City Council and Authorities Concurrent - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Welcome to Santa Clara City Hall. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Assistant City Clerk, uh, do we have a confirmation of a quorum? Thank you, Madam Mayor. Yes, confirming quorum.

All right. Thank you. I know we have uh limited time this evening and we're stopping um the study session at 10 minutes to 7 so we can trans transform this council chamber into a council meeting at 7 o'clock. So uh tonight uh for our study session will be on the 2025 2030 community plan to end homelessness and updates on local work efforts. Assistant city manager.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Deputy City Manager Christine Jang along with a few other city staff and representatives from the Santa Clara County's continuum of care will present the study session on the 2025 20 through 2030 community plan to end homelessness and update on local efforts. Thank you. Welcome Christine. I did. Go ahead. I turned it off. It's working. It should be.

All right. So, we'll just go over the agenda. So, first I'll do introductions of the city team as well as the uh county's continuum of care who'll be presenting this item. I'll do a quick recap on the July 2025 uh study session as well as provide updates on local work efforts and then turn it over to the county's continuum of care to present their community plan to end homelessness and then um turn it to Adam Marcus uh to cover a discussion of how the countywide plan and the city plan aligns and then turn um end with city council questions and discussion. So uh I want to provide a quick introduction of staff uh that who are supporting this study study session item. On the city side we have Adam Marcus who is uh the housing community services manager and Greg Pensinger our management analyst who is managing the day-to-day work related to homelessness. Greg started with the city two months ago and has hit the ground running. As you know, uh, homelessness is a complex issue that touches many city departments and we have other city staff in the audience, um, including Asha Hamid, community development director, Patty Wong, city librarian, Captain Nick Richards, and Captain uh, Michael Christini from PD. And here with us today from the county county's continuum of care, we have KJ Kmenky, director of Santa Clara County's office of supportive housing and Ray Bramson, COO of Destination Home. In July 2025, the city and county office of supportive housing held a homelessness study session that covered a number of topics. We covered the changing landscape of homelessness. The county provided an overview of the supportive housing system. City staff

shared information about our city programs and resources as well as presented on our draft local plan um and key work items. City council provided feedback and questions which staff has provided responses for and those responses are included as an attachment in the agenda report. Over the last few years, staff across different departments have been working to reduce homelessness and its impacts through housing solutions, homelessness prevention, and crisis response. When we think about root causes and solutions, increasing housing is the single most important response to homelessness. There are different types of housing that serve a variety of subpopuls such as affordable housing production, affordable housing preservation, rapid rehousing and tenant-based rental assistance, emergency shelter, interim housing, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing. The bullet the bold bullet points that you see on the screen highlight the types of housing that Santa Clara already has or is in the process of working on. In addition to housing, the city focuses on preventing homelessness through various services and resources which are available through the city and its partners, including tenant-based rental assistance through Abode, homelessness prevention system through destination home and various agencies, landlord and tenant mediation through project sentinel, domestic violence support, survivor support through Next Door Solutions, and the N and the 211 hotline through United Okay, this slide includes a snapshot of relevant data related to homelessness prevention at the city level. The city contributes 50,000 annually to the county's HPS, which directly benefits at risk Santa Clara residents and

contributes to the supports that they receive through the prevention system. These funds have contributed to support o that over 1,500 Santa Clair residents have received over the past five years. I also want to highlight that Bill Wilson Center is now Santa Clara's designated HPS service provider. So, we look forward to working with them in close partnership. The city also provides tenant-based rental assistance through Abode, which helps households covering um to cover housing costs for a limited period, typically up to two years, while they work towards stable housing and self-sufficiency. A table at the bottom of the slide provides a quick snapshot of how many households have been serviced through this program in the last five years. Lastly, the city also focuses on providing crisis support, crisis response through case management, mobile hygiene and laundry service, Santa Clara's police department's community response team and psychiatric emergency response team, mental health coordination services through careless and encampment cleanups and towing. The next two slides cover some crisis response data. Through Cure Solace, the city offers mental health coordination services free of charge to all residents and employees. The service is funded by opioid settlement funds in Santa Clara PD's budget to address needs of vulnerable populations who are disproportionately impacted by substance use disorder and divert people with this disorder from the justice system into treatment. The program has received approximately 11,000 uh service requests in the last year since launching. Santa Clara PD's community response team

also has a mental health clinician who provides onseene crisis intervention who supports deescalation efforts and facilitates direct connections to behavioral health and substance use disorder treatment services. Since um they've onboarded in 2023, um mental health related calls for service have declined approximately 18% from the 22 baseline. To reduce the impacts of unsheltered homelessness throughout the community, the city also coordinates encampment cleanups and towing. This fiscal year, the city has completed 18, sorry, 16 cleanups and have three additional cleanups scheduled in the next few months for an estimated cost of $140,000. Santa Clara police officers support each cleanup at an estimated cost of a little over 24,000 in overtime for the fiscal year. In terms of towing, 28 RVs have been towed this fiscal year through April 1st at the cost of 2,000 in towing fees per RV totaling $56,000. It should be noted that these are city-wide numbers and not specific to RVs used for illegal storage or illegal activities. We will now transition to updates on a few key projects related to homelessness. At our July study session, a couple council members expressed interest in relocating the dignity on wheels mobile showers and laundry services from Marcelli Park to a different location where unhoused individuals could also receive other basic needs services. At the time, the Marcelli Park site was new and underutilized, having just been relocated from another location in the city. And since then, usage has increased to an average of 28 people per month. However, we are mindful of council's prior request and identified a

potential relocation site at Central Park, which is accessible to public transit and resources, including Central Park Library and St. Justin's Catholic Church, which provides food and clothing. It is important to note, however, that while the relocation can improve access to services, it may also draw more users to the area. This table right here is a snapshot of dignity on wheels usage since 2024. At the time of the July study session, data for May 2025 and onward was not yet available. Since relocating to Marcelli Park in October of 2024, the program has increased average monthly usage from 15 people at Bet, which was the old location, to now 28 at Marceli Park. For most months, more than 30 people use the program at its current location at Marcelli Park. The city council has two existing council priorities that focus on addressing unsheltered homelessness and its impacts. And we want to take this opportunity to provide a brief update. Council priority 24 focuses on providing interim supportive housing and outreach for the unhoused. The council may remember that back in November um it approved a agreement with we hope to provide street outreach and case management and manage a temporary hotel and inclement weather hotel program. Oops. Prior to executing their agreement, we have reached out to staff with additional requests um for changes to their agreement, which staff has been reviewing to determine whether the city can reasonably accommodate the requests. So, the agreement is currently under negotiations. In the case that we hope is unable to move forward with these

services, staff will need to implement a procurement process. Separately, the city is working with the county and life moves on a 30 suite interim housing development at Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway. The city council will be asked to consider approval of the revenue agreement between the city and county in the upcoming months. The city has received the building permit which is currently under review. The council also has an existing council priority to explore off- streetet parking for RVs and people living in cars. staff previously shared that um over 155 city- owned sites were reviewed against a list of recommended uh criteria. The criteria included having a site um that met a certain size, environmental factors, distance from sens sensitive receptors, and site readiness. Since the study session, staff has completed additional review and discussions with other departments about the few sites that could have potentially accommodated an overnight RV um off-site parking program and determined that they had challenges related to environmental concerns, ingress, egress, and or were adjacent to sensitive receptors. As such, staff is now exploring two alternative approaches. one being a real estate broker services to identify potential uh private properties who are interested in hosting a safe parking program. Staff did conclude a RFP for real estate services and is currently in contract negotiations with a target of executing an agreement in um May or June. And the second option is to have a RFP for private property owners to implement their own safe parking program with seed funding from the city. In terms of next steps for these items um for the dignity on wheels program pending um council discussion staff will

move forward with relocating to central park in May or keeping the program at the current site at Marcelli Park. Um for street outreach pending negotiations with we hope we will continue working to secure a street outreach team. For interim housing, we plan to return to city council seeking adoption of the revenue agreement between the county and city for the Benton Lawrence development project. And then for the off street RV parking, pending council dis discussion and feedback, staff will return to city council with action on next steps. Now that we've shared what's happening at the local level, we'll like to shift our focus to regional planning efforts. The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care has been engaging key stakeholders since last year to help develop a five-year regional community plan to end homelessness. Adam and I have been participating in meetings held for local agency staff to provide our feedback and to ensure alignment with our local efforts. I will now turn it over to KJ and Ray to share the results from the 2020 to 25 community plan that just ended um and to present their draft 2025 to30 plan. Thank you.

Thanks so much.

Good evening, Mayor Council. Ray Bramson, chief operating officer of Destination Home. I'm joined tonight by my colleague KJ Kaminsky, the director of the office of supportive housing for the county of Santa Clara. Uh tonight we want to share some of the results and the progress we had over the last years of our in our work to end homelessness in Santa Clair County. Uh talk specifically about some local data and then give you a preview of what we're doing to develop the next five-year plan. Dive right in, but I want to give you a little background before uh we talk a lot about how we address homelessness in Santa CL County. And we address homelessness through what we call a supportive housing system. As you can see, it's a complicated system and it has a lot of moving parts. But basically, if you're homeless in our community, this is the system that you get into that helps you end it in some ways. And if you're on the brink of ending up outside, this is also how you can prevent your homelessness. Starting from outreach, going through coordinated entry, then entering into a shelter system or a hotel or even a permanent home. or if you're a family just on the edge of losing your housing, there's a hotline that you can call and you can get support. Of course, it's all underresourced and there's still far more people outside than we've got in, but this is the system that we have that we know works. The continuum of care, which is the body that oversees and monitors the progress of this work, is made up by a broad group of stakeholders. We have government leaders, nonprofit executives, philanthropy, private sector, people with lived experience, the community, and many more all coming together to ensure that the community plan that we bring forward is implemented and aligned with the values that we set. The county of Santa Clara serves as the lead for this plan and helps to oversee the data and management of staff and resources. My organization, Destination Home, if you're not aware, was formed in 2010 as part of a public private partnership and

a blue ribbon commission to end homelessness. We sat at the center of what we call a collective impact model and act as a backbone entity providing private resources to pair with public dollars with the goal of ending and preventing homelessness for the members of our community. So from 2020 to 2025 uh I first have to acknowledge it was a different time. We started this community plan at a period before COVID um at a place where the county and cities were facing budget surpluses and that we were still kind of growing off of the success that we saw with the 2016 measure A initiative which created $950 million for housing in our community. At that time, we set a goal to house 20,000 people by 2025. And I'm pleased to report that we've exceeded that goal, 20,830 people. Now, there's a lot of reasons why you still see people outside. But the reality is of those folks that we got in and we got some into permanent supportive housing, others into affordable housing, others reunited with their families. But of that population, over 90% of them have remained housed over time. We're seeing incredible benefits to our community and that's part of the collective efforts including the city of Santa Clara. Populations are diverse. About half of the people that we housed in that time period are what we call chronically homeless with a physical or mental disability having been on the streets for an extended period of time. Fortunately, we're still seeing lots of families on our streets as well with minor children, nearly a quarter of the population. Um, and then we're seeing increases in young adults, in seniors and veterans. The bottom line is that everyone is experiencing homelessness in our community, but we're also able to end it for so many different types of people. But it's not enough. We've got people

outside and we know we need to more immediately respond to the impacts of homelessness like this council has done with projects like Benton. Um, so we set a secondary goal of doubling our shelter capacity. Um, and since 2020, we've increased our shelter capacity by 82%, putting 27,000 unique individuals into shelter. Shelter isn't housing. It doesn't end their homelessness, but it does get them off the streets. Cities across the county of Santa Clara, as far down as Gil, as far as Palo Alto, have all invested in this strategy and we've seen massive increases in our shelter capacity. All the sheltering, all the housing that we do is not going to be enough to truly address the issue of homelessness in the long term if we can't pe prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. You heard earlier staff mentioned the homelessness prevention system. This is a system that we started with private money just a million dollars in 2018. Today we are serving over 2500 families annually. 93 uh 95% of the families remaining housed two years later after receiving basic financial assistance coupled with case management. It's by far the highest return on investment we have of any homeless intervention and we're seeing the system grow, not shrink to meet the need. As a result, there's fewer people becoming homeless. Since 2020, we've seen a 19% decrease in new households becoming homeless. That means for every, you know, one person that we're able to house in 2020, uh, two and a half people were becoming homeless. Now that ratio is down to one to 1.9. The problem is we still have more and more people that are ending up on the streets and we're still not able to keep up, but we know we have the tools in place to address this crisis at scale once we get more resources. Let me turn it over to KJ to give some specific data.

Thank you, Ry. Thank you, mayor, council members. KJ Kaminsky, director for the county's office of supportive housing. As Ry mentioned, we're the continuum of care lead, and that's the role that I'm here today um on behalf of our continuum of care team um to share um about this plan. What I'm going to do is is translate how did the numbers that Rey share shared about our countywide progress translate to the progress here uh for the residents of of the city of Santa Clara. So, of the um we started with the 20,830 people housed um 1,894 of those people were residents here of Santa Clara. Um for the folks placed in temporary housing and shelter, uh 3,443 of those people were uh from Santa Clara. And lastly, for the prevention system that we've spoken about, um over 1500 people served across that system in from 20 to 20 to 2025 were from Santa Clara. And that ratio of people that we've been able to place in housing um uh to the number who are be experiencing homelessness homelessness for the first time here for the city of Santa Clara. For every one household housed, another 1.5 became homeless. So that's significant progress from where we were in 2019. Uh we also wanted to give you a snapshot of how people are were being served um across our entire supportive housing system. And this data um is for uh people accessing services last year in 2025. Um you can see that we're serving residents from everything from permanent supportive housing to street outreach um safe parking um housing problem solving which is a new intervention um uh since 20 since we started this plan that is basically light touch uh financial

assistance uh similar to homelessness prevention but for people who are already experiencing homelessness. We measure this data um by tracking um if folks have u uh if they lived in Santa Clara prior to becoming homeless, if they identify as working or have uh in Santa Clara, their kids go to school here in Santa Clara or they spend most of their time here. And looking at what that means in terms of investments across our system, this uh we pulled out just a few of the interventions that we talked about. 350 households were served in permanent supportive households from Santa Clara were served in permanent supportive housing programs just last year. Um the average cost uh for for permanent supportive housing is uh around 37,000 annually. So that represents an annual investment of about 13 million people for households in Santa Clara. Similarly in rapid rehousing we had 241 households served last year equating to about a $7 million investment. And on the prevention side, those 153 households served um uh equal about a $2.3 million investment. I just wanted to highlight a a few additional partnerships uh between uh the COC, the county, and the city. As Rey mentioned, uh Measure A 2016 Measure Affordable Housing Bond really um helped us achieve these goals in a in a major way. And our partnership with the city here was tremendous. Almost a hundred million dollars of measure uh measure funds were invested here at Calabasas, Agrahood, Kyer um and upcoming civic center and Clara Gardens. We also fund supportive services for residents at those the county funds supportive services for residents at

those uh developments as well as others um like pictured here Peacock Commons um and also the Bellvita project. Um on the temporary housing side uh we have temporary housing for uh youth and young adults uh at Covenant House. um and of course are are thrilled uh to be working with the city on the Santa Clara family community uh project uh that is upcoming. So uh we've been working uh over the last year to bring stakeholders together uh to develop this new plan to reflect on the progress that we've made the current context that we're in today and develop strategies for our next five year five years. We've had a steering committee that has been assisting with the qualitative and quantitative analysis. We've been convening focus groups of subpopuls. We have had deep engagement with cities and a huge thank you to city staff who have been participating in um the the development of the plan. Um and we are now at the point where we have a draft plan are taking additional feedback um with the goal to um adopt the plan later this year. Last year, last plan we had three key focus areas. Uh right, and in the current draft plan, we have four. So, first of all, the most optimal outcome we can have is to prevent people from becoming homeless before they ever experience homelessness. Um so, there's a a key focus area all around our prevention strategies. Second, um we want to continue to house folks and support them in retaining their housing. This is everything from emergency shelter through uh permanent supportive housing for those who need long-term assistance. Focus area three is understanding that we still have people out out living outdoors, strengthening

access to care and services for those who are unsheltered today. Uh access to behavioral health services, to basic needs services. Um it's uh uh all around how do we get folks off the streets into into shelter into permanent housing but also how do we help them meet their needs uh while they're outdoors. And then lastly uh we have a focus area around centering and investing in the PE in people with lived experience to lead and transform our homeless system. We have um we work closely with the lived experience advisory group to excuse me lived experience work group to develop this focus area but also integrate strategies uh throughout focus areas one, two, and three that are um uh that highlight and um uh identify roles for live folks with lived experience to lead in this work. I also want to note that we have um uh been working really closely with uh north county cities, south county cities, west valley cities, and the city of San Jose to develop what we're calling subregional plans. This is new to this plan and wasn't in part of the 2020 plan. Um but recognizing that there are some shared issues that these sub regions are um addressing and interested in these subregional plans will um include a description of the regional characteristics, summarize the existing efforts, highlight all the great work that is happening at the city level that uh Christine just shared um and uh creating a framework of shared goals and strategies and priorities for the sub region that are aligned with the broader communitywide plan. So from here um we have the draft plan is available and attached to your agenda

today. We're also holding uh community convenings. Um later this month, April 30th from 6:00 to 8 is a North County convening um at the Mitchell Park Community Center. Um but we're also having convenings in West Valley, South County, and San Jose as well as a virtual convening. The goal is to have the COC board adopt the plan by in August of this year and then we would be going to other partners, the board of supervisors, city councils and asking for endorsement of the plan um in in the fall. And with that, I want to again just thank you for your time and for um having us on your agenda today and look forward to patience.

Thank you very much. Welcome, Adam.

Thank you, Mayor Council. Good evening. Adam Marcus, housing and community services manager. Uh, we're very close to discussion time, so bear with us. In this third and final section of our presentation today, we wanted to compare how the countywide plan to end homelessness lines up with the city's draft homelessness plan. We're at a really important juncture here because we have an opportunity to benefit from all the work that the the COC has been doing and all the outreach and to ask ourselves, is there anything missing from our local plan? Is there anything that's developed since we've had these discussions that we can now integrate later this year? So, we're really trying to align and then move forward. So, really quickly, um, on the left you see the the county plan and the and the subregional plan. Just so it's a little bit easier for us to track between these two plans that are very similar, two two jurisdictions that have very similar names and two plans that have very similar names. Um, keep in mind that the county plan has focus areas, four focus areas, and the city's plan has six strategy areas. Just as a quick reminder, these are the strategies from the city's plan. Uh they focus again on prevention, on increasing uh all types of housing, on doing more proactive outreach as a backbone to our our services. um addressing basic needs, reducing the impacts of unsheltered homelessness um more broadly, and of course um fostering productive community conversations and centering uh people with lived experience of of homelessness. So looking at uh the community, the COC's focus area number one, prevention.

The county's first focus area, it's really about expanding and improving programs that prevent people from becoming homeless. They've found that this really works. It's cost-effective. This aligns very closely with the city's strategy number one, which focuses on eviction prevention, tenant protections, rental assistance, housing, and legal supports and other linkage linkages. And as you know, the city is one of the only cities uh in the county that currently funds the homelessness prevention system. Something we're very proud of as staff and it's something we we want to continue to do. The COC focus area number two uh relates to expanding and diversifying the supply of shelter and housing options and improving service quality, consistency, coordination among those uh various players in the in that system. The city's strategy number two aligns with this by seeking to expand both temporary and permanent housing and by emphasizing need for more extremely lowincome housing. We had that discussion ongoing as part of our housing element. As you recall, both plans stress that housing supply must be paired with supports, tenency services, navigation, system coordination so that placements stick and people move through the system faster at all income levels. Santa Clara continues to drive new housing production in the South Bay. In fact, in 2025, the city entitled nearly 2,000 new housing units and completed over 2,600 new housing units. The countyy's third focus area relates to improving access to care and services for people experiencing homelessness through more sustainable funding, access to real-time information, better consistency, and quality of services. The city's outreach and basic need strategies track very closely and both plans center outreach as the connector

to the housing pathways and services that are needed. Both plans emphasize that successful implementation requires public understanding and participation and that the perspectives of people with lived experience should be should inform policy decisions and program design. This alignment also supports the practical goal of creating conditions where the community can engage productively around these topics. So, at a high level, lots of overlap. Both plans prioritize stopping homelessness before it begins, then expanding the housing continuum and strengthening access to care and supports for residents currently unsheltered. This sequencing really matters because prevention and system flow improvements reduce the pressure on shelters and services over the long term. The main difference between these two plans really relates to the city strategy number five which aims to reduce the impacts of unsheltered homelessness throughout the city. Strategy five reflects city obligations to m maintain public spaces, address health and safety and community impacts through building new partnerships, securing additional funding, and focusing on housing the highest utilizers of city and county services. The community plan does allude to this um especially relating to encampment residency and places a bit more of an emphasis on diversion from law enforcement and reducing criminal criminalization. This difference is not a bad thing. Rather, it acknowledges that the county and city play different roles in the larger effort to respond to homelessness and its impacts. Going forward, the city will continue to

work on the abovementioned council priorities and to identify funding needed to implement these strategies. Santa Clara's study session uh here tonight is one of the first in a series of study sessions that will take place uh where input will really help to inform both the county's plan as well as the city's plan later this year. It's anticipated that the final plan will come back uh to the community uh in the fall. at the time, sorry. And then hopefully at the same council meeting, we'll bring back the city's plan for adoption as well. And with that, we're going to transition into a discussion period. I had a couple of prompts that I wanted to share and then we'll hand it right back to the mayor.

All right. Very good.

The first uh there's there's about five questions. The first set of questions relates to the county's plan. So, think about what you heard from KJ and Ray and think about uh keep these in mind as you uh engage in your discussion. Are the focus areas uh included in the draft county plan or COC plan reflective of the needs and goals of our community of Santa Clara? What would the council like to see included as part of a subregional plan? So, think of our neighbors. Think of what they're doing. Think of what we're doing. Are there opportunities there for alignment? How can we work with the council? How can the COC work with the council to help share this information out more broadly with the community? And from the city side, we have a couple questions as well relating to RV safe parking. We'd love to hear feedback from the council on alternative options for next steps. Uh thoughts on moving forward with a real estate broker to help identify privately owned sites for off- streetet safe parking. Um, and the other idea being requesting uh for proposals from again private property owners as Christine mentioned. And then the second question relating to the location of the mobile shower laundry service and where that might be. With that, we'll hand it back to you, mayor. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much all of you for the presentations. Very comprehensive. We appreciate it. We're gonna go um I'm gonna ask the council members if they have questions at this point. Council member Jane,

thank you for the presentations. Um, I wanted to understand better the subreional plans. Um, because for the Benton Lawrence interim supportive housing, the county is the lead on that. Um they've submitted building permits, but the city's uh putting in about $7 million and it's on the border of Sunnyale and Santa Clara. So I know we're going to give preference hopefully to Santa Clara residents, but my understanding is it's on the border of Sunnyvil. So, it would be nice in the subregional plan to maybe do a cost sharing with Sunnyale and allow both Santa Clara and Sunnyville residents to be part of that to make sure that we had a pipeline because we want to do it for families only. And so I want to make sure we don't run out of families in Santa in the city of Santa Clara. And uh to I don't think from what I've heard we're not going to run out of families in Santa Clara. But um I was wondering if and the problem is that our $7 million is only good for seven years. So after that, it would be nice to be including Sunnyvale in part of that plan to make sure that we have longevity for that interim supportive housing project. Um the um you know, I'm all for really trying to prevent people to be displaced to the street, whatever we can do. as soon as they go to the street, they're they're spiral um they just spiral downhill. Um they become subject to PTSD from living on the street, maybe some drug addiction, all kinds of other problems, health

problems. So, um, whatever we can do to keep people in their homes or into shelters, rapid rehousing, then allow people to get into the streets. Um, couple of things that, um, you know, we've had Project Sentinel for, um, doing tenant landlord mediation and disputes, but they have pretty much been there the whole time that I've been here. And I haven't seen any bidding out of that. And I've heard that Project Sentinel isn't particularly responsive to a lot of calls. People have complained that they're not um they're not getting calls returned. Uh can we get maybe an update as to how Project Sentinel is working out for us? Um, I was kind of surprised that when Adam had said that the Santa Clara is the only city in the county with a homelessness prevention program. Did you say that? Okay. I was surprised um by that because I think a lot of other cities are doing tenant-based rental assistant. Mountain View, something that I've brought up many times is basic income. and I would like to start a basic income program in the city of Santa Clara. Um I don't know what that would take. Uh my question is for Dignity on Wheels, we did move the location. I'm not sure where it was before Marcelli, but the number went up from 15 to 28. So I thought that was due to moving the location um is what I heard. If not, if we didn't move the the location, what caused the numbers to go from 15 to 28? And then um

uh I'm very supportive of putting it near um where people go for their meals like St. Justin's. You put it right there. People are coming there anyway for their meals. They can get laundry and shower services. Um the street outreach, Santa Clair has struggled with the street outreach. I think we were going to get two people from destination home to do that. I don't think we ever got two people and now we're moving to we hope. I wanted to understand why we're doing that. And that's uh okay. The other question I had was I've been talking to the people at Kyer Senior Housing and you know like everywhere we're trying to reduce the amount of parking to make the units more affordable but then we have a parking problem and I'm trying to figure out how we can crack this nut and provide some sort of parking. I'm really trying to get um some sort of agreements between the housing projects and neighboring businesses, but what I hear the the big problem is insurance. Like um the neighboring businesses don't want to take on the insurance liability in case there's an accident in the parking lot or such. So, does any other city have any um ideas to crack that to be able to do more sharing of parking because the residents are there in the evening, the businesses are operating during the day? So, is there are there any ideas we can take from other cities? Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Hardy.

Thank you. I was a little surprised when um Adam's title came up because I always think of you of housing and when it said community service manager. So I'm curious what percentage of your work time is based on that because I had the opportunity to work a little bit with the person from Sunnyville and didn't think we had someone. So that surprised me. Um, I did have the opportunity to talk with the gentleman from Abode and he said that they have a better than 80% success rate which I was thrilled to hear about. Um, when we talk about the capacity of dignity on wheels is if we moved it to and and he's right. I've been over there. I I know at St. Justin's Pantry there are a lot of people there that get food. Um, is there a capacity to handle more than 37 38? I don't know. Or would you want to swap back and forth and have half the time in one place and half in another? Is that another way to extend our our limited resources to help more people? I was the one that um was happy with Project Sentinel 35 years ago when I was a renter and had problems and but lately I have sent people to them and they have gotten no response and I personally called them and left a very angry message explaining how we support you and you are supposed to be supporting our residents and they finally called me back. But um then they also did not give appropriate information to a resident that I had and I don't know if it was just a miscommunication but they were

not given their actual state given rights as renters and were not told that. So I and then after that I got an unsolicited another complaint about project Sentinel. So that that puts that at real I'm wondering if that's a good place to have our finances. I'll say that. I appreciated that you showed some of your measures of success because obviously we want to see that the problem is getting better not worse because if if that were the case then we wouldn't be doing the right things. We have approved the county facility twice on Benton and Lawrence Expressway and I've gotten a lot of resident feedback that was negative. So I curious what more we have to do for that because like I said, we have done that twice and I was the one that made the motion and took the hits. I'm okay with that, but I I'm curious what more we need to do to support that because we did put in the money we had to do that and then approved that because it is county land as well. Um I'm wondering if you talked about coordination, but I didn't see a lot of coordination with Valley Water. They are the ones that own all the creek land. And some people seem to understand the jurisdiction between that fence line. One side's Santa Clara, one side's Valley Water. Valley Water does not have any real type enforcement. And um I've seen that and and I happen to know, my understanding is the police officers can only go in there if there's they're actively going after someone who's violent. and

the firefighters can only be in there if there's a fire. So, I want to know uh are we coordinating with them because we have all of those different creek trails that come through our city and we know that that has been an issue. Um you just mentioned it. I guess I'd like to understand better about the mental health and addiction struggles and if we have um especially with the chronically homeless if there well unhoused if there's a refusal of service problem because I do know that some people have refused or are uncomfortable with any kind of help or don't trust things for different reasons. So, I'm wondering what what kind of percentage do we have as a refusal of services? And the RV parking and towing was interesting. I know that my church looked into having an RV or a parking at night and then they were told there were all these different conditions they had to meet and they pulled back because of it. So, I'm wondering if we are being too restrictive so that no one would want to do that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Gonz Vice Mayor Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. Um,

first, thank you for the report and uh really informative and um the regional aspect of it is really important. I think that as uh as we address homelessness and even within the city, um we see sometimes it might move around. Uh, as far as the the RVs, I know that we had I think there was 28 that were removed or towed from uh the city. Um, were they were we trying to work with those folks? Obviously, it's it's is more than an RV for those folks. It's, you know, it's a shelter, right? So, it's something that they have to to use to to house themselves. So, hopefully we we worked with them and did we work with them to try to, you know, find ways to uh find a better site for them. Um, as far as finding a better site, I know that we're we haven't found one for um within our property. Um, but I don't know if we can double back and check to see if there's any any place we can look. Um, even if it was a pilot program, you know, somewhere where we can understand what uh what we've learned and maybe provide some of the resources, whether it's the dignity on wheels or something that could help service uh the area. Um, and you know, I tell folks, you know, the super the uh the Levis is in my district, and sometimes it's nice to move it around to to see how folks in other other areas of the city might might um might see things. Obviously that that can't happen, but you know with uh with maybe an RV park or or or something where we can have some temporary parking kind of learn some things and maybe um move it around so that we can we can uh have our folks uh within the community understand maybe really engage with some of the community members. The uh the per officer that I believe is is now uh it was funded I believe through the county but is now being funded I believe through our our police department. I'm glad that we have that. And how do we make sure that we have those resources

um for for our homeless population to make sure that it's not, you know, we're not just giving them housing in one aspect or another, but we're also providing some uh in the school district, we say wraparound services, but you know, other services to make sure that they uh that they are aware of uh the the resources and are being helped with any challenges that they may have. And the other question was um as far as the monies that were expended and this is more I guess for the county as far as the data that we're looking at for the utilization of of those m you know it's always good to to understand maybe uh regionally maybe how other folks are doing it and and if we can do it better here in Santa Clara to how we expend those monies you know whether it's shortterm whether it's longterm you know just just to see what what what's working maybe in other localities so we can implement some of that stuff here as well.

Thank you. Vice um council member Cox,

thank you. Um I wanted to know more about the care solace uh service requests we had. Um, I know we said that there were several thousand requests coming in, but I'm wondering if we have data on whether those requests led to ongoing care if we were able to connect those services to uh uh following uh outcomes um if they led to a greater use of the city services. Um, again, some of my uh data is coming from the point in time questionnaire from 2025, so you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but um, again, the PIT data shows that 73% of unhoused neighbors are living when with disabling conditions. And so the current strategies are mentioning the need to diversify permanent housing. That's strategy A5. Um, but given the the needs of I think nearly threequarters of that population, I don't know how we plan to close that gap. And I bring this up because um I know we're excited about the Benton project, but one of the concerns that we're seeing and one of the issues that the community is having feedback on is how uh the diverse needs of housing um from the outside in is looking like it's creating more problems for uh the community than it is good. I know we talked about the Aggrahood and Kyer and I did ask um KJ about this I think at the city's board meeting. What is our training and implementation for the developers when they are left with I I don't want to say like a helicopter resource where you just come in and you say here's what you have work with it but um we need to change the narrative if we're going to get a project like the Benton uh Lawrence thing passed and I think it starts with showing success in models like this and so um I again I want to know how we give appropriate training and resources to a devel

developer who likely has, you know, partnered with uh Abode or um you know, in this case, John Stewart to make sure that the products and the services that we're offering uh are successful. Um the question was asked on how do we feel about the different potential alternative options for RV housing. I think again the point in time said that RV housing is up to 30 37% and I would love to say let's explore both options. You know if a broker can find private property for it um and there's people who have their own private property I think that's awesome. I think one of the things that solves right away is that then the right people who are passionate about this want to make connected uh impacts in their environment. I think what we don't know about that yet to give direction would be how do we consult with the the neighbors around said house that wants to house it. How big does a property need to be for you to say, "Yeah, come into my neighborhood. I'm willing to have four or five RVs here." Um there are a lot of impacts and I am glad that we made that distinction. I think as a city we do have that responsibility to say what are the impacts to our community as well. Uh, I think it's such a great idea, but I I want to know how we would begin to imagine that in a way that would be successful. Um, not just for uh the family that was meeting the need, but for the the neighbors as well. Um, again, I I also noticed that the response to general question one, especially about preventative maintenance, which I believe was said is our best return of investment. Uh it quotes it says it's striking to note that in our staff responses Santa Clair and San Jose are the only two cities in the entire county currently providing direct financial support to the homeless prevention system. Um and again because we know that the problem of unhoused is you know a moving target. I want to know

how we collaborate with these entities to ensure that um our investment again I think one of the things about the point in time this year that's really striking is it looks like everybody went up 70% in San Jose maintained well when you sweep major areas the impacting the impact is going to be around the neighborhood city so I know that those numbers fluctuate but if we look at our prevention services now needing to be offered to 72% more without a regional plan in place of how we couple on this. I think we're missing our most impactful boat. And and like you said, it looked like you were going to come up and clarify that that might be wrong. Um and then again, another partnership that it did mention, um in February 25, which is now a year ago, Valley Water proposed the for formation of a joint, uh countywide powers authority to start looking at this, but it's been a year now and I don't know what the followup has been on that. So, I want a clarification on that. Um yeah, I believe that's it. Thank you so much. Sorry.

I think when Valley Water asked for um interest in that joint um uh task force asking the different cities if they wanted to participate. I think we were the only ones that said yes. I believe that there weren't there wasn't a lot of interest from anyone else, but I did respond immediately that we were interested in that. Anyways, that didn't go anywhere. I'm not going to repeat any of the questions that were already asked, but one of my particular interests is the safe parking sites, and we've been talking about this for years. We've toured Mountain View sites and others. Have we ever identified any city properties for safe parking? And are there examples of um packages that were offered, incentive packages for private property owners to um have safe parking in any other city? Do we have I I never liked we don't have to if we don't have to recreate the wheel, you know, let's use others. if there's something that has worked in another city uh for private property because I'm just wondering if you're not out if we're not out there communicating it to property owners with a package that would you know not be interesting not just financially but other ways that you know they can do good in their community. Does anybody have that any other city? Do they offer that? Those those really are my questions. So I think that's it. My my screen went off again. So,

Council Member Jane has his hand up in Council Member Park as well.

Yeah. Um I just want to clarify I was confused that um it was actually the outreach program I think was with Abode, not Destination Home. And I don't think we ever got the two people that we wanted. And so now I think I'm trying to understand the move to we hope. Um and then I did find in the packet that the move from destination on wheels was from Basset Drive to Marsali. So that's where the numbers went up um almost double. Um then uh I know San Jose has uh in David Cohen's district has provided RV parking but it has become it became very expensive and problematic for them. Took them a long time because you have to decide you're going to provide security, you're going to provide restrooms, you're going to provide pumpouts for toilets and things. Um, it's complicated to set up a an a safe parking for RVs and do you provide electricity because you don't want people to run generators and and uh their their engines providing a lot of pollution in these old RVs. So, San Jose ran into a lot of problems. It's certainly something we need to do in Santa Clara, but uh we have to look at the problems that David Cohen's district had. Thank you. Council member Park, Council Member Park has a hand up.

Yes.

Uh, thank you very much. I apologize for coming a little bit late, but I did follow up with this and I did look at this prior to the meeting because I knew it was going to be a little late. I have similar concerns about Project Sentinel. I've worked with Project Sentinel since uh early 2010s. I've worked with them on a project with Prometheus and Mansion Grove. did not go well and I've been very uh in tune with the the other projects that have also reached out to project sensil. I mean it's the first name that I say but I say it with a little bit of hesitation and I don't want to have that kind of hesitation when we're promoting services. Um I have question about I mean I think I'll go skip to the next one which is uh we did have a study session on safe parking. Uh we talked about some parks that we or some areas that some open areas including uh near substations or near electrical stations that um could have space. But as Council Member Jane suggested and um noted that it's not just parking. I mean we need staffing there. There are a lot of things that need to go with that. Uh Redwood City had a a project several years ago. I think that they had been doing really well every single time for the last three years that I brought up something. It usually is something I learned from a Redwood City session and they had safe parking. They also not noted that they needed um staffing uh and they needed staffing at late hours as well because people don't just show up during the day and then everything goes fine and they wake up and everything goes fine again. Um they also had referrals for people on the streets that were sleeping rough. I I know that I've met a lot of people. I've talked to people I've talked to people from military. They're in military fatigues, military gear, uh, sleeping on the street. I've tried to pass them my name and given them cards. I I always tell them about the resources in my district, including Salvation Army with Celeststeine Shashana. But, I mean, they they need more than just shelter. I mean, in some cases, they told me, "I can I can rough this. This is actually better, and the weather is better than

places I've been, you know, other places." But they need jobs, right? So, I mean, once people lose housing, how are they counted in census and other metrics? I mean, I think that if they don't have a an address, if they don't have something that they can send to, I'm worried that they will negatively affect the AMI calculation. Meaning, if they're at the lower end and they are not counted in the metrics, then AMI will just go up. I think that's one of the problems with AMI using AMI as the affordability index which is as the people in the bottom drop out the number keeps going up and up and up. So there has to be a way to retain people so that number doesn't doesn't u because once you've got people leaving once you've got a lot of people that are distressed you've got runaway. Um the other problem that we have is a lot of the people that I've talked to that are in trouble are not the the group that we expect. They're actually used to be the working class. I mean they are uh in the tech sector. I don't think people realize that we've lost you know half a million jobs in the last four years, three years in the tech sector and it's going up. Uh I recently took an Uber ride back from a conference and what the Uber I was asking the Uber driver how what the situation was and he told me that he's never seen it this bad. I mean uh I said there was a lot of activity so there'll be a lot of people traveling must be a good thing. He said no you don't understand. We've got 300 cars out there, Uber drivers. And you know, I've never seen numbers that high except on Christmas or New Year's or on some big event. But now it's almost every single night they've got 300 Uber drivers. And most of those drivers when they sit and talk to each other are people in the tech sector who no longer have jobs. Um I mean that's why but they've got cars. They need safe parking as well. uh if they I mean again you know

next up is jobs um which is why we need showers because most of those people need clothing and showers so that they go to interviews. In fact, one person was asking for money for his car um to get gas for his car. And I think that this is a new type of, you know, problem. Um and we need to start looking that at this in larger like we need to have not just safe parking, but it kind of needs to be a community where people can go together. Uh if we have people who are, you know, maybe they don't need help, they just need a place to stay. If we can work with these people, we can find people, bring them in and uh leverage, you know, them, uh maybe even pay them to to help maintain the organizations, ma maintain the communities that they're part of. I think that would be a good thing. Uh I do want the referrals for people on the street, especially if there's children. I have met a woman in my neighborhood walking through my neighborhood who had a child and that child was left with somebody else. But uh the mention was that in other cities if you are on the street with a child you immediately get a voucher and you're immediately off the street that night. And I said I don't know of any program like that. But I think that we need to start looking at programs that get people off the street immediately if they are you know especially if there's children involved um and help them with the next step which is you can keep them in stasis by providing them shelter and clothing. But at some point if they don't have jobs, if they don't have a place to move to, if they don't have a place to make their situation better, then we we've just got a you know an ongoing situation where we're we are need more and more money, more and more resources to to take care of more and more people who are falling falling through the through the filters. Thank you.

Adam, thank you, Adam. Um, unfortunately we have 10 minutes. So if you'd like to answer questions, you can always send them back in a report to us as well. But the best you can, we have 10 minutes for questions. I might want to prioritize that those at the count the county COC could answer because they um are very busy presenting to other jurisdictions. We we appreciate that. Thank and we will uh if we don't have time for staff um responses then we will uh put them in writing and share it with the council. Thank you so much

and uh thank you. Thank you for all the comments and questions. We're also happy to follow up um afterwards and work with staff on any responses that we're not able to get to this evening. Um so starting with uh council member Jane, you asked about the home key site including Sunnyval and cost sharing. Is that a a a possibility with the subregional plan? I would say the subregional plans are intended to identify shared priorities. If North County is interested in looking at cost sharing for shelters, that could be something that's included. Um, in terms of the discussion thus far about prioritization for that particular site, the Santa Clara family home key site, um, we are prioritizing families from the city of Santa Clara and then North County after if if um, if there are no more families identified um, on the Kyifer senior housing parking problem. Um, this is one where I think we we would like to work with city and and uh look at options. Um, I'm not aware of um other housing developments within our portfolio that are leasing uh with neighboring businesses, but I'm happy to to look into other options that may be available. Um, Council Member Hardy um asked you asked about um um our measures of success um and um you mentioned the county facility, the Benton and Lawrence project and what is next to do I believe um is uh just approval of the shared revenue agreement is the next step. Um, and we really appreciate the partnership and the council's support on that project and are very much looking forward to um to getting it underway. You also asked about our coordination with Valley Water. We actually have this discussion and presentation with Valley Water this coming Friday. I'll be work uh starting with a a subcommittee of the Valley Water uh district board. Um, but we look

forward to involving them in this discussion and and including them in as a I hopefully an endorsing body, but also one that we continue to work with over the implementation of the of the entire plan. Um, in you asked a question about re uh the the number or percentage of folks that refuse services. Um I we don't track the number of folks who refuse all of all services, but I will say um you know sometimes there are folks who decline a shelter resource if it's not a good fit for them um for various reasons. Uh our my office has a client engagement team. That's the team that's responsible for getting folks um document ready and uh prepared for move into permanent housing. I can tell you when it's permanent housing, we the the number of people who say no to a permanent housing resource when it's available to them is extremely low. Um so uh uh people who we interact with daily that are experiencing homelessness when there's a permanent housing option um and we are providing those that are low barrier meeting their needs um it is well above 90% are saying yes to that. trying to go quickly to get to through as much as I can here. Um,

appreciate that.

Council member um Gonzalez, I appreciate the um uh uh suggestion to look at other counties and understand regionally what um uh how our strategies and are successful compared to other regions. Um I think we certainly do that and um are often the leader here in Santa Clara County. Um and prevention is a great example of that where with in partnership with destination home piloted that system in 2017 that has now grown from just serving a couple hundred households to over 2500 households today. Destination Home is now taking that model nationwide. Um we also did the first um uh randomized control trial evaluation a really rigorous evaluation in partnership with University of Notre Dame of that system that study and we do that across many of our interventions. Um it we really I think lead the way in that work but also you know are always looking to learn for from other communities about what is most cost effective. Um the data is showing that prevention is by far our most cost-effective intervention. Council member Cox, um you asked about um training and implementation for developers. Um and you know, we did we built this supportive housing system very quickly. Uh thanks to investments from cities like yours, thanks to the 200 2016 measure affordable housing bond. Um and we now have a system that we are really working to um standardize our operations and level of care. Our office has is offering monthly trainings

for property managers as well as monthly trainings for case managers about um several topics around working in support of housing development specifically. We also coordinate um regular meetings with developers, property managers, the service providers um where we discuss any issues specific to those developments. So those that those coordination meetings are critical, but of course if there are concerns from the city um you know we're we're always looking to understand those so that we can address them with the developers, the property managers, the service providers as well. Uh here um on the prevention side, you also mentioned um the the reflected the city of San Jose and the and the city of Santa Clara are the only ones providing direct support for homelessness prevention. That is that's true today. Um I will say in our initial conversations with many cities, there's a there's generally a lot of interest in in prevention. I expect that many of the subregional plans including uh North County um there was uh other cities are also showing a lot of interest in that. So we're hopeful that um they'll follow your lead and also um um invest in in that system. I think the rest of the questions were for the city, but if there are if there's anything I missed that were for was for the county um I apologize. That was

did a very good job. Thank you so much for that. So, um, assistant city manager, are you will follow up with us? Yes, we will provide a report um to respond to the questions in the column. And thank you very much and thank you to everyone for that report. This is a very important topic for us and we appreciate all the information. Thank you. Uh, we are going to Madam Mayor, yes. I'm not sure if we went to the public on that. We do need to even though it's a study session. Oh, we still do. Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. Is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this issue? Please come forward.

Do we have anyone online, assistant city clerk, for speaking on this issue, a study session? Jeff Houston. Uh Jeff, go ahead, Jeff.

Hello. Thank you everybody for that wonderful presentation. I'd like to encourage the city to move the showering and laundry facilities to where they can be most utilized. And it sounds like Central Park um near the Catholic Church there would be a good opportunity. Um, it would be good to to have more users in that area where it's needed. And it would be good for our community to see those people who need those facilities so we can build more compassion within our community for the people that need those facilities. Thank you again.

Thank you, city clerk. Anyone else? All right. No, that's it. Thank you, city attorney, for reminding me. Um, we will, uh, commence the council meeting a little after 7 o'clock. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm sure you were. We're ready. Good evening everyone and welcome to Santa Clara City Council Stadium Authority Concurrent Meeting. Uh could you please stand for the pledge of allegiance and remain standing for our statement of values? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

As we gather, we humbly seek blessings upon this meeting. May we act with strength, courage, and will to perform our obligations and duties to our people with justice to all. Let us seek wisdom so that we may act in the best interest of our people, our neighbors, and our country. All this we ask so we may serve our community with fairness and respect, putting their needs before all. Thank you. Please be seated. Roll call. Assistant city clerk. Thank you, Madame Mayor. Vice Mayor, Vice Chair Gonzalez, here. Council member, board member Shahal, I'd like to note for the record that he is absent this evening due to travel for on city business. Council member, board member Hardy, present.

Council member, board member Park here. Council member board member Jane here. Council member board member Cox here. Mayor and Chair Gilmore here. Thank you.

I'd like to make a motion to excuse um council member Chahal. He is on city business. Second. A motion and a second to excuse council member Chahal. My screen isn't working. Ah,

I vote yes. I went too fast. Let me redo that.

Thank My screen isn't working, guys. But yes, no, it's not working. Okay, this is good. Your vote was

Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And my screen isn't working again. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Very good. Um, next we have Oh, go ahead, city clerk. All your stuff. I know. Sorry.

The AB23 announcement. Members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority, and Housing Authority are entitled to receive $30 for each attended meeting. The statement of behavioral standards. The city of Santa Clara has adopted a code of ethics and values and behavioral standards for public meetings to promote and maintain the highest levels of conduct. This includes mutual respect, robust discussion, and allowing city business to be done in an efficient and consistent manner. Please note that as a preciding officer, the mayors and chairs direction in matters of process and decorum should be followed and that use of the gavl indicates all conversations must conclude and everyone in attendance should come to order and attention. Welcome and thank you for your participation. For those joining us this evening in the capacity as a registered lobbyist, we ask you to please identify yourself as such and disclose the clients and organizations that you represent. This is pursuant to city code section 2.155.110. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you and sorry about this few technical problems here. So, good evening everyone and welcome for today's meeting. The council's back in person and is conducting its meeting in a hybrid manner. The public is welcome to welcome to attend in person and the city continues to use a Zoom feature to allow participation from your home or office. Members of the public can still join via the link and or call into the Zoom meeting phone number shown on the screen. Now, if you would like to speak on an agenda item or during public presentations, please raise your hand on the Zoom application or press star 9 on your phone. Please only raise your hand while the item you're seeking to speak on is presented. Staff will enter your name or the last four digits of your phone number and I will call on you to speak. As a friendly reminder, members of the public have two minutes to speak on an agenda item and three minutes on public presentations and those are reserved for topics that are not on the agenda. Prior to each agenda item, sta prior to each agenda item, staff will lower your hand to ensure that members of the public are seeking to speak on the appropriate agenda item. So, we'll move to the meeting now. Okay. Uh first order of business is we have continuences, exceptions, and reconsiderations. And we have one exception on the agenda right now that uh is a request to have that item removed uh withdrawn by staff. It's a public hearing action on an ordinance of the city of Santa Clara, California, authorizing the installation of supergraphic signs on building surfaces in the vicinity of Levi Stadium during a limited time period surrounding FIFA World Cup 2026 special events. Uh staff, did you want to say anything on that or you just looking for a motion on that? Madame J, Madame Mayor, just by by way

of explanation, as indicated in the staff report, um this was a staff initiated item. Uh however, um since staff initiated the item, the market for such signs in the community interest has waned. Um and accordingly, staff is withdrawing the item for consideration. Um, also of note on the April 8th, 2026 um, planning commission meeting, uh, the planning commission voted 61 to deny the proposal. So, in consideration of all those things, staff's withdrawing, uh, the item for city council consideration. All right. Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this?

Anyone online? All right. Is there a motion? Vice Mayor Gonzalez, can you turn on your microphone, please? Thank you. Make a motion to um withdraw this. Second.

All right. Thank you. We have a motion to withdraw by C uh Vice Mayor Gonzalez, second by Council Member Hardy. Any other comments? Okay. Assistant City Clerk, we're moving fast for you now. When you're ready, please register your vote. And that passes unanimously of those present. Any other continuences, exceptions, reconsiderations? Vice Mayor Gonzalez.

Madame Mayor, I want to have a reconsideration of the vote from last uh meeting for the 030 um for a future city council agenda item to be done within 90 days on the process, adjustment, organization of the downtown RFP, RFQ. City Attorney. Um yes, Madame Mayor. Um if you'll recall when this item came up, um last time uh the um we advised given the nature of the item and it and its involvement of downtown properties that uh you and member Cox would recuse yourselves. Do I wait for the second to make sure this is going or should I do that right now? You may want to do it right now. I madame mayor.

Okay, I will. I'm going to be recusing myself because they're talking about downtown Santa Clara and my office is located in the Franklin Mall in downtown Santa Clara. Um, Vice Mayor Gonzalez, if you'd come and take over, please. I also will be recusing myself due to my uh employment with Santa Clara University that could potentially present a conflict of interest.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, um last meeting we had a 030 presented by uh council member Park to um agendaize and in the motion it was uh the original timeline was 30 days but we we had talked about the motion for 90 days to uh bring back uh the process adjustment organization of the downtown RFP RFQ. Um is there any comments or questions questions from council members? Council member Hardy. Yes, I voted against this because we are in the middle of the process and we have the consultant and I feel like the best way and I have talked with a few people is for them to let the process go through and then when it's in its draft form you any group can write a response in favor or pointing out the problems or the concerns with the report. And to me, that is the best way for a group of citizens or anyone to answer to a report that they don't like. I'm uncomfortable with us trying to do this in the middle of the process once a consultant has been chosen and has started.

Thank you. Anyone else? So, um, and um, Vice Mayor, it would be appropriate to go to the public to see if any public members want to speak to this. Oh, I'm sorry that um, we we could go to we, um, even before the second, you can go to the public for to solicit input. Okay. Is this a city clerk? Nobody from the public. Okay. All right. Is there a second for the motion? We just got a hand up. Okay, we do have a second. Council member Park. Uh, and uh, we have a hand in uh, two hands. Two hands. Donna West.

Okay. I don't see him on my screen, but if you can just uh, so we'll have Donna West, if you can unmute yourself. Hi, this is Donna West, uh, member of Reclaiming Our Downtown and business of Santa Clara. The item by Noah McDonald is an urgent request to reconsider the 030 from March 10th council meeting and in need. Now, this is from Noah, core member, and Dan reclaiming our downtown. The council has not received accurate information from city staff due to unclear information provided by city staff about the downtown task force meeting earlier. The discussion should be in front of a regular counter council meeting and should address the RFP committee and the Adam Thompson resignation from the committee. The council does not know this information. So please consider this going forward to discuss today. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker, it says Mark and Kathy Kelsey.

Hi, this is Mark Kelsey. I'm speaking on behalf of my wife Kathy and myself. I think it's very important that the council hear this discussion on the current status of the downtown project. This has gone on too long un without leadership by either the council or the city management team. Um if we really believed in downtown, we would have this on every council agenda with an update on the status of downtown and a process to move it forward. The very least the council can do is get a report on this, take action, and help move it forward. It's it's frankly I I have a really a difficult time understanding why this council does not want to address this subject and I urge you to approve this as an agenda item for a council discussion. Thank you.

Any other hands? I think that's it. Council member Park.

So, this item came up several times and the first thing I want to note is that there should be no barriers to the public putting a discussion item on a council agenda. The fact that we've changed the 030 process to prevent the uh public from putting an item on the agenda is is a a matter of really really deep division here. But again, I think that we need to understand that we cannot the the public cannot and when we roll off of council, we cannot put an item on the agenda without first getting a sponsor and then getting a majority of people agreeing that we can be on that that we can talk about this issue. At the last meeting, uh we had a lot of discussion which should not have happened. uh it should not have been about uh different things that the city manager brought up and I think that the city attorney uh agrees with with the amount of discussion that we had which may have been a little bit more but the reason that we need to discuss this and contrary to what uh council member Hardy says is when everything's in process I think that's too late for the for the uh downtown group to give the input that they need to give um which is they need to make sure that the RFP and the RFQ process ices contain the right the right um the right wording. They have the right requirements and the fact that Adam Thompson has stepped down and there are issues there. I I think these are all things that need to be discussed in public and I cannot I also agree with the public speakers. I do not understand why this council would deny an opportunity for the public to simply talk about these issues um you know to to talk about these issues in a in a public session. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Council Member Hardy,

I would like to hear from the maker of the motion what exactly the motion is because my understanding is we are in the middle of an RFP. We have had the RFP, we have the consultant, they are in the middle of the process and the anyone anyone has the opportunity to answer back to the report. I'm uncomfortable with discussing people's personal concerns with someone else or why someone does or doesn't want to be on the committee in public. I I don't understand how that's appropriate. So, I want to understand exactly what the wording is for the motion. So, it's fairly similar to what we did uh what we were before us uh a week ago, but basically uh for the future council agenda item to be done within 90 days on the process adjustment organization of the downtown RFQ RFP, it is it's true that we know staff is working and it has been working on on uh on that process for a while, but um it hasn't come before council for for just as long. So, not only council, but the public has been uh a little bit uh unaware of of the of what's going on. And I think it's just a matter of of uh transparency that we bring it forward so that we can hear from uh you know, not only what's going on from our staff side, but also uh get some input from what what the uh that community, especially the downtown uh reclaiming downtown community is looking at and feeling and their perspective on on the process as well. So, Council Hardy,

well, I'm still that doesn't make sense because we are in the middle of the process. We only set policy. We are not telling staff or our task force how to do things. That is an internal and I'm uncomfortable with having a public discussion over what sounds like is going to be personality and personal concerns. I want to keep this to focused on our reclaiming our downtown and making certain that process goes forward. and this sounds like it will slow not only slow it down but it will bring up um things that I don't think are very helpful especially because we make policy we don't arbitrate concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. I won't get into the committee. It's just uh as far getting into the weeds of who's on this committee and those things are not what would uh what's before us tonight. Um, assistant city manager. Uh, yes. I just, um, wanted to mention that if you're simply looking for an update on the status of the process, um, we are looking at bringing that back during the priority study session. So, we could provide an update during that time and that was that's scheduled to be approximately in in miday. We have an item later on the agenda to discuss that. Yeah. And and this is just something that just an impetus to make sure that we get that done. Understood. Yeah.

Um, Council Member Park. Yeah, we do have a member of the public here. I mean, I believe that Noah McDonald, the person that made the the motion, original motion, is here, but I I do want to make a little bit of a difference. I would like to uh bring up some things. We are in the middle of a process and downtown has been in the we've been in the middle of that process for many, many, many, many years. But the RFP RFQ for consultant has closed. Um the city manager had talked about um a specific cons, you know, having a new position open. That position has not been opened yet. We we also talked about this at the last meeting as well. And city city attorney, you tell me when you would like me to stop doing this, but there is time.

You're getting a little deep into the details of what the substance of it would be. So if you you could summarize. Yeah.

Okay. And what I'm saying is that when you say that we are in the middle of the process, we are in the middle of a process. That's true. But there are possibilities that um the city is considering that the downtown group would like to discuss before we go too far ahead in the process. And when you talk about personality and personal concerns, I I think that many of the personality and personality concerns are actually concerns uh about the downtown group downtown group about the process. I think that we can keep that away, the discussion away from personality and personal concerns and talk about the process itself. And I think that the the group should be allowed to do this. Again, we wouldn't even be here having a vote on the 030 on permission to agendaize an item if we had a an open 030 process that allowed people to put an item on the and I I'm here that's not true, but we've actually done this for many many many years. And again, if this were the same as it was before, there would have been no need for a change in 2023. And I've looked at this change for 2023. Not going to discuss it here.

Yeah. Thanks. And I'll follow up with you, member Park, on on the distinction of that. I don't think we need to discuss it here. Understood. Thank you. And I'm sorry, uh, Noah, we've already closed the public interaction. So, uh, we're going to move on to the vote here. There's somebody else from council member the council. I don't see anybody else that wants to speak. So if we can just take that vote from the 030. So what is that motion again? Because I just to just to have a future agenda item. Okay. So last week's basically what we did last Yeah. reconsideration of that vote last week. Last week last week's motion was to agendaize 030 related to downtown RFP RFQ at a future meeting within 90 days.

Same one. Correct. Okay. And the maker of the motion was and second was council park. All right. Thank you. I'm going to go vote over there. That's the exception item.

Yeah, that's not the same one. Yeah, please make your uh take your vote. Just making sure Motion does not carry three to one. All right. With that, we're gonna Okay, just to confirm, we will be bringing this back at a future agenda at at the priority setting session. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other continuences, exceptions, reconsiderations? Anyone from the audience, council? Anyone online? Okay, we're going to move now into our special orders of business. get these. These are the exciting part of the evening for our first special order of business this evening. We have a representative from Santa Clara Relay for Life event this year. The event is on May 2nd in Santa Clara at Franklin Mall located at Jackson Street and Homestead. The American Cancer Society hosts Santa Clara Relay to bring together the community to support the fight against cancer. Cancer affects millions of people every day. Relay for Life provides an opportunity for the community to walk to honor survivors, remember those lost, and support uh those who are currently dealing with the disease. I invite Jonathan O to the podium to speak more about the Santa Clara Relay for Life event. Jonathan, it's nice to see you back here again and I love your shirt. This

is your welcome.

Thank you. So, as my name is Jonathan O. I'm here today as has been stated to uh as I have been in the past years to bring attention to the Santa Cl really for life and it's happening at Franklin Square on May the 2nd. is a community event where we try to make a difference to we try to create a positive change in the area of cancer research, early detection and support services for those that are diagnosed with cancer. According to the CDC, cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States with nearly two million cases diagnosed each year and over 600,000 deaths. Most of us in this room have or will be impacted by cancer in some way or another. My wife lost both her parents to cancer. My mother-in-law passed away this past December. My wife spent the uh four weeks prior to my mother-in-law's passing at her house as a caregiver. It is a 247 job. And as a caregiver for someone that is dying, it is difficult. It is messy. It is sad. It is emotionally and physically taxing. It's a time where despair becomes a a really prevalent part of life. But I like to think that what we do at the American Canc excuse me at the Relay for Life to take a moment to put this bear to the side. Focus on hope. Relay for Life is about hope. Hope for survival. Hope for advancement in cancer treatment. Hope for improved survival rates for us and for our descendants. So what is the Relay for Life? It is a fundraiser for the American Cancer Society. It is not just a fundraiser. I mentioned it is about hope. There's a saying amongst the Relay for Life community. Hope becomes real when a community comes together. Through community, we can affect change. This year we are creating a space in the

heart of Santa Clair where that can happen. space for remembrance, space for celebration, and a space for connection. Relive life brings together people not just to raise funds, but to recognize survivors, honor those we have lost, support families that are still in the fight. And that's what we will do on May the 2nd. But more specifically, we'll be there at Franklin um Square, May 2nd from 2 to about 9:30 p.m. Uh more specifics about our agenda on our event site which can be reached through a QR code which I'll leave in the front if anyone would like that. Also, you can just Google Santa Cl. uh some of the highlights that we'll do throughout the day. We always open up with um basically the opening is about reminding folks, thanking folks for their contributions, but reminding folks of why we're there. We're there to recognize um you know our mutual experiences and to support those that have survived. We start off with a survivor lamp this year. There'll also be a community fair with local businesses present. There'll be entertainment as always, a survivor specific program and with a meal involved. And if anyone who hears this has a or knows a survivor they would like to attend, please register. The meal in a program is free and they usually have a nice little keepsake as well. Um throughout the day, another couple of things that I want to highlight. There's a voice of hope which is personal message from someone who has survived cancer. And then lastly, thing something that's always uh really important to me is the luminaria ceremony which is the end of the day. The luminaria ceremony we recognize those we've lost and also support again those that are in the fight. This uh bag is a luminaria bag. This particular bag is for is for George Maga. In loving memory of George Myaga, a wonderful husband and

father. you live on in our heart and there's not a day that goes by that I don't wish he had spent more time with us. So these are uh lit many people we have hundreds we put out hundreds of people donate um and make tributes and we put these out and we light them in the evening. It's a very nice ceremony and a way to uh just to remember and uh remember the good times. Remember the good times. So lastly, I want to thank the council and the city of Santa Clara for your support this year and in past years. I think without that, we would not be able to do what we we do and um we're going to continue to, you know, do what we do. We've raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in Santa CL over the last several years and we'll continue to add to that this year and again bring people together, remember who we've lost and support those that are in the fight. Thank you very much. Uh first of all, thank you Jonathan and our condolences to you for your family members that you have recently lost there. Um thank you for organizing the event every year and encouraging all our residents and colleagues to sign up for the event. Um let me ask you because we are having I believe our night market the same time.

Yeah. Very close by. Very very close by. So I can see that them connecting together espec es especially for the luminaria ceremony she reached out to us about that and we will have a booth on the Friday evening okay to let people know because I think there's going to be a lot of activity in the square area and it'll bring more attention and hopefully raise more money for for the for the event. So thank you so much we appreciate it. And what's the website address? Do you have that? Fortunately, it's a longer Oh, longer website. It's not a an easy smart title, but if you Google Santa Cl really for life, you'll find it. You'll find it.

I have a QR code with a URL. I'll leave that outside if anyone who's here would like to. Thank you. So, we'll see you a week from Saturday. Coming up. Yeah,

it's coming up. Thank you, Jonathan, so much. Thanks for everything you do. Thank you. Okay, our next uh special order of business. Uh the city is recognizing the Santa Clara Historic Home Tour. The home tour began in 1978 to showcase unique homes in Santa Clara to benefit local nonprofits. This year, the Santa Clara Historic Home Tour is giving back to nine different local programs, including the Old Quad Residents Association for their projects to preserve and promote the Old Quad neighborhood. Additional recipients, and I'll you probably have them all down, so I'm not going to read them all, so I'll leave that to you.

Um, so thank you so much. If you'd like to introduce yourself, uh, representing the historic home tour, and we'd like to hear what you have to say. I don't have much to say. My name is Carol Lucero and I'm the co-chair for the home tour and I want to thank you mayor and council members for acknowledging us. The historic home tour has been an annual event in Santa Clara for over 45 years sponsored by the historic preservation society of Santa Clara along with the old quadis residents association. The purpose is to showcake showcase unique homes in Santa Clara that benefit and also to benefit some local nonprofits. The proceeds of the tour are being awarded to the these organizations that promote either historic preservation in Santa Clara or have supported the home tour. So, I have nine checks that I'd like to give to people. Jonathan Evans, will you come up and accept a check from the old quad for the old quad residents?

Maybe when you take your check, you can come up here and then at the end you can all have a picture together. Yes. Come on up. Barbara Clark, come up and get one from the from the for the Santa Clair Fire Museum. You and your husband. That was an astonishing thing to have on the tour this year. Oh, yeah. Really appreciate. Everybody loves that. Is Michael Stockwell here? I didn't see him.

He was supposed to be here to get one from the South Bay um historical Railroads Association, but we'll get it to him. How about Sandy Myers from the Santa Clara Women's Club? Yeah, it's it's actually a good check. Kent's ready to go for another check, aren't you, Kent? I don't want to have to hunt you down. Okay, Jennifer Herb from the Santa Clara Senior Center Health and Wellness Program.

There's a check for you. How about Roz Emory? Please come up and get one for the Santa Clara Arts and Historical Consortium. Look at all this good money we're giving away. You're welcome. How about Jerry Campy? She's getting a check for the Santa Clara Art Historical and Genealological Society. It's a mouthful. It is a mouthful. Couldn't these be shorter? Okay. Anna Vargas for the Santa Clara Parade of Champions. That one comes up a lot. You're welcome. And Sue Cosden is here for the Historic Preservation Society of Santa Clara.

You're welcome. Take a picture. Short and sweet. All right, council. Stand up. you.

Yeah.

Thank you for all your work promoting historic preservation and giving back to the city. And Council Member Hardy would like to make some comments. Council member Hardy. I will just say I'm also on the committee and we are looking for houses for next year's tour. So if you would like to have be part of this wonderful tour and have people during the holiday season come through your house and oo and awe over the wonderful things you've done with your historic decorations and architecture. Please reach out. Um my my city council you can go ahead and use that email and I'll pass it on. But we would love to have some more wonderful houses because we love giving away everybody who works on this as a volunteer and we do so much good work in the city that this is important. Thank you.

Thank you very much for all that. Right. Uh for our final special order of business this evening, the city recognizes its partnership with the Silicon Valley Office of Protocol. With us this evening from the Office of Protocol, we have Chief of Protocol Deanna Trion. Is Laney here? Oh, she's not here this evening. Okay. Laney Denzel. Okay. And the We're honored to have the chair of Silicon Valley host committee, Mary Murugloo. I'm sure I said that wrong, Mary. I I apologize. Um, the city recently executed a memorandum of understanding with the Silicon Valley Office of Protocol to support Santa Clara's efforts in welcoming the world during FIFA World Cup 2026. Hiring the Silicon Valley Protocol Office provides Santa Clara with a critical layer of professionalism, cultural fluency, and logistical precision. As we welcome World Cup dignitaries from around the globe, their expertise ensures that every interaction from embassy coordination to ceremonial exchanges and VIP itineraries is handled with the highest level of diplomatic respect and international standards, minimizing risks and avoiding missteps on our part. For a city on the world stage, this translates into seamless visits, stronger relationships with foreign delegations, and an elevated global reputation. In short, it allows Santa Clara to operate not just as a host city, but as a world-class diplomatic partner, maximizing both the immediate success of World Cup engagements and the long-term economic and cultural benefits that follow. So, I'd like to now invite um Chief of Protocol Deanna Tryion to the podium to

say a few words. Deanna, thank you for joining us this evening.

Thank you so much, Mayor Gilmore. Hello, everyone. And uh I'd like to extend my gratitude first, but then I can't leave this podium without a flag discussion, so that has to come at the end. I'm going to earn my keep here. Um, thank you, Mayor Gilmore, esteemed members of the city council and city staff, and it's an honor to be here uh and speak right after uh cancer awareness and support and my passion, historic preservation. So, this is a wonderful night to be here. Thank you. My name is Danna Trion and I have served as Silicon Valley's chief of protocol since 2014, back when I didn't need my glasses. Uh, I'm joined here this evening by the chair of our Silicon Valley host committee and the former chief of protocol for San Francisco, Mariam Muroglu. It has been an honor for the Silicon Valley Office of Protocol to have supported the city of Santa Clara for the past 12 years. We are so pleased to have the opportunity to make it official with this no fee. And I think that's very important. I

we love that the no feeouou first ever. you now have an office, a protocol office of seven, uh, very dedicated with, uh, no cost to the city or its taxpayers. So, thisou is between the city of Santa Clara and the Silicon Valley Office of Protocol just in time for the FIFA World Cup. We have enjoyed already bringing events to Santa Clara and making introductions to foreign nations and the diplomatic community to help elevate the city wherever we can. We value our responsibilities to the city of Santa Clara because we know how hard the mayor, the city council, and city staff work for all the residents of Santa Clara and the greater community. My mother was a local elected official here in the Bay Area, Barbara Trion, now Barbara Cobuvius, uh, married the chief of police of San Jose. And, uh, I know how hard you all are working, so I'll keep this brief, but I have a lot of respect for everything you're doing in the pile on your piles on your desk constantly. Um, we've really enjoyed taking part in the global relations subcommittee meetings uh with such an active and engaged citizenry here in Santa Clara and we're looking forward to continuing that partnership. Santa Clara is a Bay Area success story and we look forward to sharing your story with the world this year and beyond. I am personally very grateful to the city manager's office, Mayor Gilmore, and the city council for trusting us to help in your important work. We stand ready to assist all of you whenever needed. Thank you so much. And my first order of business, the United States Flag Code. Okay, I can take off my glasses now. I can't do far and near at the same time. Uh, it's interesting. The United States Flag Code uh states that the United States flag should be to its own right, which is very confusing. Uh, it is really to the left. If you're facing it, the American flag should always be to the left. So I may come in here in the middle of the night and switch those flags, but

might do it at intermission today. But it's very important. And I just saw this at a Daughters of the American Revolution meeting. So this happens everywhere. Flag code says to its own right, but as you're facing it and in photos, it should always be on the left hand side. So we'll make a little switch, but we're here for all of your uh questions as you're welcoming international visitors with uh flags, orders of precedence. we can provide briefing papers, gifting advice. Uh this is the service that we provide to you, but also really making connections uh to the international community and the business community here in the Bay Area. So, thank you all so much. This is a true honor.

Uh thank you, Deanna and Mary. You've already helped us a lot giving us advice on the visits that we've had so far, and I have to say there's gonna be a lot more in the next couple of months. So, we're really going to rely on you so much. Thank you. until we get our own office of protocol here in the city of Santa Clara. Um, we will continue to rely on you. I'm going to ask if you both could come up and maybe the council can come down and we can take a photo with you just to memorialize this event. What you want?

Thank you for coming and we we will talk soon. Thank you. But you're welcome to stay all night for the rest of the meeting. Thank you. Or at least until we move our flags. Okay. All right. Next item we have on the agenda is the consent calendar. All items are approved with one motion unless items are pulled for discussion. Council member Jane.

Thank you, Mayor. First, um I'm going to abstain from the minutes of March 5th, 2026. That's item number 4A because I was not present for that council meeting. Um, then I would like to pull item 4 I, which is the parking maintenance district 122 for Franklin Square and 4J, the parking maintenance district 183 for the convention center. Okay. Uh, Council Member Cox,

I'd like to pull 4N, the memorandum of understanding between the city of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Firefighters, International Association of Firefighters Local 117 to approve corresponding update to the Unit One classified salary plan and approve related budget amendment.

All right. Is there anyone else on the council? We also had a request uh from Kurt Vartan to pull 4E. which is action on a resolution to authorize an increase in the business license tax corresponding to an increase in the annual inflation rate effective July 1st, 2026. Is there any member of the public interested in pulling anything? All right, council. May I? Someone. Council member Hardy.

I'll make a motion to pass the rest of the consent calendar. Second.

All right. We have a motion to pass the rest of the consent calendar, the balance of it, noting those items that are going to be pulled. Um, second by Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Please register your vote. And that passes unanimously of those present. Thank you, Dei. Uh, next we have consent items pulled for discussion. We'll start with an item that I pulled last is it last meeting or the meeting before, madam may remember. Oh, yes. Go ahead, please. Public presentations.

Oh. All right. I'm sorry. Public presentations. Is there any member of the public that would like to make a presentation? Uh, Noah, please come forward. And these are for items that are not on the agenda. Thank you. Welcome. Oh, here. Okay. Go ahead now.

All right. I just wanted to say um well, so I'm I'm the one who originally um put in the request for the 030. Uh, I just wanted to say I'm disappointed that um it didn't pass. I'm disappointed that there's um I I guess I initially thought it was just about uh the downtown stuff, but as this has gone on, I've started to realize it's a little more about um public representation. Um being able to have members of the public um bring up issues. Um this this was just a vote on if something's going to be added to the agenda. Um and and and watching the discussions uh both times about it seemed like there's a lot of discussion about the actual subject matter um rather than just whether or not it was worthy of being discussed. And I think that sort of proves that it is worthy of being discussed. Um but it isn't going to be discussed because it didn't pass. Um so yeah um this started with Mar uh in March with the DCT DCTF meeting I went to and I noticed a lot of issues with the consultant group. Um they were making mistakes that I wouldn't think a consultant group would make. I don't know financial stuff. Um, but even I called out a big mistake where they just wrote off a huge portion of the downtown project um, based on an assumption that I knew personally wasn't uh, true, which was they assumed a certain part wouldn't be developed and I knew that wasn't the case. Um, but they just assumed it and put it in there. And just things like that, it makes the public question how the whole RFP process is going. uh question how the city chooses consultants in the

first place. Um and we really wanted that to be discussed and and it's unfortunate that it's not going to be discussed. Um maybe for some time um that's just how it is. So thank you. Uh thank you Noah. Anyone else please come forward.

Welcome Anthony Becker. I will also be having time donated to me from my husband, my husband, Abel. Greeting. Oh, sorry. Okay, go ahead.

Okay. Greetings everyone. Former council member Anthony Becker here. Uh, I've been coming to the last few council meetings with a goal of agendizing an item that was February 10th. We are now at April 21st. This council nor the city manager has taken no action on something that has considerable concern about the city council and public trust. I had asked the kits council and city manager to take action by putting an item on the agenda addressing a real investigation into the May 7th, 2024 FIFA disclosure that appeared days later in the San Francisco Chronicle. At the time, I raised serious concerns with the city manager about the integrity of that investigation and whether it deliberately avoided looking at everyone who was present in that room, including the council members. When I pressed for answers to the city manager via emails, then in person as to why the city employees, he said to me, you know, she's just going to lie, referring to the mayor, Lisa Gilmore. From that, I had interpreted that the city manager was that the reason we are ignoring this fear that she would lie. This is nothing against the city manager because I feel he is just put in a very tough situation because of the powers that be. However, it is his responsibility, the city attorney's responsibility and this council holding all those accountable. Correct. Since then, silence. Nothing to say about it and I don't see this council doing anything about it anytime soon out of fear and I think red tape. The issue I have brought before all of you has received the same type of silence as the mayor's ethics adviser injecting it meth with one of my friends and asking my judge to put me in jail. The same silence as a non-legitimate nonprofit and uh that is committing dark money violations. The same type of silence at C Kathy Watnaby's own legal criminal mishaps. And the same silence as the district attorney who is too busy campaigning for reelection and referencing the mayor's blog and his campaign website about me. All while ignoring his own friends Brown Act violations and substance abuse and prescription appad abuse. All this also while the mayor's blogger

ignores a silent is silent for me being here and the reason is because it focuses instead focuses on ketamine sting conspiracies of a former assembly member and I rather than the actual issue at hand. Not to say the ketamine situation isn't serious. A crime was committed by this body and I called out the phony investigation. and its entire focus was only on the city employees was absolutely questionable even though statements and circumstances suggested this disclosure may have come from the dis and not an employee. I have been blowing the whistle for years about all of this. However, it seems more and more like I was using a dog whistle because no one could hear or acknowledge what I've been saying or what I know or in simpler terms maybe people just choose not to acknowledge it. I have many others and myself have so many other questions. So to the city council, I hope that staff members are not trying to talk you out of this or making excuses and some technicalities or consciential protocol. The cat's already out of the bag. This is to the San Francisco Chronicle. Something happened. Now there needs to be action, right? Council member Jane stated publicly he wondered who disclosed the FIFA information and so much much more. to staff. I truly hope that you are not being pressured by those with power and by those with councilmatic tendencies trying to force you to not look in the into this and holding someone accountable. I know there's a thumb tipping the balance in this city and has been for years. I know how chap staff has been treated in the past and then has been projected onto myself and members of this city council and it was never we were the issue. However, nothing happens and accountability continues to be ignored. So I ask again and again and again. Did we, the city of Santa Clara, spend taxpayer money on a phony investigation that was never intended to cover uncover the truth? Are we selectively applying accountability? Are potential Brown Act violations being ignored? And are we protecting one person and diverting transparency?

This public and this community deserves clarity. City employees deserve that fairness. And this council owes that community the transparency. So again, formally requesting for the sixth time and will continue to request this item as an investig to the investigation and disclosure of the FIFA information on a May 7th, 2024 that ended up in the San Francisco Chronicle days later. I ask that this be agendaized for the public discussion and that can result in a truly independent investigation with authority to examine everyone who was present in that closed session and the events that followed. I know that many of you probably won't do this. I don't see this happening as many people predicted. So, um, you know, I hope you prove me wrong on that. But it comes down to it's no exceptions, accountability, right? Public trust, right? We've been talking about that for years. Correct. So, city council, city manager, this is a no-brainer. Do the right thing. Don't be afraid of those with power. Until that happens, and as I said many, many times before, this issue remains unresolved. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Uh, Donna, go ahead, Donna. You're online.

Good evening. Hi, Mayor Gilmore. Hello. Hello. Yes, we can hear you, Donna. Go ahead.

Good evening. Hi, Mayor Gilmore and council members. Um, I'm deeply I'm deeply saddened and regret the council voted against the downtown project tonight and the citizens and ignored what the item was actually about. I have the actual words from the 030 and the maker of the motion, Noah McDonald, was sitting in the audience and not called upon. This is not a personal issue. The downtown project should be on every agenda going forward. As Mark Kelsey stated, we want our downtown. Please, no more delays. Please include the downtown project and understand what this item was about. I do have the words. So, thank you, but I'm saddened that this has happened.

Uh, thank you, Donna. Edward, go ahead, Edward.

Yeah, I know everybody's depressed about the downtown issue and the delays with that. Uh, uh, it's also with the uptown related project. Uh we've had so many delays with that and uh I thought there was going to be something about manufacturing going on. Um and uh it was supposed to be sometime early this year, but we haven't heard anything yet on that either. Uh from what I understand that has to be completed before they even start on the retail, restaurant, hotel phase of the project uh just north of Levi Stadium. Uh the way things are going now, it makes you wonder if in another 10 years, next Super Bowl, if we will even have the retail restaurant phase completed, uh with the the delays that have been going on with unfortunately the downtown and uptown project. Uh I know uh you have an econom economic development uh committee and uh that's something I think uh that should be brought up in that committee about the the downtown uptown and uh the delays and if uh especially with the uptown if the related people could be contacted and uh I is there a deadline to where they have to uh get things completed or or if there is a deadline u can somebody they'll step in and do the project and complete the project if the related company won't do it. Uh OC Vibe in Orange County, they've got things going on over there and I think they're already starting to build something similar to u what's happening over or supposed to be happening over here over by Angel's uh stadium there in Anaheim. Uh they're already starting. So I don't know what it is. They they complain about how the economy is not that good, but why is the OC vibe uh project starting in but yet we can't get the related project going. All right. Thank

you for your time. Thank you, Edward. Uh next is uh number 2669. 2669. Please unmute yourself. two. Hello. Oh, lowered the hand. Okay. Anybody else have any co comments from the public? All right. Council member Park, your lights on.

Yeah. So, I want to talk to the uh city attorney. I know that uh I've I submitted a request and you responded yesterday, but I submitted a request a week ago uh today where I talk I asked about updates to the public on things that they that have been requested. Um my question was how do we update the public on status outside of full or even summary disclosures? The fact that the public has requested this information without knowing that some of the investigations were complete is an ongoing issue that only looks worse with council and city silence. And I will not talk about anything else in that that but I just want to know what we can disclose. And you suggested we have an 030. Um but at the same time I I I feel like these these kinds of disclosures for information the public has requested should not require an 030 for a response. Mayor,

city attorney.

Um, appreciate the the question. Um, since this item has come up and brought up by the public on the agenda, um, council member Park, you could ask for the council to refer the item for a future agenda. Um, with obviously not discussing the substance of the item. Um you could also um um submit a formal 030 where we could discuss um as the 030 policy contemplates right the the the the specifics you know of your request and any kind of issues there might be on how that item would be agendaized and what might be appropriate for the public given given the sensitive nature of it. So, those are your options. Since the item was brought up, you know, by the public, it could be a referral based on the issue that the public's been brought up, or uh based on the information that I've provided you, it could be a 030 uh formally submitted and discussed with the um city attorney and city manager before it actually goes on an agenda.

Understood. And I understand that the referrals uh how the referrals work. I would think that anytime a public member comes up and asks a question that can be resolved by executive staff that the referral would be um you know it would be done by default. But uh that and the fact that council members have asked this, I would think that again having to put a a formal 030 in seems a little bit, you know, more effort than I think is necessary for an important issue that the public has been asking for for the last couple of months. Uh I I am not against doing the 030. I will bring the 030 up uh likely after talking to you about this. But at the same time, I mean, we've had this issue. You've known this information for quite a while. We've known this information for quite a while. There's been request in. I would have thought that there would be a little bit more action than simply a a note of that we could refer this to to council at the public meeting.

Yeah, you've as you know, we've provided a a fair amount of information on this with the um options for council and I think I've outlined them accurately for you tonight. Okay. Thank you. I I don't see anyone else online. Okay. Very good. We're going to move ahead. Consent items pulled for discussion. This is an item that I pulled u back when I think April 7th apparently. Action on the 2026 city council priority setting session framework. I don't know if staff wanted to give a report um a short report on this. Uh yes. Um short report. Maria Le, assistant city manager will provide a brief presentation.

Thank you so much so the public knows what we're talking about.

Try to keep it short. Uh, good evening, honorable mayor and city council members. Maria Leette, assistant to the city manager. Um, I'm going to provide a brief overview on item five action on the 2026 priority setting session for the proposed framework for your review and consideration. As background, on an annual basis, the council convenes for their priority setting session to identify priorities and initiatives for the upcoming year. Uh in 2024 and 2025, the council priority setting sessions were facilitated by the consultant Ralph Telus. The last priority setting session was held on April 3rd, 2025 at Central Park Library. Typically, uh the council party setting sessions are held in the February March time frame. However, given the significant staff time dedicated to the 2026 major event planning for this year, um the city has scheduled the priorities sitting session for this year uh next month in May. At the governance and ethics committee meeting on March 30th, 2026, staff presented a proposed framework for the 2026 session and also discussed the framework for uh the ongoing annual process. As mentioned, due to staff capacity and to maintain continuity in the process, staff also recommended uh retaining Raph Telis as the facilitator for the 2026 sessions. Uh this next slide illustrates the components for the 2026 priority setting session presented by staff. Uh the 2026 process will include a status on the update for your 2025 and 2026 priorities. Uh staff is currently finalizing a summary report. um to provide to the city council in coming weeks prior to your May session. The session will also include a budget update. Uh as in past sessions, we will have at least three sections for public comment throughout the day. Um the facilitator will also conduct the

priority setting exercise for council to identify any top or new priorities. And staff is also recommending a conflict resolution training to be provided to the council. This was part of the June 2024 Santa Clara civil grand jury report titled irre irreconcilable differences which recommended the city hire a conflict resolution professional to provide training to council. Um at this time staff has reached out to some consultants um but we have not yet been able to secure one for the training. So there may be an RFP process to schedule that training at a future date as needed. Uh staff has also been exploring an option for a dashboard. Uh this would be available on the city website um with the intent to display the progress, the budget, uh the timeline of of each priority um and allow the public and council to see the ongoing progress. The next two tables um provides the committees the governance and ethics committee's proposed framework. Um they had a robust discussion on what worked well in the past and provided feedback on the framework for priority sessions for the future. Um the second column here shows a proposed annual priority setting session framework moving forward and the last column shows a framework proposed for this year's 2026 session. Uh we recognize that it's an expedited timeline for 2026. Um so please note that the bolded blue text shown here are recommendations from the committee. Uh for the forum for the annual process the suggestion was to hold a retreat with multi-day breakout sessions and for the schedule committee members recommended the priority setting sessions align with the city's budget process. Uh with that, committee members also recommended that moving forward priority settings be held early in the calendar year um in January again to align with the city's budget process which is usually in May and June.

Uh for 2026, we are proposing the first session in May. Um we're currently exploring dates. The first session would be staffled with no consultant and city departments would use this session to share the progress on your existing priorities. for 2026. The second session um which is already on council calendars is for May 27th, 2026. This session would be held with the consultant um where they would then facilitate uh the session to identify any new council priorities. And for 2026, if necessary, there would could be a third session in July or June time frame um if necessary. Uh the committee also recommended that at least one session was held from afternoon into the evening. Um for May 27th, we're hoping to schedule uh tentatively from 1:00 p.m. to perhaps uh 8:00 p.m. in the evening. Um community engagement as is a very critical part of the priority setting session. So the committee recommended for the annual process that there's a scientific survey to collect data from a sample um to get feedback from the community uh on their priorities. The committee recommended a process to allow city commissions, boards and committees to submit their top priorities, one or two priorities um for consideration and this could be done at their board meetings um and approved. And as a past practice, the sessions would include several public comment periods. We've typically had three or so throughout the day. Um, as in the past, the sessions would also be a hybrid option in person uh and also on Zoom. And for 2026, due to the timing, we are exploring survey options with a past consultant that we used in 2024, EMC Research. Um, so we are having discussions to see if uh we could put together some survey options for this year. In addition for 2026, due to the timing, we would send a survey to the members of the city

boards, commissions, and committee members um just to provide feedback on their priorities just due to the uh expedited timeline. And then for this table, uh, council priorities, uh, we would also have council members submit priorities in advance, uh, three weeks from the session. This would give an opportunity for staff to analyze, um, some of the priorities prior to your session and, um, identify any budget issues or challenges. Uh, these two other bullets uh, were committee recommendations to allow at least one priority per council member to be on the final list. Um and also the suggestion to have final priorities ranked by city council. And for the facilitator, uh the request was to have a preession meeting with each council member. This has been been done in the past. So we would have the consultant schedule some one-on-one uh meetings with each council member prior to the session. And as far as reporting, um, as mentioned, we are, uh, hoping to get a dashboard together, um, for this coming year to track priorities and status and also have a six-month check-in where we would provide a summary report to council. Uh, the other item that was discussed at the committee was old priorities. Um, as mentioned, staff would provide uh an update on all the ongoing priorities that have been completed and on um that continue and are underway. And also there was a comment from committee members to distribute um the list from the 2024 council priority session because there was a a matrix of priorities that were listed there. Um and that would be an opportunity for a council member to uh identify a past priority if they want to bring it forth uh for consideration. And so with that, we have a recommendation for the council to approve the council priority setting session framework and also um for the 2026 session and I can take any questions at this time.

Questions from anyone before I make comments?

All right. Um thank you, Maria. Appreciate that. So I personally don't support this multi- retreat multi-process for priority setting for this year. We are already out of alignment with our budget cycle. We missed it and priority setting is supposed to inform the budget not follow it. Um, at this point in the year, much work has already been underway by our staff, which raises a very real question about whether this process will actually drive decisions or simply document them after the fact. I also want to be mindful of the reality of our workload right now, not just for the council, but for our city staff. Our staff is still heavily engaged in 2026 activities uh including FIFA World Cup preparations uh finishing off um Super Bowl responsibilities and the many community events that we intend to deliver in the next few months. So um and we're doing that for our residents. So the their time is not unlimited and if you look and we're short staffed in many many departments right now. So we shouldn't be creating additional layers of a process that will not produce clear actionable outcomes. I mean we're looking at going back to 2024 priorities. That's not productive. Um and candidly, multiple retreats and meetings are not practical for all members of this city council, particularly those who are employed and balancing professional responsibilities. We should be respectful of that and this this process is not um we can't afford to meet just to meet.

That's not pragmatic. It's not professional. If we're going to invest in time in a priority setting process, it needs to be disciplined, focused, and tied directly to results. And having one priority per council member on the final list, that's not I I don't know where that came from, but that's taking a priority that could be off the charts and saying, "Yes, we're going to put it on the final." That makes no sense to anyone. Um, at the end of the day, we should not be running a multimemeating process that consumes time and resources without a clear connection to budget and results. If we're going to set priorities, we should do it well and tie it directly to action. And any priorities that we would set now could possibly be tied to midyear budget. But that would still mean that our staff would have to set aside all the things they're doing right now, which they're absolutely swamped. And and to do what? Have six, seven, eight meetings all day long to talk about what I mean. If we're going to do something, I would support a streamlined one-day process focused on a limited number of citywide priorities with a direct connection to our midy near budget, midyear budget adjustments and implementation. We have a date set. We should bring the consultant in and talk about that. What can we actually get done? But this process that's mentioned, maybe if you want to start it in January for next year, that might make sense, but it doesn't make sense when we're following our budget this year. So, I I I just can't support the way it's presented. Council member Jane.

So, the uh governance and ethics committee considered this being that this would be late in the process. Um and so $2 million is set aside for council priorities uh mid year. Um the issue is that we are elected for a reason. We're supposed to provide vision for the staff and that is the point of council priority setting sessions. Sunnyville each council member uh s suggests three uh priorities that they want. uh we didn't have a a real priority setting session in 2025 because the only priority was to make FIFA and Super Bowl successful. And uh so that's why we're going back to 2024 when we had a process with green dots and red dots and council suggestions. And in that process, I had a number of suggestions and I the red dots were like vetos and I watched the mayor put red dots on every one of my ideas at that session. So, um, it's interesting that, uh, she doesn't want the individual priorities of council members to be available, which is why exactly for that reason, we said that every council member should have one of their top ideas be uh, represented as a priority in the coming year. And I like this process. Um, every other council has priority setting sessions. um and it should be done uh earlier in the year to inform the budget process. This year we were so focused on and this is actually part of the reason why I voted against the stadium. Um uh the stadium has distracted us. It it basically uh derailed the priority setting session for 2025. Now the mayor

wants to derail that for 2026. Um, I think that, uh, we need to continue to do the people's business regardless of these, uh, big activities, these big events that we're planning. Um, so that those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Cox.

Um, I clearly didn't do enough homework on this. I I did not realize this was a multi-day thing, so thank you for bringing that to the attention. I am absolutely supportive of a priority setting. Um, I think it's necessary and I think as council member Jane said, we have a responsibility to cast vision. Uh, I I do um wonder if in the report that's going to come out about our successes in this year, uh, we will see if there was any uh, return of investment on that one day thing. I think I went into it quite naively, uh, thinking it would be a collaborative event, but what I've seen so far is that the the the priorities that were brought up downtown, um, the parking have kind of been mishandled and they actually have caused more confusion in council, it looks like, than they've actually made progress. And so I'd like to understand how our priority setting actually implements into real things because I don't know if what we're doing is just the cause of like the the case or the course of business on a a week-by-eek basis. But again, um I do hear both points and I would agree that a multi-day session would be much more beneficial if started at the beginning of the year to inform budget decisions um and then planned out throughout the year with routine followup. This seems like putting a lot in at the end when in January again we're just going to be starting right over. So now that I look at it, the timing doesn't make sense. That's not to say I don't support priority setting. I think that we need to make it a much smaller mission this year in light of the fact that we do have these huge events coming up.

Uh Council Member Hardy, thank you. I would concur with council member Jane that this is important and the reality is we need to as council members focus our priorities and I know I came up with one and recognizing that we have limited but I think it's important that we work together and come up with our priorities and I will support u going forward with this priority setting session framework. Thank you.

I I I want to say that I my words have been of course mis taken for other things as they normally are, but I'm not against priority setting. I just want I can't afford multi-day because I have a job, another job, and I want it to be productive. And if we have the multi-day, I'll be happy to come on the day where we're actually setting the priorities, but it's it's not productive the way it's been laid out for the way this council operates. I can see that clearly. So, um, I'll be happy to participate when we're actually setting priorities, but understanding even if we do set priorities, more than likely because of where our city is and you can't ignore the fact that we are in the middle of ready, you know, getting ready to prepare for World Cup. You cannot ignore that fact that our staff is busy right now just operating the city and running other things and that's why we didn't put a lot of priorities for this year. Um so anything going forward has to be respectful of that. But if you're going to take our staff into what three four meetings um five meetings all day long meetings and then they have to prepare for all that and then we're coming out. is the first I've heard that there's $2 million to spend. Um that could be eaten up quite quickly with one or two um priorities. So I I think it's fine. I just think that we have to be respectful of those of us that have employment. We have to be

respectful of our staff and let's actually have priority setting that is meaningful and that makes sense and works for us for this year. Come January of next year, I this very long process could most possibly work, but right now we're a half a year into it with a a global event by the way coming forward. So I I just think we have to think about this smartly and understand the capacity that this city has at the moment. Council member Park.

So I I also share the concerns about timing. I also share the concerns about schedule. But I mean the reality is if we look at my tenure here, we had one priority setting session in 2021 that we had a full process. We had a consultant. We had council member interviews. We had discussion about the priorities and we wrote them all down. Um, in 2022 and we discussed them here and we we talked about what we wanted to do. In 2022, we ostensibly started on the same process, but there were no interviews. We never talked to the consultant again. In fact, we had a lot of things that were brought to us even before we had a chance to discuss them. For example, ballot measures. Uh, the city manager had come up with uh an idea of these are the ballot measures we'd like to consider. and council was not I don't recall ever being being questioned or asked my opinion on that and it was aborted mid-process 2023 we didn't have a priority setting session I mean the the uh statement that was made to me is we'd like to wait for executive staff to come on board and my response was well rather than have executive staff come on board and try to come up to speed and while we're doing priorities why don't we have a priority setting session the priority setting session doesn't require executive staff to be fully fully engaged and we could update them on what where we were, what the results of the priority setting session were, but we decided in 2023 not to have a priority setting session. In 2024, we had a consultant. I believe this is when RF Telus was first uh introduced. Um we made a list of priorities. Again, there was a few talks with the consultants, but no real interviews, no real discussion on the priorities other than here's what the priorities are or here's what we'd like to put on the list. And it ended almost a half day early. I mean confusing a lot of people including the public. Uh we went back to our seats where I thought we were going to we had you know two to three hours left in the day on the schedule and I thought we were going to discuss priorities. This is what priority

setting is. It's the setting and discussion of priorities and instead it was over. Um it was done. And in 2025 last year it was not a priority setting session at all. It was in fact um it was just a report of where the city was on previous priorities and some of the priorities that were that were there in 2024 were removed. I mean they were not on the priority list at all. And I asked about this afterwards and they said well there was some filter applied afterwards and and uh priorities did that did not make the cut were just dropped. And I said well there was no discussion on this. In fact um I would I didn't even know that that was the process. They said, "Well, we told you that the the priorities would be would be changed." There was no voting on priorities other than people putting dots on. And that was a a kind of a a process and futility because the people put red dots on the things on other people's priorities that they didn't want and then you had to put green dots on them just to make them, you know, cancel out the red dots. I had no idea what the expectation was on this. If something had three red dots and two green dots, does that mean that was removed? I have no idea. uh what this was. And I think that when we have a priority setting process, for the the people that are involved to not know how the outcomes will be determined and and what what to do, this is a really bad process. And for the public to come to the council members and say, "What just happened? Does that mean that this is a priority? Does that mean that this made it?" And for the council members to have to answer, I have no idea. It's not just about, you know, the multi-day. I mean, the fact that we're we're we have a lot of things to do this year is unfortunate. Actually, it's a good thing. It's a good thing. But we have not set priorities for almost my entire tenure as a council member here. And if you know, it almost seems like it's on purpose. I feel that when people

are suggesting, well, I don't think we should have a wide and overarching priority setting. I don't think I don't think that council members should have individual uh priorities put on. I you know I don't think that um you know that the discussion of priorities is important to the setting of priorities. I I think that these are this is how we get to a city with no direction because there are no discussions of priorities. There's no way for me to say to any of the other council members, hey, this is a priority of mine and this is why I think it's a priority and then discuss I mean that's what priority setting is. So I am fully supportive of this and how many days it takes. I mean reality is I mean there are a lot of people that have things to do. I mean I always say that we're part of the working class, not just have a full-time job because I don't own my own um my parents never gifted me a business. But the reality is whatever it takes to get the the work of the city done, we need to do. I mean, we had a really big discussion on full-time counsels, and the reason I want a full-time council, not for the money, but it's so that council members have no excuse for saying we don't have, though this is very much on topic, have no excuse to say we don't have the time to set priorities for this city.

Thank you. Uh, Vice Mayor Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, so have a question for staff. I know that staff is really impacted and um this came out of basically the governance in Essics, but the staff feel that they have the time um to be able to do this. Uh obviously I know we're stretched very thin this year. Um but uh I I believe it's it's important for priority session. Um so uh I'm not sure if we can do it if if staff feels that they can do it within the the timeline that we have here. I I still think it's meaningful. It might be a little bit shortened, you know, as far as uh our normal process and later in in in that process as far as how it can really impact the the budget which is uh a representation of our values. if staff feels that they can uh survive this other um you know this in light of the ongoing events and things that we're planning and you know we just had a great event yes two days ago. So um so just I don't know if staff has looked at this and if they're good with it.

Um so I'll speak on that item. Um so we are prepared to uh make this happen. We will have to coordinate very closely with the departments to make sure that we receive information from them. The idea had been for the first session is to have departments provide their uh list of accomplishments for this fiscal year as well as um projects that they'll be working on in uh next fiscal year. Uh so that does require some coordination. Um so we would work with the departments to get that information. The second session um be you know before the second session each of you would need to allocate some time with the consultant to meet with them individually to get some to give your feedback um so they can frame this the second session. Uh so that would require commitment from each of you um to to schedule that time with uh Nancy the consultant. Um and for the the session on the 27th, we have um placed a hold in a location and we're working with it now to make sure that the proper equipment is available to be able to um have the the session um in person as well as by Zoom. The third session is there as a placeholder. It really is going to depend on the outcome of the second session um and you know whether or not that's needed. But those are the three dates that are proposed. The one thing I will say that may be uh difficult but important that uh that the committee referenced is the survey. Um so we have you know as Maria mentioned we have a vendor that we've used in the past. Um they are available to provide it. Um if we only have one session there may not be time to report out on that. Um what we could do as an alternative is if if the decision is that it's only one day then we could uh send a report to

council um with the findings. Um that's an alternative um if if it's limited to just one day.

So this isn't really about just more meetings. It's about whether or not those meetings can be meaningful and we come up with productive and reasonable priorities. And by the time we're done with this, we're going to turn around and do it again in January or February. So, um, I just want this council to be mindful. I see where it's going, but I just want them to be mindful and I guess we can participate in this as we're available. and um because I can see the whole first day we'll just be hearing from each department and we've done that before heard from each department about where they are. So it's just the departments do have to prepare for that. So anyways, all right. Is there any member of the public that would like to speak on this? Move this along. Okay, seeing none, somebody. Council member Jane. Uh, yes. I'd like to make a motion for staff's recommendation.

Second. Motion second for the recommendation.

When you're ready, clerk, please register your vote. And that passes unanimously of those present. All right. Next item. Consent items pulled for discussion. Uh, is Kurt Vartan here? Item 4E sent something to ask us to pull that for discussion. Could we have a little um a staff report on 4E since it's pulled? This is on the business tax. Oh, let me read it. I'm sorry. Action on a resolution to authorize an increase in the business license tax corresponding to an increase in the annual inflation rate effective July 1st, 2026. City manager.

Uh yes. Um, so on April 17th, we received an email from Kirk Vartan. Um, and he requested that this item be pulled. Um, he has, uh, expressed some concerns with the rate that's being proposed, um, especially for businesses for small businesses, and he's recommending that, uh, there be an alternative solution uh, for small businesses. Okay. Ken.

Thank you, Madame Mayor and honorable city council. I don't have a PowerPoint presentation, but I could say a few words about the item before you. This is uh an annual increase that was included in the uh voter approved uh November 2022 modernization of the business tax. This applies a CPI or consumer price index um uh adjustment to uh the business tax um effective July 1st. Um as part of that ballot measure, a CPI or an escalator uh was an important component of that measure to uh keep up with kind of the buying power of the revenues that are received. Um, and so the item before you uh would allow us to enact that for July 1st and in accordance with our city code as well as what was approved by the first. That concludes my uh comments. Happy to answer any questions.

Council member Jane.

Yeah, I have a number of questions. Uh the first is what was the um inflation rate for uh uh for this past year? And the second question is uh um how much money will be raised for the city from this tax? I think I read it's $150,000 which is more than the subsidy for the student youth park fees. So, it would actually cover those youth park fees. Um, and uh um this money goes into the general fund, right? And the general fund pays for all of our employees salary increases. Um do you have any sense of what salary increases were uh for the various bargaining units that have concluded this year? just roughly I I you don't need to give every one of them you know uh uh I know we have fire is going to be on the session you maybe you could talk about fire this uh today what what that item was um and um so uh I believe that the increase will be $230 37 cents per employee for the whole year, which is half a cup of coffee. So, um I'm trying to understand why this is such a hardship for some businesses.

Council member Hardy, thank you. um if I remember right and please correct me stuff if I'm wrong but this was measure H and this was approved by the voters and the big concern was our employee tax had not been updated in 30 years. So if that's why this writer was put in there and that's why this is part of that which was passed by our residents. Thank you. So, this was a uh um Council Member Cox, go ahead.

Sorry, I was late. Um I lost my train of thought. So, uh again, looking at this and doing some math on it, again, if we look at the cap, one of the things I was concerned about was that it was disproportionately benefiting our really big businesses. Um, but when I did the math on that, I mean, you have to be above 7,777 employees to max out at the rate that we're charging per head here. And I don't think we have many business businesses that are doing that. But I do think that in Kirk's request, he said, you know, looking at other options. So, it's one thing to throw numbers and say that these rates are fair. It's another to recognize in Silicon Valley, it's really hard for small businesses to get started and stay in business. Um, I know if you look over uh the turnover on Stevens Creek in my district, I they really are struggling. And so I know I had talked to Reena a bit about kind of developing perhaps um a small business uh coalition or looking at some of the things that we could do because this is general fund money. I again when I do the math and you know the resident might be mad at me about this, but you're right. I don't think that this is a huge tax, but I think overall in Silicon Valley, it is really hard. And you know, I look to our Chamber of Commerce and stuff to come in and and create these solutions for us. And since I've been here, I haven't heard us really discussing ways to incentivize small businesses. Um, and looking up some of the ones uh nearby, you know, San Francisco will do the first year free on fees. Um, Emoryville targets restaurants and places of retail that are going to enhance the culture of their city. I think when we parallel that with what's going on in downtown, we do have an opportunity to say, let's invest in this in a different way. So, I don't think the ask was just, hey, throw out throw out this business tax, make it more. It it's what what are we actively doing? And I think that's a call for action there. So, I would like to follow up or

have the city uh um be directed to follow up about what they intend to do with a small business group through uh director Brio's position now, which I kind of understand it's an ohms budsman. Um so, I think that'll be valuable.

Thank you. Um and I understand that the CPI adjustment was approved by the voters in Measure H, and I respect respect that framework. I don't think there's much we can do with that. Um, at the same time, I want to be clear, our small businesses are struggling, especially in retail and restaurants, and they are still under all kinds of economic pressure, and this is just another, you know, pressure point for them. Um, but while this increase might appear, you know, small or modest, all these costs add up for them. You know, we have our fee schedule coming up, all those costs, they start adding up. So we have to be mindful of the cumu cumulative impact. So I'll support this tonight because I'm not sure we have any other option to do that. But I'd like to pair it with some kind of direction that we come back with options especially focused on small business. Um whether it's some kind of fee offsets or targeted programs or other strategies that ensure we're not in intentionally unintentionally adding to the burden of our local businesses. um supporting that business community and maintaining our fiscal responsibility are not mutually exclusive and we should be doing both. So that's my position on that. Council member Park.

Yeah, it's interesting. I hearing that uh it's a CPI adjustment. It's $247 or something like that. Um, and uh, I'm I appreciate the mayor saying that our small businesses are struggling and even though the fees may look small or modest, that um, people are having problems and I really wish we I really want this kind of talk when we have rates and rate increases discussed which far exceed CPI. Um, I've talked about this every single time and these aren't businesses that can make more business, you know, that can make more money. Uh when we talk about rates for residents, we are often talking to people about people who are on fixed incomes and any time that you've got a rate that increases faster than CPI, you know, larger than CPI, we're taking money away from other parts of where they could be using it. And so I I appreciate the discussion that you had and I'd love to continue this discussion when it affects the residents even more. I do know that we have waved or reduced fees for small business. We have small business programs. I think we discussed this when we first passed the business license tax. So, I think that's something maybe the director could talk about. Um and and again, uh if if people are struggling, uh we should we should hear about that and we should know that. Um at the same time, um the CPI continues, it it goes up. Um and we have to make sure that our business license tax that we voted on, it continues to be useful 10 years, 20 years down the line. I mean, as council member Hardy mentioned that we hadn't updated that tax in decades, and that was one of the reasons why not only we were using uh losing money, I mean, losing uh potential potential cash, but we had no no way forward to increase fees as as our our costs increase. As you know, all the expenses around the city were

increasing, our business license tax was was fixed. So, I think that this is a good thing going forward. I do understand that people are struggling. Um, yeah. What What can we do here? Thank you, Ken. I think that's it for There's a lot of comments in there, but I think there was a question or two.

Yep. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, city council, for the questions, and I I'll just go through them and and um provide some comments as well. Uh, council member Jane asked um, you know, what was the inflation rate? How much would be generated? So, the inflation rate just by the index we've been using is 2.5% uh, would generate $150,000. These are general fund dollars. So, they're general purpose used for uh, the the city services that you see out in the public, parks, police, fire, libraries. Um salary increases I I know they've range from anywhere from three to 5% and including other modifications to benefits. So this two and a half% is under kind of the cost of uh at least the increases for our city services or city staff. So very important to keep up with the pace of of the cost of uh the growth of our expenses. Um council member Hardy um mentioned this was part of measure H. I I do want to uh just um add some points around measure H. I was involved with kind of a team of uh city employees that did a lot of outreach to our businesses to hear what values were necessary and incorporated in that and and so um you know the the portion of that measure that included a CPI was was an important factor just in light of the financial shortfalls we were having and to keep up with that cost of living adjustment. Council Member Park um and Council Member Cox and Mayor, you mentioned kind of the value of of our small businesses and I know that as part of that ballot measure um some of the feedback that we did receive from our small businesses um was was very important and that value continues and we've heard that feedback last week on the municipal fee schedule. Um we did include a a a subsidy of a small business um business license tax in that first year of implementation. You know, we had some dollars set aside. council

did approve that to kind of ease uh ease that burden and ease that um transition into the modernization and and that's something I think with the feedback um from Council Member Cox and and talking to Reena on the municipal fees as we look ahead to the budget process uh with the upcoming budget on the May 1 release in roughly a week. We do have resources allocated to uh help small businesses to help them at least through the development process. So, we know that small businesses, you know, whether it's a business tax, whether it's a a municipal fee and and also a business starting up, both uh costs in terms of fees as well as time it takes to get through the development review process um and and start that business. Those are all costs that are important. And so we're working very closely with Miss Brio and our economic development director on on what are what's a comprehensive approach towards uh small businesses, not maybe the oneoff where where we we have limited options for the business tax, but what are what are the true needs or for small businesses? What's a strategy and a work plan around that and working with her on developing uh recommendations in our budget for resources to help address that? So that will be forthcoming as part of the May one budget discussions, but but we hear you in terms of the feedback on the value of our small businesses and and we'll look toward a collective approach on on on helping out small businesses. Um and then as far as options, um you know, I I talked with our city attorney. It it really I think our this is a tax that was approved by the voters and so we are implementing the terms of that voter approved measure and so I think our options are limited um uh and so that's why before you we have this uh annual adjustment. I don't know if if Glenn you have any additional comments on options but

yeah just one minor um additional comment to that. Um the the director Lee um accurately describes our our conversation but a nuance to it. Um there is built into the act that was approved by the voters this discretion on um the extent to which you you know can apply the CPI you know increase. It's up to a maximum. You don't have to apply any but you can't exceed that maximum. But the structure of the tax in terms of it applying to all uh businesses um is really something you couldn't just modify as a matter of city council discretion. I think the u Mr. Vartan um was suggesting as one possible option. You know, not not imposing the tax on um businesses smaller than 50 employees. In my view, that's not something that's would be left to the discretion of the council because the tax approved by the voter doesn't allow for that structure and flexibility where it does in in other areas. I didn't think anyone was proposing that anyway. So,

yeah, the the the Mr. Vartan was so I just wanted to be straight to that. Yep. Very. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Ken. Is there any member of the public wanting to speak on this issue? Do we have anyone online? No. Anybody here? All right. Council member Jane, make a motion to approve staff's recommendation of 2 and a half%.

Okay, we have a motion. Staff recommendation. A second. Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Please register your vote. And that passes unanimously of those present. All right. The next item pulled for discussion from consent. Is item number 4 I. That's action on a resolution of intention for parking maintenance district 122, Franklin Square. I'll be recusing myself on this issue. Vice Mayor, if you'd like to come forward. My office is in the Franklin Mall. All right. So, we'll deal with item four I, action on resolution for attention of park maintenance district number 122, Franklin Square. Um, council member uh Jane.

Uh, yes. I had a number of questions. Um so uh in the staff report um they're talking about the use of general fund money and the use of this uh fund that has been contributed to for capital expenses. But um a couple of weeks ago I got a a email from Rashma Naair who is the owner co-founder of Jalsa Catering and also the restaurant JSON and she said I want to flag that the parking lot lights are currently off and may need replacement. Would you be able to guide us on the appropriate team to reach out to? So, I sent this email to staff and in the report I'm pleased that staff says here in the report in fiscal year 2027 2627 staff will be updating parking lot and assorted associated walkway lighting to LEDs. The final fiscal year 2026 27 expenditure budget includes $87,000 for exceptional maintenance and improvements. The total PMD 122 fiscal year 2627 budget is $230,000. Uh and yeah, it includes both routine maintenance and exceptional maintenance. So, um I believe for this year the request is that from our general fund that the routine maintenance and operation will be $143,000 um which is $3,000 above the fiscal year 2026 27 expenditure budget. So um this is uh money coming out from the

general fund. Um, I've questioned this many times. Um, previous to 2002, the business owners contributed 75% of the uh, general maintenance and operations, but after 2022, uh, there was a vote and they uh, decided they weren't going to contribute anything. So, the city is left bearing the whole cost of that. So my question is um the Franklin Mall, you know, has a lot of restaurants that are that are frequented at nighttime. Uh and I would love to see stronger lighting there to make sure that it's safer just with more lighting there. Is will this increase the lighting level in the Franklin Mall? And I I know that this is being paid for by the 14,200 that's contributed by the businesses for the capital expenses. So I wanted to understand how the what the up actual update to the parking lot is and the walkway lighting. And then I'd raised this question earlier about whether we could use the this capital expense to improve the the um fountains there or to put in a public restroom for the um attendees of the farmers market. So are those under consideration or how would we move that forward? Um uh so those are my questions.

Council member Jane, uh we do have uh Craig Mockc, director of public works, who's available to answer your questions.

Okay. Thank you. Uh and good evening, Mayor and Council. Craig Mobc, director of public works. Uh thank you, Council Member Jane, for the questions. Uh in terms of the project, uh itself, as you mentioned, uh we did receive some complaints about uh lighting. uh that was not in operation. Uh so we went out there to rectify uh the immediate need and and get some of those lights back on. Uh during that uh review, we noted that there were um several fixtures that were in need of more than just a light replacement. Um and as you referenced, there was a discussion and and a a mention of, you know, LED lighting. Um so we did take a look at that. We have included that as you referenced in the project. Um, and we're also working with SVP to see if there's any grant monies to help supplement that as well. Uh, so in terms of what you see out there, uh, I think the lighting going to LED obviously is going to make an improvement and then those uh, several fixtures that are inoperable will will come online. So certainly that is going to be helpful uh, for the lighting levels out there. Uh in terms of um the fountain uh as you recall I think it's four or five years ago uh fundings for the uh the fountain uh maintenance uh was cut uh during the budget process. Those fountains were off. There was also the drought. Um there had been requests most recently at the city hall fountain um to get that back online. Um so staff did work uh to do that. It does take money obviously as systems are offline for a while it does take time to get them back. Um and we have a outside vendor that does that. We've reached out to the vendor because I know there was some recent requests about uh the Franklin um mall and those two fountains

um because there's one uh back by the restaurants and there's one out in front on Monroe. And so we've reached out to our vendor um to get a look at what those costs are going to be. Um and then we'll discuss that with the city manager and finance in terms of budget and how we get those back online. Um in terms of any proposals for additional things like you mentioned uh if if there was something about a restroom uh that would be I think a project uh that would have to go under consideration and get budgeted through that process not not the maintenance district process.

Okay. Uh What I would like to see is that we involve our police department to understand what lighting levels would deter crime in the Franklin Mall. So before we do the LED up updates, we make sure that there are safety considerations taken.

Yeah. So the LED lighting project is not going to be installing new uh fixtures, new poles. Uh basically it's doing what what we've done uh at at several facilities, several of our our street light corridors uh where we're replacing those old uh fixtures um and the you know where the bulbs are and those housings uh to accommodate LEDs. We could make the LEDs brighter. Uh so yeah, there's there's different lighting levels uh and so we'll review that uh in terms of with our contractors who are proposing on the work. Okay. Um, yeah. So, this is going to come back to us later at a later date.

So, yeah. So, tonight uh is just the uh notice of intent uh and then we're establishing uh the public hearing uh for June 9th. Correct. Okay. Thank you. So, there's nothing we have to do on this. It'sformational. Uh no, there is there is an action uh to uh bring it back to do the notice of uh intent uh as well as setting the the public hearing for June 9th. So that's on on the agenda. I believe there was three actions. Okay. Yeah. Adopt a resolution of intent, set a hearing date, and authorize publication. Yeah. Yes. Correct. Okay. All right. Council member Park.

Yes. Uh, Director Moek, thank you very much. I do understand the difference between maintenance and a new project. I think that you made that very clear. Um, so we're you're basically fixing what's there. If you were going to add additional things, that would be a new project. Adding a restroom, it would be a new project. Putting additional lighting would be a new project. I think that goes outside the scope of maintenance. My question to staff is, how is it possible? How do owners decide for themselves how much the city should should contribute? I think that this has been a question that has been in my mind uh all this time which is they are the land owners of their properties but the the open space of the public areas are owned by the the city and it seems that the owners unilaterally decided that well we want the city to pay you know 90% the majority. How how does that how does that take place? Like I I would think that it it almost I like it it doesn't make sense that the owners would would get to decide themselves how much they they would contribute. I would think that there would be more people involved in this including city input. How does it go around city input? How do we go around how do how did the maintenance district the owners go around that to decide for themselves how much they would contribute back in 2002?

Sure. Yeah. Uh it was a collaborative process. So the uh property owners uh or or the city cannot unilaterally decide what the maintenance district is. Uh the maintenance district is established through vote. Um as council member Jane referenced uh it was under a different um contribution limits or levels I should say up until 2002. Uh at that time uh there was coordination and collaboration between the city uh the property owners um in terms of contributions and changes. Um ultimately those changes uh were approved uh two ways. One the property owners themselves voted that they were um uh wanting to make that change. uh staff at that time was proposing uh that that council didn't make that change, but ultimately council also approved that change. Um so it couldn't happen unilaterally. It required both the property owners majority vote. It also required uh the council vote. uh that both of those things did happen in 2002 which allowed the change um and ultimately led to the maintenance district contribution levels that we have today.

Thank you. Uh Council Member Cox, I think mine is a follow-up question to that. Um Council Member Jane mentioned that last year the owners chose not to pay. Um how is that possible? No, that's that's not possible. Um there was one year and I can't remember if that was last year or the year before where the city council elected not to uh move forward um with the contributions. So we chose not to have them pay.

That's correct. Yes. So they did not contribute that year. Um and like I said, I can't remember if it was last year or the year before. Uh that is the only way. That's like tonight we're setting uh up for the public hearing. Um ultimately, uh council approved not to do that. Um so it didn't happen. All right. So we're going to go out to the public. Uh clarification. All right. Um we have Mark Kelsey.

Thank you. I just have to question why this was a a consent item. Franklin Mall is an embarrassment to the city and residents have been asking for improvements to the maintenance of the mall, the the infrastructure of the mall for for for years. And now all of a sudden we're going to have we're going to slip an item into consent to have a hearing on this. If this has got to be publicized, it's got to have full public input. And if this council is intent on leading the revival of downtown, which I hope you are, then the improvement of Franklin Mall is a high priority and should take precedence. As you probably know, we've recently started a campaign to at least do something to beautify the dead fountains in Franklin Mall in advance of the FIFA World Cup. We'll have many visitors in Santa Clara. And frankly, Franklin Mall is a disgrace. And I can't believe that the city is not acting expeditiously to improve Franklin Mall and improve the beauty of Santa Clara and put on the appropriate show for our many visitors who will be here for FIFA. So, I fully urge that we go forward with this and not only that, that the council publicize this aggressively and ensure that the public is fully informed about and is able to provide comments about the need for improvements at Franklin Mall. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any hands? Is there anybody in from the public that wants to speak chamber? I don't see anybody. So, we'll go back. We have council member Jane.

Yes. So I want to clarify a couple of things. One is that there are two contributions by the business owners. The first is for the routine operations and maintenance and uh the second is for the capital expense to repair like restriping parking lots and now the lights which is coming up. Uh in 2002, the property owners decided they weren't going to contribute anything to the maintenance, the operations and maintenance, and that's about $140,000. The the contribution for capital is $14,000 onetenth of And so uh uh this is required by law that we bring it back every year to approve the contribution of the city for this parking maintenance district. And we every year we approve the operations and maintenance for and this year it's going to be $143,000 um from the city's general fund and uh there is in in the con in the agenda item item number three is authorize the publication mailing and posting of the notice of public hearing as stated in the resolution of intent. So there will be a mailing and a p publication of that meeting on June 9th. So, what happened was a couple of years ago I made the motion to dissolve the parking maintenance district and uh I was told a year after year that well then we'd be foregoing the $14,000 200 uh which is onetenth of the cost of what we pay. Um but um I had made a motion to dissolve the parking maintenance district. Ultimately my motion was to reserve the right to

dissolve the parking maintenance district at any time and so that has been passed by the council um year after year. Uh we have yet to dissolve the parking maintenance district. Um but that is the distinction. There are two contributions from business owners. Um and uh the other thing that I wanted to ask about is a number of residents have complained that the clock tower is always broken. So is there anything we can do with our capital funds to really redo the clock tower to make it robust especially since FIFA's coming up?

Sure. Yeah. Se I know several years ago uh there was a retrofit uh and a repair of that clock. Um, I know we were uh notified uh and asked to take a look at it just recently because the time was off. Um, and so staff went out uh and reset that time. It's a dual face clock, so uh clock faces Monroe but also faces into uh the the businesses. So two sides to it. Um we it's a um electronic uh clock and so staff went in to reset it. It reset one side accurately, the other side was 10 minutes off. It's nothing that our staff can fix. So, we've reached out to the vendor, try and get some support and assistance on that piece of equipment.

Ask you to come back on June 9th to to explain whether we have to allocate money to completely redo the clock. It would be nice to have it fixed um for good. Yeah, once we once we get the information from our vendor about how to do that. Y thank you. All right, we've we don't have any members from the public. Anybody no other council members? Is there a motion? Uh Council Member Jane?

Yes. I'll make a motion to approve staff's recommendation for all three items. Adopt a resolution of intent. set a hearing date and authorize publication mailing and posting. I'll second that. All right, we have a motion and a second. See another hands up or council if we could take the vote. Um, is this city any clerk?

Motion carries unanimously 5 to zero with uh our mayor uh reclusing herself and uh council member Shahal being absent. So, we'll grab the mirror and then we'll move on to item.

That was I

Yeah, but the mayor the mayor doesn't recuse on J. Okay, moving on to the next item pulled for discussion. Adoption of a resolution of attention for maintenance district number 183, Santa Clair Convention Center Complex. Council member Jane.

Yeah, this is an item that I've been concerned about. I've been concerned about the parking structure at the convention center and I was dismayed or not surprised actually to to read the report says the director's report for fiscal year 202627 shows an annual budget increase this year due to a large project to refinish the waterproof coating on the third level of the garage. The property owners discussed the approach to funding this project and concurred to complete it in phases over the next six years. Each of those years is expected to have a similar increase as a total project is estimated at approximately 2 and a half to$3 million. So my question is is um has any money been set aside over the years to do big projects like this? Um, that's my first question. And it seems like uh this year the city's contribution will be 1,163,000. That's up from, I believe, about $940,000 last year. So, is that money coming from our general fund? We're subsidizing the convention center. Um, we're not charging for parking there unlike pretty much any other convention center. But has any money ever been been set aside to re I mean it's like the international swim center previous council just dropped the ball on deferred maintenance and so is this another situation like the ISC where money has not been set aside to do some big uh maintenance projects on the parking structure. Um and so uh my understanding is that the this

this budget this year is going to be 2.543 million and the city's contribution will be $1.163 uh million. So um that's coming from our general fund. Is that correct? Those are my questions. Thank you. Is there anyone else that has questions about this? Seeing none, that's it. Craig.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor Council. Uh Craig Movc, director of public works. Um yeah, so thank you for the questions, Council Member Jane. In terms of the maintenance district, and has money ever been set aside, uh for future public projects? Um no. Uh that it has not. Uh the maintenance district uh is comprised of uh the city of Santa Clara Convention Center um TechMart as well as the Hyatt Hotel. Uh so we're in collaboration. Uh there's uh different contribution levels um that go into the maintenance district by formula um have you seen in the report? Um and then at the end of the year there's discussion in terms of if there is remaining money on how to deal with it. uh whether it is to move it forward uh into the future budget or if it uh gets dispersed back uh via the percentages it was collected. Uh so never been a sinking capital fund um to save up money. Uh the project's been discussed over the last several years uh with the maintenance district partners and that ultimately led uh to the phasing approach that you've seen in the report uh today. Uh in terms of the money, um yes, that is a general fund money uh that goes into the convention center maintenance district.

Okay. Thank you. Um I'm going to now go to the public to see if there's any member of the public that would like to speak on this issue. I don't see anybody online. Do we have anybody on anyone online? All right. Uh, Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Make a motion for staff recommendation. I'll second that. All right. We have a motion by Vice Mayor Gonzalez for staff recommendation. Second by Council Member Cardi. Mayor, my hand is up. I see that. Give me a moment, please. Council member Jane.

Okay. Um, so Uh, I believe we're now moving forward with uh some sort of paid parking RFP. Um, is that intended to cover these expenses uh um so that we don't have to pull over a million dollars from our general fund?

Yeah, thanks for the question. Yes, so staff uh based on the council priority setting move forward with the paid parking at the convention center. uh so recently received proposals um back uh from uh the process. So we're evaluating those and then we'll do interviews um in some contract negotiations. Uh in terms of the money that gets collected, um I don't think it's yet to be decided on how that gets dispersed. If it goes to cover uh the convention center maintenance district or different things out at the convention center, I think that's still uh open for discussion. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Park.

Yes. At the last time that we discussed this, uh, city manager mentioned that we were also talking to SVP on for charging stations where we could also make additional revenue. And this was, I believe, for both Franklin Mall and Convention Center. I asked about this at the last meeting as well, but we kind of glossed over that item. But where are we with those discussions and what what is what was the proposal for charging electric electric vehicle charging?

So I I don't have any of the latest in terms of future projects for new electric uh vehicle charging and conversations uh with SVP. Um I haven't been involved in those as of late. Uh but certainly can follow up with that after the meeting.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, assistant city clerk, when you're ready, please register your vote. And that passes unanimously of those present. Thank you. Next uh consent item pulled for discussion is item number 4N. Authorize the city manager to execute the 2026 to 2029 memorandum of understanding between the city of Santa Clair and the Santa Clair firefighters international association of firefighters local 1171 unit one. Approve a corresponding update to the unit one classified salary plan and approve related budget amendment. Uh council member Cox. Yeah, I wanted to pull this to support the motion with the adjustment. Um, just imploring council to consider the addition of retropay to the date of the contract. Um, again, I've made it a priority to hear directly from as many of the unions and bargaining units as I could. And I know that while this is going forward, I think it feels like a loss. Uh, and I want to address that. I think it was suggested that Santa Clara does not support retropay in contracts, but looking that up, that's not accurate. we have approved retrop pay and compensation including this year. Um in fact it's been applied in different contexts and with individuals as a matter of fact. So I don't think the issue is not that we do uh do or do not do retro we do. The issue is how we apply it and where is the consistency. Um and I think again because if we don't we're sending the message that it's about who's in front of us and not a policy. So on a larger scale I think that's something to look at. But again, I'm asking this not out of a spirit of general fund generosity right now. I think this is really about integrity. Um, I believe these are uh integral

pieces of our city staff and I would hope that we consider this because I want to be clear about what we stand for. Our workforce is watching us. Our public is too. So, I would like consideration of the motion to include retropay. Would you like to make that motion? That's my motion. I'll second it. Okay. So, we have a motion in a second to approve theou but make it retroactive to was it January 1st? Um, mayor, if I may. Yes.

Um, I just want to point out that we did receive notification from the union president Matt Sers yesterday afternoon that the membership has rat ratified the agreement as the terms are outlined. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Um, the other thing I just want to also point out is there's three recommendations on this item. Okay. The third item requires five affirmative votes. Okay. Got it. Thank you. So, the first motion is staff recommendation with retroactive to January 1st. Uh, their contract expired the end of December. Uh, Mayor,

my hand up, did you ask me? I was just wanted to make sure you went to the public first, Madame Mayor, before any vote. I I know that. Okay. Just reminding you guys are so on it, aren't you? Every now and then. Thank you. I appreciate the help. All right. Um, I wanted to make I wanted to clarify the motion in the second. Uh, that that's what it was. All right. Um, members of the public, do we have any members of the public that would like to speak on this issue? I don't see any, Nora. Okay. Uh, Vice Mayor Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, as far as uh I'm in total agreement as far as making sure that staff is uh appreciated and and um the recommendation before us doesn't incur didn't in include uh retrop pay. Uh it's just a question for staff as far as historically from from my my uh work on the school board. Whenever we did retropay or things like this, it it caused a an issue with our payroll. As far as I could tell you, we we had three three folks in payroll in our uh in our in our in under our CBO finance department at the district. and I could tell you that they were there for a couple of weeks into the late hours of the of the night. Is this going to cause any issue with with our with our staff as far as you know getting these these uh checks out?

So it is additional work because it's a manual process. Um so the length of time of the retropay has to be calculated but it also has to be calculated on any overtime that the employees worked. So it would take some time for pay payroll to calculate um to make those payments. um the ability to implement the new terms um because it's prospective is not an issue when once you start adding retropay um there is a manual process that um one has room for error and uh does take some time

as uh we I understand that the staff recommendation which we're we're voting on something a little bit different now is something that the uh association voted for and approved. Were they in any way aware of what retropay were they compensated for retropay or they didn't take that into account?

So as part of the negotiations each side um brings forward various proposals um and through the back and forth process proposals are dropped on on both sides. Um, so that at the end of the day, we ended up with the terms that are outlined in the report. And I do want to point out that there is a $4,000 lumpsum payment which is intended to cover the cost of the retropay. So by making making it a one-time payment, there is no retroact retroactive manual process that needs to take place. It's simply a one-time payment to each employee for $4,000. Yeah. Uh, council member Hardy

and I'd like to have staff re reiterate that the unit has approved this and that's why it is on consent. Correct. Uh, that's correct. We received notification from the union president yesterday afternoon that the membership um had uh ratified it. We were in discussions throughout the day. They had a couple questions. We answered their questions and ultimately we received a call back saying that it had been ratified. Council member Jane.

Um I wanted to appreciate staff. I know labor negotiations are long. This one was very protract protracted. Um and I want to appreciate that staff worked so hard on this and that the union has ratified this after a long negotiation. Thank you for mentioning the $4,000 sort of in lie of retropay. Um so uh I will not be voting for retropay.

I also want to say that um to follow up on council member Cox's comments. Um, retrop pay is something we've done regularly in this city for a long time and we did it recently uh several times in the last couple of years including for the city attorney and city manager contracts. We just did that. So, it's a matter of fairness. And I know there's a $4,000 credit for the firefighters, but that doesn't compensate them equally. that helps the the newer employees, but it doesn't truly compensate the older employees. And to answer your question, Vice Mayor Gonzalez, they sent us an email saying yes, they approved the contract, theou frankly, they were, you know, it was a long and and very difficult process, but they asked if we would reconsider the retropay. And so that's why as a matter of fairness all around because we've done this recently and I know the city staff can calculate it because they've done it for other units recently and we have for years. So it's just a matter of fairness for the firefighters. Council member Park.

Yeah. So I mean this is one of the reasons that we don't have these discussions out in public. I do appreciate that um outside of the votes that we take in close session that people have differences, but this is this is absolutely one the reason that we do not continue these conversations into the public so that we don't open this up for every unit to to to have these issues. Uh we did have a lot of discussions, not going to go into the discussions. Um, we did note that it would take additional time because we did note that it would be a manual process and that everything would have to be calculated uh specific to the person because of the overtime pay that the overtime that they received. We discussed all of these things. Uh, there was also mention of an email that was sent to council that the council did not receive. I believe that the email was sound and it sounds like from the discussions that I've had that to the the mayor and to council member Cox. And I think that these are the kinds of things that units will do and that I think are, you know, kind of betray the trust of council. Like we are trying very hard to do what's fair for everyone and at the same time we are not being treated fairly uh ourselves. Um um to be honest, I I think that I would like to talk to the city attorney later about some of the issues that have come up in the discussion of this this item, but I do not believe that the discussions that we have here, opening this consent item up after uh the issues that we have discussed in close session um for items that really should be discussed in close session. I don't think that this is appropriate here as well. Uh we did come to an agreement. We came to agreement as a council uh majority council and we've can come to agreement uh as a unit and I will be uh supporting the I will not be supporting the motion on the on the table to consider retropay. Uh I will see what happens after that vote.

It's called transparency. That's why we're here. That's why we're and that's why emails that are sent to council should be sent to all council. Uh city clerk, when you're ready. Um, if I may, I I just want to uh again reiterate that the third item specifically requay to January 1.

Correct. Please register your vote. Point of clarification. Council member Jane. again. There it is. And that motion fails. Three to three,

council. Council member Jane. A motion for staff's recommendation. Second. We have a motion and a second for staff's recommendation. Is that all three? One, two, and three. Yes. All three. One, two, and three. Uh, we can bifrocate if you take it all together. One, two, and three. Go. Think we should bifrocate too. That require It's not necessary. Take it all together. Excuse me. Council member Park. Stop.

Go ahead. City clerk, please register vote. And that passes unanimous with those present. Thank you. All right. Next item we have is public hearing action on the adoption of the proposed fiscal year 202627 municipal fee schedule. Okay. City assistant city manager.

So the item before you is a second in a series of budget meetings and actions related to the upcoming 202627 fiscal year. Last week, we re we received feedback from council and the public during the study session on the municipal fee schedule. This item focuses on the adoption of the city's cost of service fees. These are fees that are charged to recover the cost of the time and material spent for a specific service received by a user. The item does not include utility rates. Those are presented to the council and adopted separately. Also, this item does not include taxes. Those are approved separately by voters. Uh Tess Hang, a senior management analyst with the finance budget division, will be making tonight's presentation. She has been with the city of Santa Clara for eight years, and she has um over 13 years of experience in municipal public finance. The city's fee consultant, Terry Madson, with Clear Source Financial, and representatives from all city departments are also available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Welcome. Good evening, honorable mayor and city council. Uh Tess Hong, senior management analyst with the finance department. I'm here before you to present on the public hearing action on the adoption of the fiscal year 2026 2027 municipal fee schedule. So this is the second presentation that the council has seen on this item. Last week was our first study session where our consultant Terry Madson from Clear Source Financial Consulting reviewed the fee schedule update and we do recognize that this was a very tight turnaround in between the study session and the public hearing. This was initially scheduled earlier um for April 7th. However, because of the very long agenda for April 7th, it was pushed to a special meeting. Um, and the reason why this is being presented on tonight's um, consent count or sorry, public hearing item is because there is a 60-day requirement for development fees in particular for them to be adopted and a 60-day waiting period prior to them being fully implemented, which is the target date of July 1. For tonight's item, we'll be addressing the feedback and the questions that were that stemmed from last week's study session. We'll also touch on the changes that have been made to the fee schedule since you last saw it last week. And we'll end with the staff recommendation for city council um approval uh for via resolution. So, a bit of background, the city holds a master fee schedule that lists all the fees that um are for various city services and these fees are reviewed and updated on an annual basis. So the fee schedule here before you tonight um reflects a comprehensive cost of service

study update. So this in uh this entails our consultant and his team working directly with our city staff and the departments and doing a deep dive into all the fees and the calculations behind all the fees that are listed in the schedule to make sure that they're being cap um captured appropriately at the appropriate level and cost. So, the cities collect fees and charges for services um that benefit an individual or um businesses as opposed to collecting ser um fees for services that benefit the community as a whole. And this ties into the cost recovery principle that the um the city council has adopted in previous years. And just paraphrasing here, uh, the city establishes fees at a full level of cost recovery when that particular service benefits an individual or businesses as opposed to benefiting the community as a whole. And this in turn enables the city to provide um services that benefit the community as a whole without charge. So the next handful of slides will probably look quite familiar. These were reviewed last week during the study session. This first table here shows that there are over 1,200 fees in the fee schedule itself and provides a highle breakdown of the different types of fees and changes that are being proposed here tonight. So 95% of the fee schedule um reflects changes that are increases that are capped at 10% some cost of living adjustments. There are some fees that are not proposed to change from the currently adopted schedule and fees are also decreasing. The remaining 5% of fees reflect um fees that are proposed to be eliminated from the schedule. Some are being restructured. So for the restructured fees, these fees exist within the schedule. However, staff is proposing to break these out just for enhanced uh clarity. And then the remaining changes reflect um some increases that are

greater than 10%, some increases that are being proposed to be phased in over the next few years, as well as new fees being introduced into the schedule. There are 14 fees that are proposed to increase beyond 10%. Um, particularly in the building division and the parks and recreation divi uh department. While these percentage changes look significant, the over 10% the dollar amount is actually quite small. The biggest dollar amount change being the $4. Um, under the building division, there are fees that are going from like seven to eight dollars with the biggest change being a $2 increase for the parks and recreation department. Um, the the three fees being increased above the 10% are under the aquatic facility rental fees. Um, these were presented to the city council back in December of 2025 and the the changes here were actually presented to the council and just planned as part of that implementation. Under the planning division, there are two fees for short short-term rental permits that are increasing above 10% and that's reflective of the contract associated with this program. Under the electric utility department, um there's a service wire relocation fee. So this is recouping the true cost of service for this item. And under the Department of Public Works, there are a handful of fees associated with right-of-way landscaping, storm water review, and storm water system treatments. And these um all of these fees are reflective of increased staff costs, increased service times, as well as increased consultant costs. So, under the planning division, there are eight fees with increases that are proposed to be phased in over the next several years. Um, each of the fees that are listed here before you have, uh, increased significantly in regards to the service time that it actually takes

to do these reviews. U, the majority of these fees actually increased above five hours worth of service time. So C that coupled with increasing in staff costs resulted in um significant changes to the fees. So staff is proposing to phase that in to ease the financial impact between the two fiscal years. There are 12 fees proposed to be added to the fee schedule under the electric utility department. There is an easement processing fee. And what I will note is this fee is actually an existing fee in the schedule. However, it's captured just under the Department of Public Works, but because this fee does have an electric utility component, staff is proposing to add it also under the electric utility department just for enhanced transparency. For the library, we're proposing to add a replacement fee associated with lost or unreturned access badges or keys related to when um individuals or groups rent rooms out in the libraries. The next three are under the parks and recreation department. The first is under the cemetery division. A new fee is proposed for chapel rentals for special events and this would cover up to four hours of res for reserved use for that um chapel. Under the recreation division, two fees um for parking at the youth soccer park and Reed and Grant Park are proposed. Now, I will note these two fees actually exist within the schedule currently. However, staff is proposing to expand it to include um Levi Stadium specific events. And the remaining seven um new fees being introduced are all under the water utility department. So these are fees associated with the temporary use of city hydrant and meters. Um this is specific to construction sites that use um portable hydrant meters. So just recouping those costs. There are a couple of utility field marking fees. And similar to the parking fees, the

utility field marking fees actually exist in the schedule as well. However, staff is proposing to expand that scope because um it's happened where applicants will pay for field marking but they do have to clarify the service area. However, when staff has gone out to do the field marking, the service area ends up being sign significantly bigger than what was um initially paid for. So, this fee is just recouping that uh that variance. And then finally, the survey the survey non-compliance fee. So for sites that use recycled water, they are subject to separate state regulations. So this fee is intended to recoup the cost associated with the staff time it takes to follow up on all these sites to get them into compliance. There are 14 fees proposed to be deleted from the schedule. Uh two, the first two under the planning division and the fire department. These are both duplicative fees that are already captured elsewhere in the schedule. The next five are within the cemetery division. Um, two of which there are services that are no longer offered and then the other three are actually being recommended to be combined into an existing fee already in the schedule. The remaining seven fees um under the recreation division are all related to the youth activity center gymnasium rental fees. Now, effective 20 August of 2025, the city no longer has access to youth um the youth activity center gymnasium um per the new agreement with the Santa Clair Unified School District. So, we're taking these fees out just to be consistent with that agreement. So, last week during the study session, Director Lee did note that there were would be a few changes being made to the schedule. So, um we'll go over that tonight. Um, as mentioned last week, there is a penny shortage and as to address that issue, uh, staff is recommending that these fees be rounded down to the nearest nickel. However, there was a section under the

engineering division where the fees were being rounded down to the nearest dollar instead. So, we're just correcting that. And this uh the table up here just shows uh a few examples of what those fee changes look like. For example, the slurry seal. Last week, you would have seen that it was at $113, but we're now proposing to set the fee at $113.95 and so forth. And while I also want to note while these look like they're increasing, there are a few of these fees um that the updated proposed fee is actually still a decrease from what is currently adopted in the schedule. And these 29 fees are itemized out in attachment four, the staff report. Uh the other changes that have been made to the fee schedule since last week are um related to the impact fees. So impact fees are no longer recommended to be rounded in this schedule. Um because these impact fees are established and set via separate resolutions. And there is language in each of these resolutions that does state at the beginning of each fiscal year. These fees are actually automatically adjusted based off of the construction cost index. So we're just correcting that to be consistent with the resolutions that have already been approved. So this impacts 12 fees under the housing division um for the affordable housing impact fees and another 10 under the engineering division related to traffic impact Tasmin specific plan and Patrick Henry Drive specific plan. And again these fees are also itemized out in attachment 4. So from last week's study session there was a lot of discussion around the proposed parking fees at youth soccer park and Rena Grant Park. There were concerns expressed about the impact to youth soccer events and the outreach that has been done and there was some general requests about should these fees be approved how that revenue would be allocated. Um there were a few questions

about the cost recovery level of parks and recreation fees, fee deferrals and phasein fees as well as the um how development fees impact the how development fees impact small businesses. and a G a couple general comments about the payment method for fees and staffing resources as they relate to customer service. For the parking fees proposed at YSP and Reed and Grant, as I mentioned, these fees do exist within the schedule already. Um, and these were initially uh presented and adopted by city council effective the fiscal year 2023 2024 municipal fee schedule. Um, now staff is pro proposing to expand it to capture um potential parking fees should there be um Levi Stadium stadium events. And we do want to emphasize that youth events will always be prioritized when using these facilities and should these fees be approved, they would only be charged if there are no events at YSP or Reed and Grant and there is a Levi Stadium event taking place. Um and if approved, the revenue collected via these fees can certainly be placed um in a separate capital project or fund to ensure that these go back to the maintenance of these facilities. Regarding the uh cost recovery level for parks and recreation fees, they're at an estimated 13% which is consistent with the cost recovery policy that was approved by the city council related to parks fees um back a few years ago. And this is also consistent with local municipalities that generally subsidize parks programs. And while fee deferrals are not included in the schedule um and park there was a discussion about parkinl fees. So the basis for these fees was actually uh approved by the city council earlier this evening um with the updated evaluation report and these uh updates

have been reflected in the fee schedule here before you for proposed phase in of fees. So this was an approach that was initially approved by the city council for the fiscal year 2022 2023 municipal fee schedule. Um, and this was specifically for the fire department for their construction permits and operational permit fees. So, keeping consistent with an approved approach from prior years, planning staff is asking for eight of their fees to be phased in overtime. The fee impacts to small businesses within the city, these vary depending on the types of changes that are being proposed. Um, for example, if there are minor exterior changes being requested, the business would pay a permit fee for the change, um, which is a little over $900 and some signage fees. So, if there's a permanent sign, it'd be $316, while a temporary sign would be a little under $90. However, if there are interior tenant improvements, this these types of changes um require a much broader scope of work. So, the cost of permitting and any applicable impact fees vary greatly depending on the business type, the types of um changes being proposed, the total square footage, and even the age of the building. So, the community, sorry, the community development staff did go back to take a look at the different applications that have been processed recently to give the city council and the public a small sample of what these fees would look like. Um, for a salon there there was payment of about $21,600 worth of fees. A restaurant was around at $62,400 while a small lab space was a little over 16,000. So each of these fees um covers the permitting cost across the permitting costs across all development areas. So this includes planning,

building, fire, and the department of public works review. Um, and as you'll note, the restaurant is significantly higher than the other two business businesses. And this was a special circumstance because the restaurant location was previously a retail site. So, because of that change in the use of the site, two utility impact fees were actually triggered because of this. Uh, one being the sanitary sewer fee and the other being the wastewater treatment fee. So, those two fees combined totaled almost $40,000. So over 60% of what the restaurant paid. And uh Director Lee mentioned this earlier. Um you know staff recognizes that the development process can be fairly daunting to small businesses or individuals. So staff will be bringing forward um re uh a proposal to put through resources to specifically help small businesses through that development process as part of the budget cycle for the method of payments for fees. As we mentioned, we're rounding down to the nearest nickel in this fee schedule. And this is just to eliminate any potential issues that may arise with providing change if customers do pay in cash, which we have happened. Um, and the final item, so staff, there was a question about staffing resources as they relate to co uh customer service. And staff really does remain committed to providing a very high level of customer service to its customers and residents. And one of the um one of the benefits of hearing this item early is it actually provides staff a lot of time uh to update the permitting modules and all of the um websites and such to make sure that the uh residents or customers paying these fees everything is ready to go for them by July 1. And that takes us to the staff

recommendation, which is to adopt the city of Santa Clara 2026 2027 municipal fee schedule, which by resolution one sets new fees, two amends existing fees, three retains unchanged fees for various city departments, and four deletes certain fees with an effective date of July 1, 2026. And with that, I will hand it back to the city council for additional feedback or questions. Uh, thank you. So, uh, questions, comments, council member Jane.

Um, I believe you said that parks and wreck is subsidized 87%. Is that correct? Um, and for kids that can't even afford the subsidized rates, uh, can you describe the Wade Brummel fund and how that might be used? That's my only question. Thank you, Council Member Hardy.

Yes. I was trying to remember. I think it's proposition 217, but if the city is not allowed to charge more than what the actual cost of the service is, and I wanted to make certain that our residents, if anyone's watching, are clear that we work very hard at making certain we give the exact cost, especially when it's these are fees that are for specific individuals and or businesses. This is not anything that everyone would have to pay. Thank you.

Anyone else? I don't see any other questions. So, I have a few. Um, I want to talk about a very specific re uh concern I have regarding the youth soccer park and reading Grant Street. Um, so what I'm not seeing in the expansion of the parking proposal for both those street those properties are are any operational safeguards for the sites specifically related to tailgating enforcement and protection of the fields. So, anyone who's been around large stadium events knows that parking lots, they don't function as passive spaces and without clear controls. They become gathering areas and that introduces real risk to both the facility and the experience in the community. So, um I So, the questions I have are are tailgating activities, would they be allowable or not at the youth soccer park under this proposal? And how will they be enforced in real time? Uh protection. And what physical protections are you going to provide for the field since they're not fenced off? Um if they're uh access damaged or uh compromised during these events, uh who would be responsible for enforcement of the parking on site during those events? Would it be the parks and recreation staff, the police, stadium ops, and how is that resourced? If there's damage to the fields or surrounding facilities, who's financially responsible and is there a reimbursement mech mechanism in place? What are the cleanup and restoration standards for these events?

And what prevents this from expanding over time? So, it starts as parking and pretty soon there's scope creep into other things. So, I'm I'm thinking that in this is it's allowable for parking, but it doesn't answer any of these questions. So, um I think that there still has to be a policy set by this city council before any of this happens because these questions need to be answered. So, um those are my questions only because this isn't just about parking. It's a lot more than that. and Council Member Jane.

Um, so, uh, can you describe what happened for the BFC uh, use of these fields? Um, and they used the fields and they did the parking there. Can you describe how the city was indemnified from that use? Um, I believe that there will be parking attendance there that it won't be a self-p park. I mean, it'll be self- park, but it it it won't be nonattended. So wouldn't it be incumbent on the parking attendants to uh restrict any activities that are not allowed by the city? Um and then we could impose fines if people were to violate um say going on the fields or damaging the fields. Um certainly we need those protections, but I think staff said that there's potential for raising $10,000 per event. uh for the youth soccer park or youth sports. That seems uh compelling enough to move forward. Uh as I mentioned at the last meeting, I had originally requested the staff to look at parking at the youth soccer park. Um this was back in January of uh 2022. So um four years ago. And uh again I said that soccer gets absolute priority for use of the field but uh we have actually rented out the fields in the past the actual fields to adult soccer in the past. We have precedents for that. So could you explain how that worked before? Thank you.

That's really great but it has nothing to do with parking for stadium events. So, my questions I want to make clear specifically for parking for stadium events. All right. Anybody else? Let me go to the public and then we'll have you answer all those questions if you need a little more time. Thank you. Do we have any member of I'll talk slow. Do we have any member of the public that needs to make any comments about this? Yeah, mayor. Just anyone online? As a reminder, this is a formal public hearing, too. Mayor.

Oh, okay. So public hearing is open. Is there any member of the public? Anyone online? All right. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Uh, Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Second. Motion and second to close the public hearing. I'll I'll give you more time if you want. Okay. Uh, we have a motion and second to close the public hearing. Please register your vote.

Thank you. And that passes unanimously of those present. All right, Director Lee.

Uh, good evening, honorable mayor, city council. We'll have a tag team effort here. Appreciate the questions on the municipal fee schedule and want to also thank Tess. I know she puts a lot of time into the over,200 fees and and doing the presentation. So, council member Jane 87% subsidy. Um, that does include our our general just parks access and in total. So, when you look at the total cost of the parks department programs uh and access against the fees that are recovered, it's a 13% recovery rate, so 87% subsidy. Um, I will defer kind of the Wade Brummel conversation to Damon as as well as some of the parking, but but I'll touch on it and then we'll tag team on that. Council member Hardy, um, I think it's, you know, we are governed by both Prop 218 and Prop 26 with regards to uh the recovery of costs and I know Prop 218 is is specific to property based uh types of fees. Um, so all of the fees uh or the majority of the fees in here are for very specific services that uh you know benefit the individual or group of individuals. It's a rental, it's a class, um it's an inspection by for a development type fee. So very specific uh recovery for time of staff or or use of a facility um with regards to those costs. Um uh mayor, I do know that uh with regards to um parking at youth soccer park um and reading grants. Um these are fees specific for private use. I know there's um buses that might park there. Um I know there's uh cars that might park there. Um working with Mr. Spacino, our parks director. Um there are parking attendants that would be uh on site to help kind of govern or ensure that the fields are protected and and only the use of kind of the parking areas of of those lots are are done. Um I you know

with regards to specific logistics um I know that the BFC had a separate agreement. I know that through that the revenues generated there um we did set aside kind of a syncing fund for maintenance at that facility. It kind of sets up the model for uh any kind of revenues that are generated at that facility to be used for maintenance of the fields for replacement of the turf. Um but with regards to kind of the specific logistics around um the field and ensuring um uh you know everything is protected, I want to defer to our parks director.

Thank you. So, um, as Director Lee, um, indicated, the, um, it would be used for private, it wouldn't be used for public, it would be reserved through a, um, booking, um, similar to how we book the fields. So, it would be a reservation. There would be a wouldn't be a lease agreement. It would be more like a rental agreement. within the rental agreement, you would sign um some waiver documents that we've had vetted by both legal and risk. Um and similar to other facility rentals of both Reed and Grant, YSP or CRC um and the senior center for that matter, we have on-site. So in this case, we would call them parking attendants, but essentially they'd be facility attendants. They would be there pre-event, open up, make sure people come in, don't um access the soccer fields, and then leave when they say they're going to leave. Um, and it would all be bound by the time that we agreed that they would enter and the the time we agreed that they would leave. Um if anything occurs, we would have staff there to document it and then we would have um access to the the users directly as well as the insuranceances.

Who are these people that you're I think I think it's intended to be um large groups, bus parking. Um it's not intended to be for tailgating or for or for that matter. um from what I understand

and and I don't have I don't have a problem with the parking there. It's just we don't have an operational plan for it and these are the kinds of things that I want to talk about. Not only that, we've not gone out to the community. There's been no outreach on this to the community that this is what may happen at that at that park. We had all kinds of outreach with BFC. We approved it on the council. We had, you know, open sessions. There was a lot of transparency here. It's just a It's just a fee in there without a really defined operational plan. And if we if we're going to spend, you know, make $10,000, but we're going to spend eight on hiring private security and making sure that everyone's the fields are protected and other things. We have to look at that. But also, it should be a plan that is approved not only by the council, but the community. That's my my issue. It's just that it you're you're all telling us things right now on the fly and we don't even know where where the money is going to go. If we really want it to go back in the soccer park, we have to have a plan. So, I don't, as I said, I don't mind putting it into the fee schedule, but I think there has to be a further discussion about what what the operational plan is because how are you going to how is our staff going to stop people from tailgating or smoking or drinking at that site because that's what people do when they go to football games or concert that that's what they do. So, are we going to rely on our staff to stop people from doing that or do we need, you know, police or other things? Those are the kinds of questions that you don't need to make it up on the fly right now. I appreciate your

Sure. You know, you've been in a parking lot at a football game. You know, I've witnessed it. You've witnessed it. Possibly participated, but witnessed. Um yeah, the staff could absolutely come up with an operational plan and um whether it's presented to or um provided to the city manager to it needs to be vetted with the community. I mean, full stop. That's what needs to happen, but I appreciate the thought about it knowing that we've had 12 years of parking lot stuff at the stadium. So, we know what what to expect. we know what to expect.

Okay.

Um I could also as since I'm at the podium now can uh respond to the Wade Bruml question asked by um council member Suds um Jane uh that the Wade Brummel program is very specific to uh youth user groups who pay into the program. A lot of the youth user groups have um individual scholarship programs within their own programs. It doesn't directly benefit um general use recreation programs. So, it's kind of a closed loop funding system where the youth groups pay into a to a um to the Wade Brauml um scholarship program. the city holds the dollars in an account and then later the same groups who pay into it have a right to then um prove the the need to have monies subsidized back to help cover not just what they've paid in but also a lot of them pay in less than they actually um put out in um scholarships uh for their program users. So, it's a it's a closed loop where it goes directly back to those groups that pay into it. um they need to show what their annual scholarship programs were goes first to cover scholarships and then if there are dollars left over they can ask for um and that was a new ad to this last round when we updated the um the program um and brought it um both between the user groups and then council's approval which was they could if there's dollars left over they can ask for equipment or specific program support not for like coaching fees fees or things of that nature, but equipment and or goals or um you name it directly relative to serving the youth.

Okay. Thank you. Question. Uh Council Member Jane.

Yeah. So, um uh Director Sparino, I had a clarifying question. So, it's called a scholarship fund. So if a a young person can't afford a uniform, this fund could pay for that uniform. Is that correct? It's not, we don't distribute it directly. The city does not distribute it directly to program participants. Um the user groups themselves administer their own scholarship programs. Um what they do is what pays into the um scholarship is the non-resident user. It's it's a non-resident fee basically. Um so that the non-residents so say it's soccer and they have 500 non-residents. Each resident pay non-resident pays 20 $25. That becomes a holding dollar. So later if the soccer group gives out 30 $100 scholarships, they can then come back and say, "We want to apply for reimbursement for those 30 $100 scholarships." So the groups are administering their own scholarship program. We're really just acting as like I mentioned a clearing house for or holding for non-resident fees that were assessed that we're assessing to the user groups to use our facilities that then later the groups can come back and ask for money against those fees that are paid in for non-residents to help cover the scholarships that they pay or put out directly to their participants.

But if but if If the sports groups decide that they want to pay for offsetting the fees or or paying for uniforms, they could do that, right? We're noting that the the like I'd mentioned, um, every one of the groups that pays into the way Brummel for the non-resident fees have their own scholarship program set up within their programs. aquatics, um, artistic, um, youth soccer, and obviously PAL, um, it's highly subsidized in and recreational program. Very good. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't see any other comments. Um, council, Council Member Cox,

thanks. I'm sorry I'm late to the game. I feel like I'm a little out of my depth here, but um I think the thing that I'm curious about is the uh the phase in part which will be applicable to something like a use permit fee. So if you want to have a festival or day thing, you would get this phase in approach. I don't know that we've determined in this like the number of years this phase in um works towards if this is something then that will be outside of the annual permit. Uh how that's going to work. Um, and so the other thing that I'm just curious about is I think it's very clear to see the fee increase schedule, the rounding. I think looking at this for only the first or second time, I don't know what one of these um fees impacts us in the greatest way in terms of our general fund. So, while I could spend a lot of time looking at, you know, a really small ticket item, it wouldn't benefit, I think, the greater conversation. So, you know, I don't even know how to formulate in that in the question, but I mean, I guess I'll start with the just the phase in like if this multi-year phase in is only for planning fees right now, how is that going to be uh distributed? What does that mean if I want a temporary use permit this year?

Thank you, uh, Council Member Cox for the question. So the the phase in is a is a a mechanism I think we've approved in prior municipal fees. It's when there's a large change in in the cost and with specifics to these planning fees. There were changes in legislation. So when our consultant interviewed kind of the planning staff required to implement some of those uh new legislation, they estimated kind of the time or the hours needed to kind of review and and um uh apply kind of those costs. and and because of that additional time for staff and the additional costs, the percentages were rather large. And so in this case, um staff from community development departments proposing, okay, well, let's let's cap that increase at 20% in any given year. And and also what will happen is in future years as as we uh are informed by the actual amount of time that staff will need to to review plans based on this new legislation, the amount of time might be adjusted in future years. And so the the goal here really is a phased in approach for a cap of 20%, what happens is uh a lot of those planning fees are subsidized by our general fund. They're not fully cost recovery um in in a lot of different instances. So in those cases where they're under cost recovery, our general fund is subsidizing um the the difference uh in an effort to kind of get closer to cost recovery. But but if it's not 100% cost recovery, our general fund, general taxes, and general other fees would would cover it.

So again, I'm I'm going to try to bring this down a little bit to a level that I understand. So I I'll use Taplands as an example. They wanted to have their 10-year party. um they applied for a temporary use permit. It went up exponentially from one year to the next. So, I understand what you're saying about this large increase. What they also found out though is they were being charged more for use of their private property for a temporary use permit than they would have if they were using public property. So, I think that it would be interesting for me to see real world application of this. And I again don't want to uh hold this up, but if for some reason the council decided we love all this without maybe these two things. Are we even in a position tonight to say that we could take specific fees out or reconsider specific fees because we have to make a decision on this tonight? I feel like you didn't pay attention to my question. Just kidding.

I have thoughts. You want to share your thoughts? Please repeat that question word for word.

I paid great attention. So I think you're what you're saying is tell me what happens after this year. So if if you're being asked to approve a phase in, what is the phase in look like beyond this year? That's part one of your question. And I would say that what staff um has asked for is this idea of not to exceed a 20% per year adjustment. And that will vary depending on the fees. So if some fees are closer to full cost recovery today than others, then the phasein period would end more rapidly for them than others. But what this city has done consistently is every two years you thoroughly examine your fees. So uh this provides staff with an opportunity to receive experience from the fee and say is this phase in working or is it becoming detrimental? And at the next fee study, they can think through would we want to propose um a modification for the city council's consideration on the use permit examples. I think what was happening is that staff has broken out the idea of temporary use permits um for to account for those temporary use permits that I think require like a commission referral and um I think they're more complex than other temporary use permits. So they were trying to acknowledge that but they're still treating nonprofit related temporary use permits as highly subsidized permits. Uh any other questions that we missed?

So again the last one these eight then with the the the fees proposed for multi-year phase in all for planning are roughly in the 20% increase range. They are m they are at the 20% increase range exactly 20%. And in theory, they could go higher than that to achieve this idea of cost recovery, but staff has said, "Let's present to the council no higher than that."

Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Park.

Yes. So I understand the phase in and the phase in is to to ensure that year-over-year we don't we don't uh increase the amounts too much but the the end of the day uh we have a final cost right so we could be 20% then 20% then 20% year-over-year it's 20%. But from year 1 to year four it could be you know could triple the I don't know double the I don't know so some 20%. Uh and I guess that's that's my concern. I mean, we've seen already that how it's affected some of the youth programs, not just because of the increases, but because, you know, we have programs that have been here for, you know, tens decades and they, you know, they already had a spend budgeted. They already had funding. They already set up, uh, you know, fundraisers to raise a certain amount. And all of a sudden, we put these fees that they'd never considered before. And then the fees are a lot larger than even the cost of some of their events. I mean, I think that they were on on par with this. And some of the fees that we added were really big because they they required staff time and things like that. So, uh, you know, I I understand I I I I think I understand a little bit of what, uh, Council Member Cox is saying as well, but overall, we're limiting the increase per year, but some of these programs really need to look at what are what are the changes year-over-year, you know, for five years because again, you know, they they may not have a funding plan that increases their funding um, even 20% year upon year. So, you know, you know, these are the things that I'm worried about. We've we've made adjustments already, but what other adjustments? How are we reaching out to different groups and uh seeing that the phaseins are reasonable or they're working? I mean, I agree we we want to get to some cost recovery, but we were doing almost no cost recovery before and

we were surviving. And at some point I think we can uh especially with youth youth uh programs um reduce the the amount for specific types of programs especially sports programs, sports programs aimed at aimed at youth and things like that, right? Field usage. There were a lot of tournaments that came in asking for money because they couldn't hold their tournaments here anymore because, you know, their tournament was ra raising $4,000 and we were charging them$10,000. I mean something like that.

So just to be clear this is limit this phase in proposal is limited to to planning fees to eight of them. Several of them are linked to state housing law where staff is um responding to direction from the state in terms of reviews required and processing time required. Um there are uh and some of them are linked to environmental reviews again state state mandates in terms of of what needs to happen. So there is no proposed like significant modification to any recreation fees as part of this. This is limited to the planning fee world in your nonprofit. Um like a temporary use permit. I think council member Park would be something that you would be potentially sensitive to via that comment where if you have a a community group that's saying I want to have a particular event or something like that. Um if it is an administratively approved temporary use permit for a nonprofit agency there is no significant change proposed. These are the only time there's a proposed change and it again is limited to that 20% change is for things that need a re a referral to a commission um or are nonadministratively approved. So, uh, discreet circumstances and again staff would monitor it and come back and say, did we receive feedback to that it was detrimental to somebody? And then they would propose um a way to um sort of respond to that for city council consideration.

Yeah. And and I guess the thing that kind of stuck with me when I was asking that question was we talked about salons and restaurants and salons I think were on the order of $20,000 and um restaurants were three times that and th those aren't small numbers and when we're introducing these fees to these businesses and the businesses say oh my goodness if they bulk at these numbers what what methods are there what what remedies are there for them to come to the city and say, you know, I get it, but I can't do this right now.

So, that's a great question. And, um, I think council member Hardy mentioned the idea that these are discrete services and periodic services. So, these are not services that sort of benefit the broad community. Um, and in the development fee world, the vast majority of your development fees, the building permit fees that are sort of linked in there are proposed to increase by at the most two to three% this year. So, there is no significant change proposed. If you see something beyond that, it's like a small dollar change going from $10 to $15. And so, it works out to higher than 3%. Um, but there they're generally two to three% changes. And what we've seen is, and this is an editorial comment, but the idea is there is a cost to Santa Clara to regulate construction. It's outlined in the building code, in your fire code. And so you regulate construction. When you do that, you incur a cost. Um, if if you ask the community broadly, where would you prioritize the use of your tax dollars? Most residents would probably say, "I prioritize the use of my tax dollars towards public safety services, public works services, park maintenance services, not subsidizing a square footage addition, subsidizing a tenant improvement or something like that. And so the Santa Clara City Council has essentially said via policy that when someone receives a direct a service that directly benefits them, we will target cost recovery unless there's some other specific reason to avoid that. So we're just acknowledging that policy. But again, every fee that that you saw there, the service based fees are proposed to change by like 2 to 3%. The larger one was linked to impact fees

which are not addressed via this this item this evening at all. Yeah, I can just imagine the situation where people are saying, "Oh my goodness, you should have a business in Santa Clara because they don't charge fees and all of a sudden we're just like every other city and our our benefit is gone." Council member Hardy,

I will say um I'm a little concerned. I worry that not everybody went through and read every line like I did of what it was. And that's why I made the joke about I'm not going to have a hydrant. It's too expensive to rent those because that was one of the costs that went way up because these are planning costs and this is for businesses is very specific and we have a state law that says we cannot take in more than what it costs us. We're very careful of that. So with that, I will make a recommendation for staffs. There's three parts to it. Set the new fees and changes, amend the existing fees, and delete certain fees. Thank you.

Second.

Um, maker the motion. I would ask if you could include in there asking staff to come back with a comprehensive operational plan for both Soccer Park and Reed and Grant. um to include a direction to where the proceeds will be directed from any proceeds from parking. Um answering questions like who this does not all have to be in there, but who's managing this for us? Are we doing it ourselves? Is there an outside group? Are there stadium ops managing? and outreach to our user youth groups that are using these properties and to come back to the council with an operational plan.

I want to ask uh possibly the director or also our council um this sounds to me like we would be getting into the weeds of operational and not policy. I would like I would like some maybe I can I clarify

to come back so that the council then creates a policy because we don't have a policy. So I guess I said it wrong that to come back with a comprehensive policy for parking at youth soccer park and Reed and Grant but also when we bring it back to do outreach to the youth groups that are using these facilities that would be fine. Okay. Thank you, staff. I appreciate that. I will amend the motion. Thank you. City clerk has that

motion second. Do you have that, city clerk? Motion on the floor is um staff recommendation. Recommendation and direct staff to return with a comprehensive operational plan policy for the youth soccer park at Reed and Grant. Parking. Oh, parking. parking stadium parking at Reed and Grant and second. Okay, the second.

All right. So, we have a motion in a second. When you're ready, assistant city clerk Please register your vote and that passes unanimously of those present. Thank you very much. Thank you for all the hard work on that on that plan. All right. The next item is reports of members of special committees and council member 030 requests. Do we have any?

All right. City manager executive director report. Well, you need to press the button so that I see. Madam Mayor, I' I'd like to explain. They pressed it on the previous when I clicked on this item, the hands go away. So, you need to give me a moment to get there. Thank you very much, Council Member Jane, followed by Cox. Yes.

Yes. Thank you, mayor. Um, yeah. Per city policy, um, on March 25th, we we've had some very late council meetings, so we haven't had reports of members, so I had to defer this to tonight instead of the next council meeting. But on March 25th, I attended the uh opening of the new facility for the family giving tree in Santa Clara. And I was given this bag of goodies. I received a uh reusable straw. I received a little seed packet. I received a sticker and I received a thing of lip balm and I received this pen. So, um I just want to disclose that I received these gifts for city policy. And then um on March 31st, the students from ESMO came to here in city hall city council chambers and uh we talked to the students and what I received from them was uh this box of cookies and uh they're not vegan so anybody who wants them can have them. Um, and then I received this tote bag that's this very nice tote bag with EMO on it. Um, and then I received this brochure from EMO. So, I just wanted to declare that I had received those gifts. Thank you,

Council Member Cox. On um April 9th, I attended the city's association legislative action committee and the board of directors meetings. Um, the LACE reviewed a number of early stage bills. two were supported by the city of Santa Clara. That was SB1159 that addresses the growing issue of artificial intelligence in public processes by clarifying that AI systems cannot be treated as participants in public comment or governance. Um and um lost my other one. Several other bills were reviewed but did not result in formal position. Uh the LACE has identified a few bills for future discussion, including SB922, which would clarify local authority to recover street maintenance costs, and AB1821, which would extend resp uh response times under the public records act. Um on the board side, we largely focused on safety uh through the emergency response uh operations plans of each of the cities. I would like to say that largely the discussion was focused on the success of Super Bowl in Santa Clara through our EOC. So we received a lot of um great accolades and kudos to our staff and uh safety personnel on that. Uh that night they again reminded us of the SEC alert system which Santa Clara I believe only has about 8% 7% of our residents signed up. the city's doing really well, have about 28, but um to the director's point, that meant that nearly 30% or 70% of the residents are not getting notifications when emergencies occur. So, I left um in a silly way. Thank you, council member. Everybody, emergency response cards. I did not realize that they were either in English on one side and on the back either to Spanish or Chinese. So, um uh I didn't separate them. If you would like, I can take them back and give you all uh a different language, but I I

didn't look at them before I gave them out. But these are great for your communities to distribute so there's awareness about the emergency alert system and hopefully get more members of the Santa Clara community signed up. Thank you. Anyone else? All right, we are Oh, city manager, executive director report.

No report. All right, we are going to adjourn to close session. But before we do that, uh I will be adjourning the meeting later, but I wanted to read we have two adjournments this evening. The first adjournment um I would like to ask the uh the city that we tell the council we will be adjourning tonight's meeting in memory of Joe Sinski. Joe Sazinski of Santa Clara recently passed away this month. Joe started his professional journey in the United States military working in military intelligence. After the military, he transitioned into the corporate world, spending 25 years at Hulip Packard working in engineering, sales, management, and marketing. In 20 thou 2007, Joe retired from HP, ready to begin a new chapter. He co-founded BrainShare Coach, a business mentoring company. With BrainShare, Joe impacted more than 2,000 businesses annually. And through their platform, BrainShare, he has helped over 10,000 businesses unlock their potential. for his efforts and accomplishments. Influence Digest recognized Joe as one of the top business and executive coaches in the San Francisco Bay area. Giving back was also a core part of Joe's life. He has served on the executive board of the American Red Cross of Silicon Valley for multiple years and the board of the college of adapted arts which provides equitable higher education opportunities for adults with special needs. Joe was also the recent past chairman of the board for the Silicon Valley Chamber of

Commerce and Innovation. He was a strong supporter, participant and volunteer for the longstanding Santa Clair Parade of Champions and Festival. Secondly, we will be adjourning tonight's meeting in memory of Stuart Samson. Stuart Samson of Santa Clara recently passed away this month. Born on March 29th, 1945 in Pasadena, Stuart grew up in Piedmont, California, graduating from Piedmont High and UC Berkeley with the Bachelor of Science in Business. Stuart was a sea scout serving in the US Coast Guard, an administrator at Loheed Martin in Sunnyville, and before retiring, he pursued his passion for due process working as a parallegal. Stuart had a deep love and active connection to nature. Early on, he developed into an avid outdoorsman with a special love for the Sierra Nevada. An active conservationist, he strongly advocated for its preservation and care, particularly the Tahoe Basin and Yusede Valley. He enjoyed world travel and engaged in multiple land and sea experiences. An enthusiast of hiking, camping, boating, and deep sea diving, he won major recognition for his work in underwater photography. A significant amount of his time in the Bay Area was spent as a committed volunteer with two prominent community service organizations, the Santa Clara Elks and the Santa Clara Lions, where whose work extended into greater regions of California. This important work helped countless young students access higher education through a combination of scholarships and mentoring. His many years of

stewardship brought him lifelong friendships and service recognition. Stuart is survived by his sister Kathleen Samson McWills, his niece Jenny Deiani, nephew Teddy McWills, and his great niece Elise Carlson. So, uh, we will be adjourning to close session. We have one item we're going to be talking about. Uh, city attorney. Yes, madame mayor. Um, one item as listed on the agenda, item seven, conference with labor negotiators, city representatives as listed, the employee organization under discussion is the unclassified fire management unit 9B.

All right. And for the public, we normally don't do close session at the end of the meeting. This is new for us. Is there any public comment on close session? Council member Park. Yeah. I just wanted to make a a note about Joe Suzinski, which is Okay, let's let me finish this first. Do we have any p Okay, there's no public comment. So, after this comment, we're going into close session. Go ahead, please.

Yeah, I just wanted to make a note about Joe Suzinski. I mean, I've known Joe for almost as long as I've known about the Chamber of Commerce. uh he was one of the first people that reached out to me when I was a resident coming to council meetings which seems like a long time ago when I was uh out in the audience not not here. Um and he is one of the board members that consistently came to events and I think that we saw him not even two weeks ago and so when I got the the uh text message that he had passed away I was kind of in shock. I actually uh pulled over tried to call a few people but um Joe will be missed. Um, I have a lifetime supply of responsive yo-yos thanks to Joe. Um, but, uh, it's almost I cannot believe that he's he's gone because I remember every time I went down, I would see him. I would talk to him, he would talk to me. Uh, and we'll see how we how the next uh, events go. But thank you very much for your service, Joe.

Thank you. We will be adjourning to close session now.