:10:47] We don't know.
[5:10:48] They put in an application and it's
[5:10:50] up to the applicant to proceed forward and in that case
[5:10:53] they withdrew.
[5:10:54] I think we've already responded to the question
[5:10:57] about the affordable units.
[5:10:59] One is in the townhome and the other is a duplex.
[5:11:04] And regarding the comment about how much affordable are they
[5:11:10] proposing, they are proposing and I have that written down --
[5:11:27] the two moderate income units comprise 14.2% of the units
[5:11:29] and the fee represents the other 0.8% and that is per
[5:11:29] our affordable housing ordinance.
[5:11:31] So they are meeting it and they can do it as a combination.
[5:11:35] >> When the 15% would result in a fractional unit,
[5:11:38] we allow them to take care of that fractionally.
[5:11:44] >> And with regards to the architectural findings,
[5:11:47] I understand the frustration that some of the council members
[5:11:50] have voiced.
[5:11:52] We still have a code that has to be
[5:11:55] robust, subjective architectural findings
[5:11:58] and they're very important for our noncommercial developments.
[5:12:02] We haven't really caught up to state law
[5:12:05] in revising them for multifamily residential buildings.
[5:12:08] So we have this awkward resolution here
[5:12:12] where staff believes you can make these findings.
[5:12:15] We can make them in the affirmative.
[5:12:17] But we've heard from two who believe they can't
[5:12:20] make the subjective findings.
[5:12:22] That's not consistent with the Housing Accountability Act.
[5:12:26] You need to make your decisions based on objective standards
[5:12:29] and tonight I've heard two of you
[5:12:31] say you're not going to support the motion because
[5:12:35] of the subjective standards.
[5:12:37] That's attention related to the fact
[5:12:39] that our code hasn't quite caught up with state law
[5:12:42] and we're asking you to make subjective findings.
[5:12:47] >> I don't believe I heard two council members say that they
[5:12:49] were going to vote against this.
[5:12:51] I don't believe I heard that at all.
[5:12:54] >> I apologize if I jumped the gun.
[5:12:56] I heard one say he wasn't going to support the motion
[5:13:01] and another expressed reservations.
[5:13:05] >> Thank you.
[5:13:06] Council member Park, anything else?
[5:13:08] I do want to have comments for that which is again,
[5:13:12] I think that staff is jumping the gun making assumptions
[5:13:16] which shouldn't be made.
[5:13:18] At some point I think council members
[5:13:20] do understand that whether they agree or disagree
[5:13:24] with something that there are findings,
[5:13:27] there are decisions that need to be made.
[5:13:30] This is very true.
[5:13:32] I voted for or against things that I
[5:13:34] don't agree with because well, it seems it was necessary.
[5:13:40] I think it's bad practice to make that kind of assumption
[5:13:43] and that kind of statement in a response
[5:13:46] to council member question.
[5:13:47] These are questions.
[5:14:00] >> I'll go back and listen to the recording.
[5:14:02] >> I suggest you do.
[5:14:02] I take notes and I'll say that usually the reason why
[5:14:02] I speak even as clearly as I do is because I write down
[5:14:03] almost every single thing I'm going to say so that when people
[5:14:05] misquote me,
[5:14:08] >> Public hearing is over.
[5:14:09] I'm sorry.
[5:14:12] >> So when people accuse me of saying something I didn't say
[5:14:14] come I can go back and say that's not likely.
[5:14:31] >> I apologize.
[5:14:32] >> By all means go back and take a look at the video.
[5:14:32] >> I trust you on this.
[5:14:33] >> The other thing I want to say is that I know you're saying
[5:14:35] that the code has subjective findings and I think
[5:14:38] there's some objective findings that we say are not required.
[5:14:41] I almost feel like they should be
[5:14:44] done because there's nothing more objective than a shadow
[5:14:47] study.
[5:14:47] There's nothing more objective than the sun in the sky
[5:14:51] being able to go into windows or not go into windows.
[5:14:54] When you say that's the basis of subjective finding
[5:14:58] that is not allowed, that doesn't make any sense to me.
[5:15:01] When you tell me that, we don't have
[5:15:04] to do that and that's the reason we're not going to do that
[5:15:06] and we don't have to do that and that's why
[5:15:08] we're not going to consider it.
[5:15:09] I feel that is again ignoring the welfare of our residents.
[5:15:14] Throughout history, sunlight, the availability
[5:15:18] to have sunlight has been an issue.
[5:15:21] Not just here but throughout civilizations.
[5:15:23] And for us to throw it out because
[5:15:26] of how state law seems like a very bad use of a very
[5:15:31] big stick.
[5:15:32] Again, I have to think about this.
[5:15:35] I feel when we say affordability, if when the 15%
[5:15:41] would be a fractional unit and not
[5:15:43] require that that unit be full, I think
[5:15:45] it should be a minimum 15%.
[5:15:47] Maybe we need to revise the housing ordinance because stuff
[5:15:51] like this --
[5:15:53] when you've got projects this small,
[5:15:56] it is possible that you will lose units
[5:16:00] because they're just going to pay for this in fees
[5:16:03] and I'd like that fee double Dutch
[5:16:05] if they have to pay a fee like that fee
[5:16:07] to be commensurate with being able to double Dutch having
[5:16:13] a unit for an affordable unit.
[5:16:16] You'd have to subtract out a market rate unit
[5:16:19] and add in an affordable unit and take more
[5:16:22] than the difference.
[5:16:24] In order to make up for this.
[5:16:27] This is an affordable unit you're never going to get.
[5:16:32] Anyways, I don't have more to say.
[5:16:34] Thank you.
[5:16:36] >> Thank you city manager.
[5:16:38] With that I was just going to remind council that it is now
[5:16:52] 11:12 and we're on the first of five regular business items.
[5:16:54] Certainly robust discussion but if we can proceed to a vote that
[5:16:54] would be helpful.
[5:16:55] >> I want to mention I understand the frustration.
[5:16:59] I can tell you my almost year and a half and two years --
[5:17:03] we have lost local control because of the state issues
[5:17:07] and some of that is maybe -- and they're doing what they can
[5:17:13] to get that done.
[5:17:14] But I can tell you that there's apartment houses here
[5:17:19] an apartment houses for sure that have zero direct sunlight
[5:17:24] into their apartments which are not much bigger than 500ft².
[5:17:29] And it is what it is.
[5:17:33] Unfortunately we have laws today that are allowing this building
[5:17:39] and I think that's something that we can look forward
[5:17:45] to seeing how this will develop.
[5:17:48] I believe the applicant has made some level of --
[5:17:57] tried to make it less hi, three stories closer to those two
[5:18:01] story houses.
[5:18:02] There's never going to be a great way of doing multi-story
[5:18:08] versus -- single story or two stories.
[5:18:22] I live on district one and we have
[5:18:23] 20 story buildings right now.
[5:18:23] We're looking at building more and obviously they're
[5:18:23] not directly next to 1 or 2 story
[5:18:23] but it's a different environment that we are in today.
[5:18:26] I think our residents -- all of our residents are impacted.
[5:18:33] For our landowner who's been there for --
[5:18:36] I think 50 years or something -- we care about all
[5:18:40] of our residents and trying to make sure that we do what we can
[5:18:45] for the residents that are here in the city.
[5:18:47] And with that we can take a vote.
[5:18:52] I believe Council member parks hand is up still.
[5:19:07] >> I will request to speak after this which is my point I wanted
[5:19:09] to make is we have a lot of issues ahead of us and we are
[5:19:09] at 1115 and this is not a failure of council.
[5:19:10] This is a failure of meeting management.
[5:19:11] There was no way that all of these items
[5:19:14] were going to make it through tonight to.
[5:19:16] When we look at all the meetings that have gone long,
[5:19:20] the one that occurred at the end of July,
[5:19:24] there was no way that these meetings were
[5:19:27] going to end before midnight if you just did a simple meeting
[5:19:30] analysis of the agenda items.
[5:19:32] And I think at this point to try to hurry the votes --
[5:19:35] I agree that we should hurry the votes but at some point
[5:19:38] if this meeting goes long, it's not
[5:19:41] because of robust discussion.
[5:19:42] This meeting is for robust discussion
[5:19:44] and it's the first and only time that a lot of residents
[5:19:46] in a a lot of council members get to hear and address
[5:19:49] an issue that will affect people for the rest of their lives.
[5:19:52] At that point that robust discussion
[5:19:54] is not just valid but justified.
[5:19:56] At some point an acknowledgment of the late time --
[5:20:01] that is kind of due to we really need
[5:20:03] to look at how we agendize items and how
[5:20:05] we estimate how long items will take because we've
[5:20:08] got a number of really big and pretty big, controversial items
[5:20:12] on this agenda.
[5:20:28] >> We will take the vote.
[5:20:32] >> Council member Chahal?
[5:20:34] >> No.
[5:20:34] Hardy?
[5:20:34] Yes.
[5:20:34] Park?
[5:20:35] Abstain.
[5:20:36] Jain?
[5:20:38] Yes.
[5:20:40] Vice mayor Gonzalez?
[5:20:44] Yes.
[5:20:44] >> The motion fails.
[5:20:44] So the development review officers decision stands
[5:20:47] and so the architectural review is approved --
[5:20:50] with that we will take -- what time is it?
[5:20:56] >> If this motion failed and the motion was
[5:20:59] for the recommendation, there could be an ultimate motion made
[5:21:05] rather than simply saying that this is over.
[5:21:08] This literally happened with -- and I think this is one
[5:21:11] of the things why we need better input from executive staff
[5:21:15] to tell us what our options are because the fact that this vote
[5:21:19] failed does not mean anything.
[5:21:23] There's still a lot more to this item.
[5:21:25] There's still possibility of a lot more to this item.
[5:21:29] >> Mr. Chair and council member Park, I was about to speak.
[5:21:33] And so to clarify, the legal effect of this item
[5:21:40] and to confirm member park's statements that potentially
[5:21:44] there are other options, if in fact any one of you
[5:21:48] want to make a different motion, you could.
[5:21:51] So the legal effect of this action is generally --
[5:22:01] as a chair described.
[5:22:02] I still don't know what to call you.
[5:22:04] And Presiding officer described, that because there was not
[5:22:09] four affirmative votes for the motion, no action was taken,
[5:22:14] and the legal effect of that is that the underlying decision
[5:22:18] to approve the project stands.
[5:22:21] And so if another council member at this point wanted to make
[5:22:26] a different motion for Council's consideration,
[5:22:30] that would be in order and -- presiding officer --
[5:22:36] you could certainly solicit that as part of your handling of this
[5:22:41] matter.
[5:22:42] >> Is there any other one that wants to make a motion?
[5:22:46] Council member Park?
[5:22:50] >> A couple questions.
[5:22:51] If we go back and ask staff to relook at some of the issues,
[5:22:55] some of the items that have come up, for example,
[5:22:58] if we had the appellant look into historical --
[5:23:02] being added to historical landmarks list,
[5:23:05] if we looked into the welfare issues like what is our ability
[5:23:11] to ask for additional information --
[5:23:14] meaning when I'm told things such as this is not legally
[5:23:19] required, that's fine but if we're asking for it,
[5:23:22] at what point can we ask for additional information?
[5:23:27] I would like a fire report.
[5:23:31] I would like --
[5:23:46] [no audio]
[5:25:12] [NO AUDIO]
[5:27:47] >> If Attorney Abby thinks I got that wrong or wants to add
[5:27:49] anything to that, I would invite that readily.
[5:27:58] >> I don't see any hands as far as anybody wants to make
[5:28:00] a motion if.
[5:28:02] And with that we're going to take a six minute break and then
[5:28:07] we'll bring the mayor back to address item six.
[5:28:11] Thank you.
[5:37:21] [in recess]
[5:37:42] Before we move on I want to tell the council, item number seven,
[5:37:45] consideration of historic resource designation
[5:37:48] for the Vasquez gravesite location
[5:37:51] located in Santa Clara Mission Cemetery.
[5:37:53] His family was here and had to leave.
[5:37:55] I'll ask council to make or consider a continuation.
[5:38:04] >> I'd like to make the motion to continue item number seven
[5:38:07] for the historic designation for the gravesite.
[5:38:12] >> Second.
[5:38:13] >> We have a motion by Hardy and Council member by double second
[5:38:18] by Park to consider.
[5:38:19] They're okay with the 15th or 22nd,
[5:38:21] whatever is more appropriate.
[5:38:23] They would like it to be towards the beginning.
[5:38:25] They don't like to drive at night.
[5:38:28] So we have a motion and second on that continuance.
[5:38:32] When you're ready.
[5:38:34] >> Council members should call.
[5:38:36] Hardy? .?
[5:38:39] Vice mayor Gonzalez?
[5:38:42] Mayor Gilmore?
[5:38:45] >> Yes and that passes was unanimously by those present.
[5:38:50] We'll move to item number six, public hearing,
[5:38:53] action on a vesting tentative subdivision map (PLN24-00665)
[5:39:00] for 147 Units and One Commercial Building Located at 3521
[5:39:02] and 3591 Homestead Road, Subject to Senate Bill (SB) 330 (2019).
[5:39:02] CEQA: Determine that the Vesting Tentative Map Application
[5:39:02] is Within the Scope of the Adopted MND located one and 3591
[5:39:04] Homestead Road subject to Senate Bill 330 2019 Sequa determined
[5:39:10] that the best tentative map application is
[5:39:13] within the scope of the adopted and and this
[5:39:17] is a public hearing so it is open um city Manager thank you
[5:39:21] mayor in the interest of time
[5:39:23] >> In the interest of time, you set up a good introduction.
[5:39:26] The staff presentation will be provided by --
[5:39:30] our assistant Director of Community Development.
[5:39:33] I will invite her to the >> Thank you.
[5:39:40] >> Welcome and thank you for your patience staying this late.
[5:39:43] We appreciate it.
[5:39:45] >> Good evening mayor Vice Mayor and members of the Council
[5:39:48] and public.
[5:39:50] Assistant Director of Community Development.
[5:39:52] Before you today -- before you today is a request.
[5:39:57] Find the proposed subdivision is within the scope
[5:40:01] of the adopted negative declaration or the MND
[5:40:06] and no further environmental analysis is required and adopted
[5:40:10] resolution approving the vesting tentative subdivision
[5:40:13] map for the reconfiguration of existing adjacent parcels
[5:40:17] and to create a subdivision for condominium purposes
[5:40:20] for 147 units and for one commercial building.
[5:40:24] This project is subject to SB330.
[5:40:31] And city Council review and file approval of the map is required.
[5:40:37] So moving on to the existing site, the existing 5.5 acre site
[5:40:43] is located on 3521 and 3591 Homestead Road
[5:40:48] at the intersection of Lawrence Expressway on Homestead Road.
[5:40:52] This site is designated neighborhood mixed
[5:40:55] use in General plan and is zoned mixed use neighborhood
[5:40:58] commercial and surrounded by multifamily residential and
[5:41:01] commercial uses.
[5:41:03] As I mentioned previously, the tentative subdivision map
[5:41:09] includes the reconfiguration of two existing adjacent parcels
[5:41:13] to create a subdivision for condominium purposes.
[5:41:16] This project was cleared by the project committee
[5:41:20] and the Subdivision Committee on October 7th 2025.
[5:41:25] This slide shows the existing parcels
[5:41:28] that are proposed to be reconfigured through this map.
[5:41:32] This shows the project that was subject for the Architectural
[5:41:37] review process through the development review hearing
[5:41:41] and the approved project includes 94 story stacked
[5:41:46] condominium units and 573 story town hall units the development
[5:41:51] also includes approximately 4900ft² commercial building
[5:41:57] a parking, driveways, and common open space.
[5:42:01] In terms of project timeline, I just
[5:42:05] want to draw your attention to key milestones in this timeline.
[5:42:11] The project application for both the Architectural review
[5:42:14] and the subdivision map was submitted in September 2024
[5:42:18] and the applicant filed SB 330 preliminary application
[5:42:22] to make sure that the applicable fees and development
[5:42:26] standards at that time apply.
[5:42:28] In October 7 to 2025 the BBC and the Subdivision Committee
[5:42:33] deemed the SB 330 application and subdivision
[5:42:36] complete and clear and there were
[5:42:39] two community meetings held, one in November 2025
[5:42:43] and February 2026.
[5:42:45] The development review hearing for the Architectural Review
[5:42:49] was approved in June and a Planning Commissioner review
[5:42:53] recommended approval in August of 2026.
[5:42:57] In further slides I'll go over feedback received
[5:43:01] from the community community and how
[5:43:02] the applicant worked with the community
[5:43:04] to address their concerns.
[5:43:07] At the development Review meeting on June 17th 2026,
[5:43:11] seven community members attended the meeting and public comment
[5:43:16] was received in opposition and five comment letters were
[5:43:20] received in support of the project.
[5:43:22] Comments focused on privacy impacts
[5:43:25] due to heights, balcony placement,
[5:43:28] lack of multistory setbacks, off site parking concerns
[5:43:31] and lack of transitional development.
[5:43:34] The project was approved by the Development Review Officer
[5:43:37] with additional conditions the conditions include requiring
[5:43:43] additional landscape between the property,
[5:43:47] the garages should be only used for parking
[5:43:50] and this is included as part of the conditions of approval
[5:43:53] of the architectural review, congestion B7 and all the garage
[5:43:58] doors should include windows.
[5:44:00] So to address any kind of off site parking concerns.
[5:44:04] At the Planning Commission meeting on August 12th 2026,
[5:44:08] the Planning Commission discussed the process
[5:44:11] and emphasized that the applicant should work with
[5:44:14] the city to make sure that the demolition is carried
[5:44:16] on in a way to prevent deterioration of the site
[5:44:20] and they also encourage the applicant to work to possibly
[5:44:25] increase service at the Homestead bus stop.
[5:44:30] Finally the Planning Commission recommended approval of the map.
[5:44:35] A quick overview of SB330 and the requirements
[5:44:42] for Affordable Housing Ordinance.
[5:44:43] The applicant did use SB330 pre-application
[5:44:49] and it allows for streamline review with compliance
[5:44:51] for objective standards and at the time the application was
[5:44:54] deemed complete.
[5:44:55] In addition the project proposes affordable units and would also
[5:45:01] -- a fee for the 0.05 remaining fraction that's consistent with
[5:45:06] the city's affordable housing ordinance requirement.
[5:45:09] So pursuant to state density bonus law,
[5:45:12] the project requests include (inaudible) for waiving
[5:45:19] the multi-story setback requirements,
[5:45:21] the 45 degree daylight requirements and increasing
[5:45:25] the number of stories and increasing the --
[5:45:28] and the concession was to reduce the commercial -- requirement.
[5:45:32] The subdivision map, staff do you
[5:45:36] find that the subdivision map complies
[5:45:38] with all the applicable zoning code standards
[5:45:40] and also has been processed consistent with the Subdivision
[5:45:43] Map Act and the city code requirements.
[5:45:46] The subdivision map is also consistent with the general plan
[5:45:50] because it supports the general Plan's mixed labor designation
[5:45:53] by providing additional housing near jobs and services
[5:45:57] and also advances the city's mixed use and housing
[5:46:00] goals by delivering new residential opportunities
[5:46:04] including affordable homes within an established mixed use
[5:46:07] area.
[5:46:08] Moving to public outreach, public notice
[5:46:12] included standard agenda posting, newspaper notice
[5:46:15] and mailing the public hearing notice to 1331 property
[5:46:21] owners and tenants within half a mile radius of the project site.
[5:46:26] And moving on to community meetings,
[5:46:29] the first community meeting was held on November 13th 2025 which
[5:46:34] was held in a hybrid format.
[5:46:37] 38 members of public attended in person and 11 online.
[5:46:41] At that meeting the community members
[5:46:45] raised several concerns related to loss
[5:46:47] of retail and existing commercial space
[5:46:49] and displacement of small businesses
[5:46:52] come a traffic concerns and they had
[5:46:53] questions about who initiated the redevelopment process.
[5:46:57] The applicant since the first meeting actually worked
[5:47:00] with the property owner and the management company
[5:47:03] to address tenant concerns regarding
[5:47:05] the relocation of these small businesses which included
[5:47:09] extension of leases, broker assistance and other 16
[5:47:13] businesses, approximately nine were relocated within Santa
[5:47:17] Clara and three have relocated out
[5:47:20] and three retired or went out of business.
[5:47:25] So moving on to CEQA evaluation, medicated declaration
[5:47:34] was prepared for this project and it
[5:47:36] did not find any substantial evidence
[5:47:37] that the project will have significant effect
[5:47:40] on the environment and the proposed subdivision
[5:47:44] map is consistent with the approved MND
[5:47:47] and will not result in any new environmental impacts
[5:47:51] or increase the severity of any previously identified impact.
[5:47:55] Therefore no additional environmental analysis
[5:47:58] is required.
[5:47:59] So in conclusion, staff recommended the City Council
[5:48:03] find the proposed subdivision is within the scope --
[5:48:07] it's within the scope of the -- and determined that no further
[5:48:12] environmental review is required and adopt a resolution approving
[5:48:16] the map.
[5:48:17] This concludes my presentation and I'm available for questions.
[5:48:22] >> Before we go to the applicant I'll ask the council if they
[5:48:26] have questions.
[5:48:28] Council member Hardy?
[5:48:30] >> Thank you.
[5:48:31] Very quickly comment you said something very --
[5:48:34] I did not truly understand.
[5:48:37] You said you needed to have windows in the garage doors
[5:48:41] because off site parking concerns?
[5:48:43] That didn't make sense to me.
[5:48:48] Maybe I had a question about demolition.
[5:48:51] The applicant -- I know you raised your hand.
[5:48:56] Gym, we don't call on you yet.
[5:49:00] I got that.
[5:49:01] One of the concerns I have is about demolition.
[5:49:06] When we have vacant shopping centers
[5:49:10] and we see that on the El Camino now with the project that we
[5:49:15] approved, feels like eight years ago, with the vacant buildings,
[5:49:20] can't demolition occur early?
[5:49:24] Can we require that or does that interfere with SB330?
[5:49:29] I want to know what we can do in terms of requiring the developer
[5:49:38] to demolish because that's going to be an attractive nuisance --
[5:49:44] if it isn't already.
[5:49:45] So that's my question on demolition.
[5:49:48] Does anybody else have questions?
[5:49:50] Council member.?
[5:49:54] I have a question about demolition.
[5:49:57] We've seen at least in my district that anytime we have
[5:50:01] demolition of a large project, whether it's remodeling
[5:50:04] of a apartment complex or a shopping site that --
[5:50:08] that usually pushes a lot of rats into the neighborhood.
[5:50:12] Is there anything that can be done to ensure the demolition
[5:50:16] in that remodel --
[5:50:17] do not have this kind of effect on the neighborhood's?
[5:50:23] You can see your bite marks on the trash cans and --
[5:50:27] I want to make sure when we do things comment maybe
[5:50:30] we fumigate and do something in advance
[5:50:32] of a demolition because we have seen this time and time
[5:50:40] >> Anyone else on the council?
[5:50:41] Those are the questions.
[5:50:44] You're getting off easy right now.
[5:50:49] >> Council Hardy's questions comment based on the feedback we
[5:50:52] heard from the community meetings and the feedback we
[5:50:55] heard from the hearing, that residents were concerned about
[5:50:58] parking off site and garages should be used only to park
[5:51:02] their cars and not for storage.
[5:51:04] The development review officer added a condition
[5:51:07] that windows be added to the garage door
[5:51:10] so that to alleviate off street parking concerns.
[5:51:16] >> So you can see in the windows?
[5:51:18] Is that the purpose?
[5:51:23] >> Yes.
[5:51:24] >> Through the window?
[5:51:29] >> To make sure a car is parked inside the garage.
[5:51:31] Not used for storage.
[5:51:32] So the garage door will have some kind of windows
[5:51:36] so they can see a car is parked inside the garage
[5:51:39] and not used for storage.
[5:51:47] >> So you had a question about when we can't acquire demolition
[5:51:51] to occur and what we can acquire.
[5:51:54] The applicant has to apply for a demolition permit
[5:51:58] with the building division.
[5:52:00] As part of that, we could include conditions
[5:52:04] on how it would be faced.
[5:52:09] And then council member parks question was about pests.
[5:52:15] Did I get the question right?
[5:52:18] So can we require -- >> How do we prevent pests,
[5:52:23] rats from going into the neighborhoods from demolition,
[5:52:27] especially for buildings including a market that have
[5:52:31] been abandoned for a long time?
[5:52:39] How can we mitigate that?
[5:52:43] >> Maybe the question can go also to the applicant
[5:52:45] because one of the questions would be is there still material
[5:52:50] inside the market.
[5:52:52] And how are they going to plan to deal with that?
[5:52:55] I would point that to the applicant.
[5:52:59] >> If I can circle back to Hardy's question,
[5:53:02] also on the parking garage -- the garage requiring windows,
[5:53:06] we also have a conditional approval and the architectural
[5:53:10] review standards that -- that these conditions B seven that
[5:53:14] the garage should be used only for vehicle parking use
[5:53:17] and could not be used for storage. (inaudible)
[5:53:35] and following up on Councilmember Parks question,
[5:53:39] the environmental services division oversees this
[5:53:43] and they would also include this as a condition.
[5:53:47] >> Very good.
[5:53:48] Thank you.
[5:53:49] Now we will hear from the applicant and you have I think
[5:53:54] --
[5:53:55] Council member Jain?
[5:54:01] >> I wanted to ask you come with the commercial space --
[5:54:03] are we requiring events and grease traps?
[5:54:06] I didn't see that in the conditions.
[5:54:13] >> Yes.
[5:54:14] Now the applicant?
[5:54:15] Ten minutes.
[5:54:16] Please come forward.
[5:54:18] Do you have that?
[5:54:24] >> Is this Jim Sullivan?
[5:54:25] >> Yes.
[5:54:26] >> Thank you Madam Mayor and members of the Council.
[5:54:29] I had actually a Powerpoint slideshow
[5:54:31] but staff did such a great job.
[5:54:33] Before I begin I want to say that my project
[5:54:37] planner, her supervisor Leslie and Afshan were
[5:54:42] great to work with throughout this entire process.
[5:54:45] I know Council member Jain was at the November 13th community
[5:54:52] meeting.
[5:54:53] I think it was the second meeting that we had,
[5:54:55] director Hamid was there as well and the 38 people at --
[5:55:00] it was chaotic.
[5:55:02] The vast majority of them were the tenants and going to some
[5:55:06] of the earlier comments that were made,
[5:55:08] even though there wasn't a legal obligation --
[5:55:11] all the tenants were given the knowledge of okay,
[5:55:15] you have a year to vacate.
[5:55:18] I push -- and Pulte pushed for the property owner who complied
[5:55:23] with hiring relocation specialist,
[5:55:25] extending terms and helping out with assistance.
[5:55:29] So 13 of the tenants were relocated and nine here
[5:55:34] in the city of Santa Clara.
[5:55:35] I think two others in Sunnydale and one in San Mateo and one
[5:55:39] in Fremont.
[5:55:40] The other thing -- and it came up in --
[5:55:44] more in the DRH meeting or for home that actually cited
[5:55:52] to our site.
[5:55:53] And they had some privacy concerns
[5:55:55] and so I thought that Pulte Homes did a great job going out
[5:56:00] of their way, not a legal obligation
[5:56:03] but saying let's see if we can provide more screening
[5:56:06] trees either within your backyards
[5:56:08] or if we can do it on our site.
[5:56:10] We were able to do it on our site
[5:56:12] and we work with them on the species of trees
[5:56:15] and they were very happy with us moving forward.
[5:56:19] So all in all, the four story product we have primarily along
[5:56:24] the expressway and the three story products we have along
[5:56:27] our Western hedge which is the school,
[5:56:31] the four homeowners as well as McDonald's.
[5:56:34] Touching on some of the questions that came up,
[5:56:38] the two things that were added -- the windows of the garage --
[5:56:42] it's mainly for staff, planning staff likes them because they
[5:56:46] look better and I agree with them.
[5:56:50] Pulte didn't want to do it but we
[5:56:52] agreed to do it just to make sure people didn't use their two
[5:56:55] garage space as storage, which they're not
[5:56:57] allowed to do under the cars putting in effect.
[5:57:00] With regard to the demolition permit,
[5:57:04] Pulte we'll close escrow 30 days after,
[5:57:09] assuming that this project is approved.
[5:57:10] They are in for a demo permit and they've
[5:57:13] been in for some time.
[5:57:15] I know we are also trying to work with the police and fire
[5:57:18] department.
[5:57:18] They like to use it before we demo it for their activities.
[5:57:22] Do Council member parks concern on the rats,
[5:57:27] I know that all of that stuff --
[5:57:30] if we foresee a problem, we have in the past
[5:57:34] had traps along the outside but it
[5:57:36] sounds like the building department will work on
[5:57:39] fumigation requests if necessary.
[5:57:40] With that I'm open to any questions.
[5:57:45] I'm very happy by the way that after DRH, there
[5:57:50] was no appeal to this.
[5:57:51] We did a great job with the tenants on the site
[5:57:54] and with the homeowners that were nearby.
[5:57:57] >> Thank you.
[5:57:59] Council, do you have questions from the applicant?
[5:58:03] We've got 6.5 minutes left.
[5:58:07] Are you sure?
[5:58:09] I'm not forcing you to take it all.
[5:58:11] Okay.
[5:58:12] He's done.
[5:58:13] Very good.
[5:58:14] Now it is a public hearing so I'm going to the public.
[5:58:18] Is there any member of the public
[5:58:20] that would like to speak on this issue?
[5:58:22] Anyone here in the audience?
[5:58:25] Anyone online?
[5:58:27] No one online?
[5:58:29] May I have a motion from Council to close the public hearing?
[5:58:37] Council Member Hardy?
[5:58:39] >> Motion to close public hearing.
[5:58:42] >> Motion by Council Member Hardy and second by Gonzalez
[5:58:45] to close.
[5:58:46] Clerk, when you are ready.
[5:58:58] Chahal?
[5:58:59] Yes.
[5:59:01] Park?
[5:59:03] Yes Jain?
[5:59:06] Yes Gonzalez?
[5:59:08] Yes and Gillmor?
[5:59:11] Yes.
[5:59:12] >> That passes unanimously.
[5:59:13] Council member Hardy?
[5:59:14] I'll make a motion for the recommendation
[5:59:17] from staff to determine the proposed subdivisions
[5:59:20] within the scope of the adopted negative declaration, adopted
[5:59:27] resolution improving the tentative subdivision map
[5:59:31] and I will say when a developer does their work,
[5:59:35] it really helps.
[5:59:36] And it makes us a little more superfluous which is nice.
[5:59:41] And I was thrilled to hear -- go closer to my house
[5:59:47] in my district.
[5:59:48] We didn't lose them.
[5:59:51] >> We have a motion by Council Member Hardy and second
[5:59:54] by Gonzalez.
[6:00:01] >> My question for staff is what actually can we do here?
[6:00:04] This is just the approval of --
[6:00:08] I feel there isn't anything we can do.
[6:00:11] Everything has been done.
[6:00:12] This is just a ministerial approval.
[6:00:15] That's the first question.
[6:00:16] Second thing is I have comments which I remember a time
[6:00:20] when in order to add high density residential,
[6:00:23] we had to justify that residential
[6:00:28] with supportive retail.
[6:00:30] We use a lot of tricky things like horizontal zoning
[6:00:34] and things like that to show that the people we
[6:00:40] are bringing in were being served by the retail.
[6:00:43] And now we're adding high density residential --
[6:00:47] we're removing the support of retail.
[6:00:49] Including a market.
[6:00:53] And we used to have requirements that
[6:00:56] said you have to justify how the retail supports
[6:01:00] the people that you bring in, not just open space.
[6:01:03] But we had a retail requirements and I
[6:01:05] don't know when that went away.
[6:01:07] In this area we lost Save Mart which
[6:01:10] is going to come up later in our year.
[6:01:13] We lost the Galleria.
[6:01:15] We lost Cosentino's and moved from El Camino and took over --
[6:01:20] now we've lost that too.
[6:01:22] But the area here --
[6:01:25] I'm worried about even the -- because it looks like
[6:01:29] the landowners in that area are letting the stores go to pot
[6:01:35] because --
[6:01:36] you go there and the floors are breaking
[6:01:40] and things aren't working calm electrical things aren't
[6:01:43] working.
[6:01:43] It looks like it's ripe for removal and replacement
[6:01:46] with another high density project.
[6:01:48] When I look at the general plan, that
[6:01:51] was supposed to be a mixed use area.
[6:01:53] That's what the zoning was as well.
[6:01:56] One of the reasons I'm on council is because almost 20
[6:02:01] years ago or 15 years ago I was on the General Plan steering
[6:02:04] committee so I know intimately a lot of the high density
[6:02:09] and mixed use places and all the places that we used to have --
[6:02:15] the biggest regional mixed use hub
[6:02:17] that was supposed to also support San Jose
[6:02:21] went to single storey retail with no housing whatsoever.
[6:02:25] There was no mixed use there and I think unfortunately
[6:02:27] that pushed a lot of housing into places where housing
[6:02:31] wasn't the only consideration.
[6:02:37] My concern is by approving this project and projects like this
[6:02:40] and not having a supportive retail plan,
[6:02:43] that we're going to lose retail.
[6:02:45] A lot of council members have already expressed their opinion
[6:02:48] that retail is dead and I'm going to say
[6:02:51] that's only true in the city.
[6:02:53] We look at Sunnyvale, you look at Cupertino --
[6:02:56] Sunnyvale if you look at their budget,
[6:02:59] their number two budget priority is residential supportive retail
[6:03:02] and I think they've done a tremendous job
[6:03:05] but then again, they have a downtown.
[6:03:08] These are the things I worry about when
[6:03:10] we're just bringing in homes.
[6:03:11] The fact that we are bringing in homes and getting rid
[6:03:14] of the retail that was there, I don't know why but I've talked
[6:03:18] to the store owners and they've told me about increasing --
[6:03:23] we lost Baskin Robbins and that was like oh my goodness.
[6:03:26] We lost the pizza place and restaurants.
[6:03:28] How is this possible?
[6:03:30] I feel that we're not doing enough
[6:03:33] to make sure that the people we are bringing in
[6:03:36] are supported by services and retail.
[6:03:39] This attitude of well, people don't want retail.
[6:03:42] People want to shop at Amazon.
[6:03:44] Nobody wants to eat at Amazon.
[6:03:46] I guarantee that's the case.
[6:03:48] When we say we can put more density here because it's being
[6:03:51] served by transportation, I looked at the Clare district
[6:03:56] and they use the fact that there's a train station
[6:03:58] to justify -- very few people take the train to work and like
[6:04:05] nobody takes the train to the market.
[6:04:07] These are the kinds of things I worry about.
[6:04:10] I wish staff would do more to preserve their retail.
[6:04:15] You can't just bring people in and give them nowhere to shop,
[6:04:20] nowhere to go.
[6:04:21] We talk about walkable neighborhoods
[6:04:23] and we don't have places for them to walk.
[6:04:26] Nobody wants to walk to housing places where they don't live.
[6:04:29] At some point we worry about the rats
[6:04:32] going into the neighborhoods.
[6:04:37] But we are not giving the residents any place to go.
[6:04:42] It's unfortunate that all we can do at this point come on I
[6:04:46] talked to Mr. Sullivan and met him outside --
[6:04:48] we didn't go into these issues because it wasn't the time
[6:04:52] or place.
[6:04:53] We talked -- I talked about this a couple years ago but these are
[6:04:58] my concerns.
[6:04:59] At some point we have the applicants here.
[6:05:02] I think the applicants have done what they can with a project
[6:05:06] that they proposed.
[6:05:08] But I'm really talking to staff, to the city
[6:05:12] and asking, how do we make the residents lives better?
[6:05:15] At some point we're supposed to have a planning department, not
[6:05:19] an approval department.
[6:05:20] And through the years I feel and with state law
[6:05:23] and all these other things, that's what we have become.
[6:05:27] >> I would just stop it there because I think someone needs
[6:05:30] to explain to council member Park what Senate Bill 330 means.
[6:05:34] Can someone from the planning department talk about that?
[6:05:38] Our authority over this development
[6:05:40] is significantly limited.
[6:05:42] It doesn't sound like you understand, Council member..
[6:05:46] It significantly limited and the developer
[6:05:49] has chosen to use the state housing
[6:05:52] law that allows waivers and concessions
[6:05:54] from our local development standards.
[6:05:56] That is not something that our planning department or community
[6:06:01] development department invented.
[6:06:03] It's a state of California.
[6:06:05] It doesn't sound like you understand that.
[6:06:09] Can someone clearly explain to him --
[6:06:12] if you understand that we can move on.
[6:06:14] But what you're doing is blaming our department
[6:06:18] and our staff for something that the state has passed.
[6:06:22] It's Senate Bill 330.
[6:06:25] Our hands are tied.
[6:06:27] So all this pontificating about commercial
[6:06:30] and we're doing a terrible job and everything else,
[6:06:33] tell that to the state of California
[6:06:35] but severely limits what we can do for these properties.
[6:06:39] I will move on unless there is a question in there somewhere.
[6:06:43] We need to move on.
[6:06:45] I don't want to hear repeats because I, it's 12:03.
[6:06:53] I'll stop and ask the council how long
[6:06:54] you want to continue moving on this evening.
[6:06:56] We won't stop the meeting now obviously.
[6:06:59] And make you come back.
[6:07:02] Council member Hardy, can you make a motion
[6:07:06] or a vice mayor Gonzalez?
[6:07:09] >> Motion to continue the meeting only until 12:30
[6:07:16] or less.
[6:07:18] >> Is there a second?
[6:07:19] >> We might want to amend that.
[6:07:21] The next couple of items in front of you
[6:07:23] actually require action by you in order
[6:07:27] to be timely back to the grand jury.
[6:07:31] >> What do you mean back to the grand jury?
[6:07:33] And we're not staying past that.
[6:07:35] There's no way we're going to get through those items.
[6:07:38] I'll tell you right now.
[6:07:41] >> They're pretty straightforward.
[6:07:42] >> Nothing is straightforward with this council.
[6:07:44] I'm sorry to argue.
[6:07:46] There's nothing straightforward.
[6:07:51] >> (inaudible)
[6:07:52] >> I'll amend my motion for we will not go past 1:00am.
[6:07:58] >> Even if we don't finish those we're done whether we finished
[6:08:01] or not.
[6:08:01] I would ask to send a notice to the grand jury
[6:08:04] that ours will be delayed.
[6:08:06] We can hear it on the 15th.
[6:08:09] >> Appreciate that and I was informed we have an option
[6:08:13] potentially before that because you've got a special meeting set
[6:08:16] up for interviews on September 1st.
[6:08:18] If we don't finish we can add this to that.
[6:08:21] >> Very good.
[6:08:22] So now we're back to 12:30.
[6:08:27] Thank you.
[6:08:31] we have a motion by Council Member Hardy
[6:08:33] and seconded by Vice Mayor Gonzalez.
[6:08:37] 12:30 finishing this item.
[6:08:40] >> Council member Chahal?
[6:08:45] Hardy?
[6:08:46] Yes.
[6:08:48] Park?
[6:08:49] Abstain.
[6:08:51] Jain?
[6:08:52] Yes.
[6:08:53] Gonzalez?
[6:08:54] Yes.
[6:08:57] Gillmor?
[6:08:57] Yes.
[6:08:58] >> That passes five with one abstention.
[6:09:00] Thank you.
[6:09:01] I'm sorry.
[6:09:02] There was a question in there in the beginning
[6:09:05] if you'd like to answer that please.
[6:09:09] >> I believe council member parks question was about retail
[6:09:13] and how much retail the applicant provides.
[6:09:19] The applicant used the state density Bonus concession
[6:09:23] analysis because they provided the affordable housing
[6:09:26] as required by our economist. (inaudible) so they were
[6:09:32] required to provide 22,215ft² of retail and using this concession
[6:09:38] they are currently providing 4091,
[6:09:40] close to 5000ft² of retail which is -- .
[6:09:47] >> And that's what they can legally --
[6:09:49] >> That's what we can legally require.
[6:09:53] To use the concession -- granted by the state density --
[6:09:57] >> And it's state law like -- thank you very much.
[6:10:02] Council member Park?
[6:10:03] Without repeating?
[6:10:07] >> At some point this is for robust discussion and I can talk
[6:10:10] about other things.
[6:10:12] >> There's discussion and then there's --
[6:10:15] and yours is a monologue.
[6:10:23] >> Mine is a discussion and it is --
[6:10:24] it is instructional to staff which is when we look
[6:10:28] at Sunnyvale, Sunnyvale tells people what they want to.
[6:10:33] They've got zoning, which tells people what they want to.
[6:10:36] They advertise this is what we want the city to look like.
[6:10:41] The zoning such as ITR< industrial to residential they
[6:10:46] have things where they say this is currently this but this is
[6:10:49] what we would like to be.
[6:10:50] They have a vision for their city which is not just we have
[6:10:55] a general plan come up we have this general plan they have --
[6:10:58] they have zoning which tells people this is
[6:11:00] what we would like to be there.
[6:11:02] This is what they do.
[6:11:04] When we say well, we're just going to look at our city
[6:11:10] and accept any state law backed project that comes to us,
[6:11:23] I think it's a shame that we're not
[6:11:27] managing our expectations and vision for the city in a better
[6:11:29] way.
[6:11:30] There's so many different ways we can do that.
[6:11:33] I wants to know come on how do we tell developers
[6:11:35] that this is a mixed use place?
[6:11:38] Even though you can come you can use state laws to go around
[6:11:43] this, how do we encourage the developers
[6:11:46] and how do we advertise to developers that this
[6:11:50] is what we want to do?
[6:11:52] Other cities do this and for the mayor to cut me off and say that
[6:11:58] these are not relevant -- it's very rude.
[6:12:02] Is unfortunate.
[6:12:04] When we say nothing is straightforward
[6:12:05] with the council, I think it starts with the chair.
[6:12:09] I'd like to know how we can tell people come developers
[6:12:13] that this is what we want and how we can do a better
[6:12:18] job to hold onto the vision we made for our City
[6:12:21] and General plan which has been overstated
[6:12:23] and overrun with housing problems with minimal retail.
[6:12:27] I can promise you the city of Sunnyvale
[6:12:30] and the cities you mentioned also
[6:12:32] follows state law exactly like we do.
[6:12:34] City manager?
[6:12:46] >> Don't want to debate the sentiment you're expressing
[6:12:49] because I agree with part of it.
[6:12:50] I will say, we have a zoning code
[6:12:53] just like our neighboring municipalities.
[6:12:55] We have a general plan just like our neighboring municipalities
[6:12:59] and Santa Clara has adopted a number of specific plans
[6:13:03] that I think we actually have seven, where we specifically
[6:13:10] studied parts of the city and envisioned a different future.
[6:13:16] Unfortunately we have the reality
[6:13:18] that Sunnyvale has as well where state law has taken away
[6:13:21] a lot of our local control.
[6:13:23] We oftentimes like to compare ourselves to other cities.
[6:13:26] Certainly revitalizing and rebuilding these
[6:13:30] is a big important thing that we all know we are focused on.
[6:13:35] Other cities are actually -- for some of the things that we have
[6:13:39] to.
[6:13:40] I share your sentiment but know that it is an unfortunate
[6:13:44] landscape that we find ourselves in.
[6:13:47] >> Assistant city Clerk, whenever you're ready.
[6:13:49] A motion by Council member Hardy and second by Gonzalez.
[6:13:54] For the recommendation of approval of.
[6:14:14] [calling vote]
[6:14:28] >> And that passes five yes, one abstention.
[6:14:30] And it passes.
[6:14:32] Thank you and thank you all for your patience
[6:14:34] and staying so late.
[6:14:35] We appreciate it.
[6:14:37] We're moving after number seven.
[6:14:41] We have continued.
[6:14:44] Number eight, action on city Council's response to the Santa
[6:14:47] Clara County Civil Grand jury report
[6:14:50] entitled Pothole Damage Improving Claims processes
[6:14:54] within Santa Clara County.
[6:14:57] City manager?
[6:15:04] >> Chief assistant city attorney --
[6:15:05] so he will present on this item.
[6:15:08] >> Hi Sue.
[6:15:08] Thank you for staying.
[6:15:09] We appreciate it.
[6:15:16] Good evening.
[6:15:18] Good morning. (inaudible) is this better?
[6:15:24] Good morning mayor and council members.
[6:15:27] This evening we are going to be discussing the civil grand jury
[6:15:34] report (inaudible) and it was issued countywide.
[6:15:46] It reviewed data and had findings
[6:15:51] and issued recommendations that were applicable to the county
[6:15:56] as well as all of the cities within the county.
[6:16:03] Civil Grand jury -- the county over a five year period from
[6:16:10] 2020 to 2025.
[6:16:13] Public agencies were asked to provide
[6:16:16] the claims and their responses to the claims.
[6:16:18] Among other things.
[6:16:20] The civil grand jury concluded that public agencies
[6:16:24] should make the claims process simpler and more accessible
[6:16:28] for members of public.
[6:16:30] The grand jury identified four primary areas
[6:16:32] in which they believe improvements can be found
[6:16:35] and the response processes used by the cities.
[6:16:40] First, make online claims forms available or easier to find.
[6:16:51] I thought I had already advanced to that slide.
[6:16:53] My apologies.
[6:16:54] The first is to make online claims forms available
[6:16:57] or easier to find and include clear instructions
[6:17:01] and timelines.
[6:17:02] The second is to provide forms in multiple languages that
[6:17:07] reflect their specific demographics,
[6:17:09] city specific demographics.
[6:17:12] The third is to make it easier for plaintiffs
[6:17:14] to determine which jurisdiction is responsible for any given
[6:17:19] roadway.
[6:17:19] And the last was city should update rejection letters on
[6:17:25] to specify why claims have been denied.
[6:17:28] Not all of these issues or findings apply to the city.
[6:17:33] As we go through the findings and recommendations
[6:17:35] you'll see we are already in a plants with some of these.
[6:17:53] >> There are four sets of findings and recommendations.
[6:18:04] So as a bit of background, the penal code
[6:18:09] is what governs responses to this with these grand jury
[6:18:13] reports.
[6:18:13] So that is all -- just one set of options for responses
[6:18:19] to the findings section of the report and another set
[6:18:22] of options for -- the recommendations.
[6:18:26] We'll discuss first the findings section of the Grand Jury
[6:18:30] report.
[6:18:30] We have two options.
[6:18:33] Number one, that we as a respondent
[6:18:35] agree with the findings or number two,
[6:18:38] that we as a respondent disagree, either in full
[6:18:41] or in part, with the finding.
[6:18:44] And if we disagree either in full or in part,
[6:18:47] we have to specify which portion of the finding --
[6:18:51] and explain why we are disagreeing with it.
[6:18:54] With respect to the recommendations section
[6:18:59] of Grand jury report, we have four options.
[6:19:03] The first is that the recommendation has already
[6:19:08] been implemented.
[6:19:09] We are already in compliance with the recommended action.
[6:19:12] The second is that the recommendation has not yet
[6:19:15] been implemented but will be with the expected time frame.
[6:19:22] The third is essentially we're not sure.
[6:19:25] We require 330oz of an exclamation of that analysis,
[6:19:31] smoke and counter of what we intend to study,
[6:19:35] timeline and things of that nature.
[6:19:46] >> We're saying we're not going to implement the recommendation
[6:19:46] because it's not warranted or reasonable and then our reasons
[6:19:50] why.
[6:19:51] So in terms of the findings and recommendations in this report,
[6:19:55] the first finding -- we had to provide a response.
[6:19:59] There's no associated recommendations.
[6:20:01] Essentially the findings stating -- their review of the --
[6:20:08] claims dated --
[6:20:11] 2022 2025.
[6:20:22] This figure is based on the countywide data
[6:20:25] we haven't seen so we're relying on the grand jury's
[6:20:28] analysis of it.
[6:20:29] We're trying to respond to the grand jury's analysis
[6:20:33] but it's not our data and not.