City Council and Authorities Concurrent - meeting_joint

All right, we're going to get our special council meeting for September 1st in order. If we can have a roll call.

So the confirmation of a quorum, I'm confirming your quorum. And just a note for the record that Council Member Shahal is online.

All right. Yes, I'm online and I posted my agenda. Nobody's in the room. Thank you, Nora.

Thank you for that. And we will go over this again at seven o'clock.

All right, we're gonna get started with our item one action to accept the resignation and conduct applicant interviews and appoint one applicant to the Planning Commission to serve one partial term ending June 30th, 2030.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Gonzales. So I'll just note for the record that all of the applicants have received the logistics of this evening. They will have three minutes to do an introduction of themselves, followed by the council questions that were sent to them as well, then conclude with a one minute. You will be selecting this evening to appoint one to that partial term. And our first, is he on, okay. So the first candidate is Najmul Hai, and he is on remotely, so we'll move him over.

Hi there, can everybody hear me?

We can hear you, good evening.

Good evening, thank you for letting me join and be a candidate for your planning commission.

No problem, thank you for applying, and we're gonna get started here with your three-minute introduction.

My name is Najmal Hai. I've been a resident of Santa Clara when I moved here in 97, and so I bought my home here in Santa Clara in 2003, and my kids have gone to the, in Santa Clara, in the school district, From third grade onward, my oldest and my youngest have been here from kindergarten all the way to high school, everybody, my daughter. All three kids have gone through the universities here in California. I, as a professional, the software engineer director at a company, software company in the Bay Area. I wanted to volunteer to give some time back to the community as a manager and as a director and other, I've been also volunteering to NGOs and the boards. I'd like to talk about strategic planning. planning, planning our future endeavors, and I have an MBA background, and that fits my alley that I thought, great, if I can help out the Planning Commission in planning projects for the city, give some time back to the city, I think that'd be worthwhile for myself.

So that's a little about me. Thank you.

Thank you for that. We're gonna get started with our questions, and the first question will be given by Council Member Shahal.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you for applying, Nazmul. My first question is, what development in Santa Clara is a good example of planning, and why?

I'd like to have a development for me personally, open space and parks. because we do need more parks and open space area for our citizens in Santa Clara. Yes, we need development, nothing wrong with development, but we need open spaces for young people, for people, for young kids to move around and enjoy the beautiful, our city, Santa Clara and everything about it. So I like to plan more parks, recreational areas, planning that out to say, you know, let's build some open spaces, not just, you know, development. Development's important. Housing, other developments are very important also and everything else, but having development spaces for people, for parks to recreational is important also. That would be, you know, having a planning for the development of open spaces is a nice thing, personally. Okay, thanks.

Thank you. We're gonna get Councilwoman Hardy will have question too.

Thank you. Do you have any thoughts about the El Camino specific area plan?

I saw the plan and it's interesting. I mean, nothing specific. I mean, I just briefly reviewed it. I didn't go in depth of it. I should have looked at it more, apologized to that. But it was interesting, I mean, I have to look at it in more detail. Sorry about that one, I apologize.

Thank you.

Thank you, and I'll be giving you the third question, which is Santa Clara continues to face significant pressure for new housing and development, while residents are concerned about traffic, infrastructure, neighborhood character, and quality of life. How would you approach balancing these competing interests when considering a development proposal?

As you said, it has to be a balance. I mean, I would look at how many, I mean, units we currently have in the city. How many do we need, especially for our basic service people, you know, fired, uh, uh police teachers you know you know you know you know they have to commute far away and low income uh for low-income housing people so uh so they can afford to live in the city because we need people who live in here but i i obviously i cannot you know we cannot overbuild also and cram everybody you know in higher building because it's very difficult so it's a balance you know to convert uh I know a lot of corporate buildings are being empty because people are working more and more from home. And so we can look at converting commercial building into residential buildings more. And because I know a lot of people, a lot of corporations are, you know, work remote home is there, like our company. We closed our Santa Clara office. We made 100% remotely. I think other companies, if they don't have long-term leases, are going to that model because it makes it a lot easier financially for them, and it opens up opportunity for a city like ours.

Thank you. Council Member Park will give the next question.

Yes. Thank you very much. Planning commissioners are sometimes faced with strong opinions from residents, developers, organizations, and other stakeholders. How would you evaluate a project fairly and independently when there is significant public advocacy on both sides?

I would look at the concerns of the residents, but I also have to weigh the benefit overall of the city. And it's a hard thing to trade off. Any project, you can look at trade, cost and benefit analysis, and you have to see You know, yes, if the resident's 100% against it and the trade-off is not that much, you might side with the resident. But if it's almost like a balanced equal out, I mean... you have to weigh that it's a tough decision. You know, sometimes you may have to go against the resident's feeling to put something that's better for the greater community, you know, for that. I mean, it's a tough act, but you look at cost-benefit value. If I'm getting more values, let's say in housing provides, I mean, let's say housing provides more low-income homes, that for me, for our community and the people are against it, you know, I said, you know, there's a greater benefit for those building a new home construction for a certain segment that we need more as important as a city because we need to have affordable homes in our cities also. So yes, I would look at the cost-benefit analysis. If it's simply developers trying to maximize profit for private things, that's one thing. But if it's more of a community good in that project, I would weigh that more.

Thank you very much, sir.

And that concludes the questions. You'll have your one minute now to close your remarks.

I thank you for the opportunity. I'm so sorry I did not review the El Camino project. I apologize for that. But hopefully if you do select me, I'll be more than honored to serve in the planning commission.

Thank you very much. Thank you, and if you stick around, you'll see, we'll be deciding on this here after we hear from all the applicants, so you can stick around if you want.

Thank you, I will stick around, thank you.

You're welcome. Just a quick little pause. But Jonathan will get ready.

I'll be right back here.

Tap that mic, I think it should be on.

Hello, hello, hello, hello.

All right, so we'll continue here. And Jonathan Marinaro, if you have your three minutes, opening remarks.

Thank you, Vice Mayor, as well as the council members. It's always a pleasure seeing all your faces today. Except for you, Raj, I will just have to hear your delightful voice. With that in mind, I have been a citizen of Santa Clara for going on 14 years now. It seems like it's a short time, but I've been actually coming on up here as a kid because my grandma still lives over behind Santa Clara High. Eight years ago, I actually wanted to be on this commission. This was what actually chooses, figures out how the city grows. It figures out the intent and what we want to do with it. And after applying and getting delightfully knocked on out, I was approached by the council members at the time who said I should apply to one of the other commissions, that my time could be better used working there and bringing the energy and ideas I had to that. With that I did seven years of our amazing cultural commission. Please go to our events, they're fantastic. And then a year on our BPAC where we transitioned that on over from a basically ad hoc kind of in the middle committee onto a proper Brown Act compliant commission. It was that year that really brought my love of transportation on into the forefront, because now I was working directly with the folks who advised you on this, who understood and didn't just have to deal with the aspects of placemaking, but really getting between those places and understanding that placemaking is not just location, but everything in between and how it ties together. That knowledge, that experience has been foundational to me wanting to come back here and apply again for the Planning Commission. I am very happy that Nancy's doing well. I'm sad that she's no longer on the Planning Commission. But after chatting with her over years and many events, I'm excited to petition to fill her shoes on this. Um, with that in mind, I have a background in journalism and working on in that space as well as once again, the eight years of that, uh, working directly with all of you on many, many different projects all over the city. So, uh, please choose me for planning commission.

Thank you. And, uh, with that, we'll get started with our questions. So council member Jane.

Thank you for applying, Jonathan. What development in Santa Clara is a good example of planning and why?

So I don't think good planning should necessarily be judged whether a project is perfect. I look at whether the planning process successfully reconciled the constraints of the site with the needs of the surrounding community. With that in mind, I'm actually really impressed with what's happened with Santa Clara Square. It, as a development, has done wonders to an area with a certain amount of nightlife, walkability, market access, and just placemaking that, as someone that's watched the planning commission meetings when that was first being built, because that's when I was originally going through and applying, I'm very impressed with how that turned out as a aspect of not just what could potentially be, but what was actually done at the end of that. You know, it's a mix. You want to address not just what individual citizens in a district need, but you need to address what the city needs. You need to look at how that can help us grow smartly and innovatively. It's because of that development, not just the commerce and the residences, but the industrial and I guess heavy commercial space around it, that has netted us three more Fortune 500 companies, which is fantastic. I'm really excited to see where the planning is going to be going forward with now NVIDIA's third building that's over on Walsh. And so it's really that example of just innovation, but really good planning that's creating places, not just projects.

Thank you. We'll continue on with Council Member Chauhal.

Thank you, Esmir. Thanks for applying, Jonathan. My question to you is, do you have any thoughts about the El Camino specific area plan?

El Camino holds a special place in my heart. I actually grew up on the southern end of it, down near San Juan Capistrano. So having come on up here and driven along one of our biggest, I guess our biggest strode, it really also impacted me with regards to being on the BPAC. We're looking to turn that into a bikeable and walkable corridor on that as well, which seems insane to most. And yet you look at what's been done with that same stretch in other cities nearby, and it's fantastic. The value of the specific plan is that we're deciding what we want Elk Community to become before deciding those individual projects. We want to give an idea, we want to give a metric of where to work with. You know, it borders established neighborhoods. It contains neighborhood serving businesses, and it's a major transportation route with a visible part of Santa Clara. You know, the idea of having a specific plan to work out that middle ground, be able to get people through it and to places, but also not take over neighborhoods characteristics is important. and i think the you know the density alone does not tell you whether a project is good you know it's not just about putting that on up there it's seeing what else has been built that draws people to that area thank you very much councilman hardy yes

Santa Clara continues to face significant pressure for new housing and development, while residents are concerned about traffic, infrastructure, neighborhood character, and quality of life. How would you approach balancing these competing interests when considering a development proposal?

There's a false binary I found in this that people believe it's either the old post-war neighborhood characteristic or New York. And the choice shouldn't be between development at any cost or preservation of that status quo at any cost. It should be good development. We want to start with a framework that understands the state law we have to deal with, the general plan, an applicable specific plan, and then the zoning required findings. Take, for example, the state requirements around the dense public transportation. That circle directly nets us Santa Clara U and a whole bunch of old quad houses. How are we going to develop that so that it is useful? Well, we look north. We look to that area between the train tracks and the airport to be able to develop what is traditionally a industrial space into the density that should be around a BART station, that should be around Caltrain and all multimodal transportation there. You know, the change itself is not automatically an impact. You know, change is going to happen. That is the point of a planning commission. This city will grow. The idea is setting it on up for success, setting it on up so that when that change happens, we're able to mitigate that impact on people and allow for the greatest growth possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, and the last question is, planning commissioners are sometimes faced with strong opinions from residents, developers, organized people, and other stakeholders. How would you evaluate your project fairly and independently when there is a significant public advocacy on both sides?

I have a bit of experience with this, with both the Cultural Commission and the BPAC. You know, everybody deserves to be heard. No one's entitled to that predetermined outcome is the biggest thing. I've had people come on up to me when I was planning a free party that was easily accessible with food, sometimes even provided, and they had complaints. I've gone through and dealt with people who want to shut down every car transportation corridor in this city and make it all just bikes and pedestrians. You know, it's a combination of finding out what their actual desire is, what they want, how you can not please them, but understand their issues on this. You know, public participation is essential, but participation decision-making are different responsibilities. You wanna start with the record, that staff report and applicable plans. You want studies and evidence. You want required findings. It's all of that work that's done beforehand that if somebody is raging against it but it's already established, I'm sorry. There's nothing we can do about something like that. But don't count the speakers. If you have 10 people in a room, that one person that's up against it counts just as much. They have an opinion that may just also need to be heard about this because maybe the other people aren't able to show up to a meeting. You want to separate the volume of advocacy from the merits of the argument. And really, it comes back down to my work with the Brown Act and the BPAC because, I mean, it's taking what is legally required and then taking the opinions of the folks that are out there and understanding that it's not choosing who wins, who gets it right. It's about figuring out what is the best use of that space to move forward with and to figure out what may be drawbacks that are there and address them.

Thank you. And now you have your one minute closing.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Really, planning commission is probably – no, it is the most important commission when it comes to cities because the choice of going through and taking the nitty-gritty load off your shoulders of individual easements to zoning to property fines – I have a breadth of experience, and I have shown to not just be capable of doing the job, but have done the job in finding consensus, in figuring out what's the best move forward. And I think that's what makes me the perfect candidate to, well, fill Nancy's shoes, as she's done before me. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we're going to hear from applicant Jeffrey Jeff Padraza. So Jeff, you have your three minutes opening statement.

Thank you, council members, vice mayor, staff, thank you for being here for us tonight. I moved to Santa Clara in 1989, literally a month before the earthquake, so welcome for Jeff on that. Met my now wife and moved into what I never thought would be a lifetime here. I first moved into an apartment on Homestead Avenue next to Firehouse 3. After being able to buy in San Jose, right on the north side of San Jose near the Santa Clara border, I moved back into the Carney Farms area to the home I've called for 35 years. I now have three kids who we raised in that development and gone through the Santa Clara Unified System through Sutter, through Booker Middle, and in Santa Clara High, two of those schools of which my wife went to, which was nice to see actually some people from those days. I spent 30 years in high-tech sales until COVID when I aged out and then transitioned into real estate. I got a chance to move around the area of Santa Clara to see what is there, what has been moved, and as someone who lives on the south side, thought the north side was really going to take place. Over my time here, I've seen this city change from a rural city to a more urban city. I used to drive down the street and see the orchards where Kaiser is. I used to drive down the Lawrence and see the Powell Palace. Yes, I know it's Sunnyvale, but now it's townhomes. I'd love the opportunity to help, excuse me, I'm a little nervous, I'm not going to lie, to help influence the growth that Santa Clara has in front of us while maintaining the beauty that we have and still can have again. especially as Santa Clara looks to its redevelopment of the old golf and tennis court and as we see the sunset of Great America. We're losing our entertainment and I'd like to see and possibly help influence what we have in store for our futures.

Thank you. We'll get started with our questions and we'll start with Council Member Park.

Thank you very much for applying. Thank you. What development in Santa Clara is a good example of planning and why?

Thank you Councilman Park. Came down to twice when I was looking through these questions that it was either going to be Santa Clara Square or Lawrence Station. Since Jonathan talked about Santa Clara Square, I'm going to concentrate on Lawrence Station. Lawrence Station is a prime example of utilizing the state's Metropolitan Transportation Commission to utilize and get growth in areas near public transportation. It also, based on the fact that I do have two 25-year-old twins telling me that they don't want to drive around town anymore, fulfills the need of having an area where you don't have to drive. Areas like Montecito, where you can go down from your apartment and uphill and get your groceries, a pizza at California Pizza Kitchen, or your Starbucks coffee in the morning. This is what we're looking for. It needs to be a short distance to work and to be able to stay here when we get back home.

Thank you. Thank you very much, sir.

Council Member Jane.

Thank you, Jeff. Do you have any thoughts about the El Camino Real specific plan?

I absolutely do. It was great to read, well, not all 267, 216 pages of the brief, but it is giving this outside something that's really needed. Personally, this addresses a problem that I always felt needed to be corrected. As major land areas, like the 10 acres on Lawrence Square, the 15 acres of Moonlight, and the other 12 at Lawrence Plaza, They're all underutilized. This plan would be able to help that with the addition of almost 4,400 houses, additional businesses, restaurants, and the needs that we need. I drive down El Camino. We only have 3.2 miles of a historic road, but it needs something to make us pop. We're here, we can do it, but we just need to put that plan into effect. One thing that I didn't see in the plan that I'm very happy about is because of the traffic congestion that a lot of this is gonna take, we're not bringing a third, we're not taking a dedicated road for buses and public transportation on El Camino.

It won't.

It took me seven, 10 minutes to get here. Would it take me 20 with that? So I look forward to helping implement that.

Thank you. The final question will be read by Councilmember Chahal.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think it's the third one. We got you. Don't worry. Thanks for applying, Jeff. Santa Clara continues to face significant pressure for new housing and development. While the residents are concerned about traffic, infrastructure, neighborhood character, and quality of life. How would you approach balancing these competing interests when considering a development proposal?

It would definitely be our job on the Planning Commission to look at these complex impacts. Yes, additional housing creates more traffic, but if we can do it the right way and we minimize how far people have to go to, whether it's traveling from Killarney Farms to Costco, whether it's the one on Kiefer or the one on Coleman, keeping us where we need to be. We don't have the grocery stores, we don't have the department stores that we had just a dozen, 15 years ago. By bringing that back and allowing people to travel less, traffic actually goes down. By allowing people to be closer to public transit to get people to public transportation, again, that brings traffic down. Infrastructure will work itself out as we run those simulations to figure out what we'll need in the future, depending on the type of housing, whether it's rental or point of sale and ownership. Ownership brings in a lot more families. Apartments bring in young families or single people. Infrastructure will change depending on what route we take for that. Thank you.

Now the final question will be read by Councilmember Hardin.

Planning commissioners are sometimes faced with strong opinions from residents, developers, organized, and they get other stakeholders. Didn't write this one, I'm just reading it. How would you evaluate a project fairly and independently when there is significant public advocacy on both sides?

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who can get tongue-tied up here. This is a great situation, and you're probably going to have an unpopular opinion of this, but obviously public opinion is very, you know, there's 130-ish thousand people here in Santa Clara, is what I looked at, depending on what numbers you believe. Everybody wants paradise for themselves, but everybody's not going to get paradise. When I was in high-tech sales, I never thought to myself, hey, we got a win-win. No, we got a lease lost for lease lost. So you're going to maybe get a park, not in your complex, but close by that you can walk your kids to. It's just going to be the matter that we are going to have to bridge the gaps between the city's needs in terms of the revenues for those common areas, the infrastructure that's going to be needed, bringing people here that want to stay and want to call Santa Clara our home, just like so many of us on this side of the podium and on that side of the podium. So bottom line is we're not going to make everybody happy. Everybody does deserve to be heard. And, you know, sometimes what they want is not just going to happen, unfortunately. Thank you.

Thank you for that. And with that, you have your one-minute closing statement.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. So about a couple of years ago, when I realized that I was more on the retirement side of my career, I started getting more involved with things. And real estate kind of opened my eyes as to what was going on in my main city. Contrast here. We have amazing roots. The average homeowner here doesn't sell their home for almost 19 years. In some areas, it's a five to seven. There's reasons people want to stay here, and I want to keep it that way. My sons recently moved out of the house at 25 because of the high cost, and they couldn't stay in Santa Clara just because they couldn't find things in their budget. I want to bring them back. I want other people to bring back. And I hope that my influence and the influence of the other members of the Planning Commission can do things that would allow others to enjoy this city the same way I have. I thank you for your time.

Thank you. And thank you for applying. With that, our fourth candidate applicant is Nicholas Rapido.

So if you can...

On that question number four, the author meant to say organized groups. I think it's a typo.

Sorry.

So, yeah, you have your three-minute opening statement, so go ahead. Thank you very much. My name is Nick Rapeto. I was born in Santa Clara at Kaiser Hospital just almost 26 years ago. I've been a Santa Clara resident my entire life, all 25 years. I went to Bowers Elementary School when I was five or six. And then I transferred to a school in San Jose, St. Leo's. And I spent my middle school there. And after that, I wanted to go or I wanted to stay back in Santa Clara for the rest of my high school. So I went to St. Lawrence High School, which is located near Prince Expressway. and also i went to wilson in like almost the old quad area next to the monastery that going to that school gave me the opportunity to graduate early i was able to graduate when i was 16. and because of that i had to i my pretty much only option for continuing school at that point was to go to de anza or just any community college because Didn't get the chance to take the SATs, because I graduated before that was open to me, but did that, and because I went to community college, I was able to just transfer into a four-year, so that worked out. Went to San Jose State, and then got my, I got a degree from the Department of Geography and Urban Planning. Since then, I've been working in the solar industry, Just installations and just doing that because I'm interested in both the energy industry and now I'm here because also my other interest is planning. Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Thank you.

We're going to get started with the questions. So I'll start with the first question, which is what development in Santa Clara is a good example of planning and why?

I think both the developments that I was thinking or that were mentioned already, Santa Clara Square and the other one that was mentioned. I was mainly thinking of Santa Clara Square mainly because it is a new development and it's kind of outside the rest of Santa Clara. It's more in the office area, industrial area. So most residents, I feel, aren't too connected to it, but it does provide an opportunity for people to travel there, get away for a little bit, and it's a good location for just traveling to. It's right next to 101 and major arteries, so it kind of makes sense to have a development in that area.

Thank you. Question two will be read by Council Member Park. Yes.

Thank you very much for applying. Thank you. Do you have any thoughts about the El Camino Real specific plan?

You know, I have some positive thoughts and a little bit of negative thoughts about the El Camino.

Only the negative thoughts. Oh. I'm kidding.

I probably live closer to the El Camino than anyone else here, probably. I live like right in the backyard to it. So I kind of, it's like probably a minute walk away from where I live. There are a lot of good things about it. I think developing the El Camino is necessary because it is a major corridor, and I think more focus should be on developing it, especially talking to the owners of businesses who have one-story, two-story kind of commercial buildings, and also the ones that are vacant along the entire stretch of the road. There's a significant amount of vacant properties or underutilized properties along that whole route, and some of them have been absent or absentee for more than 10 years, and it's just kind of sad to see that such a major road is being neglected. That's like the negative or the positive parts about it. The negative parts, in my opinion, it doesn't really concern me. When you think of, like, in my example, I live in a one-story house, and a lot of the plan or the El Camino-specific plan talks about wanting larger or like higher density residential buildings along the whole El Camino. And you know, it's kind of like a one story to six story kind of transition. In some ways that kind of bothers me and rubs me the wrong way just because you have like 100 windows looking down at you, that kind of opinion. It kind of doesn't bother me in a way because It would be nicer to see a little bit of medium residential houses kind of in the area, but higher residential is probably the better investment to have just because these buildings are intended to sit there or just kind of serve the community for many decades, not just 10 years or 20 years down the line.

Thank you very much, sir.

Next question will be read by Council Member Chain.

Thank you, Nicholas, for applying. Santa Clara continues to face significant pressure for new housing and development, while residents are concerned about traffic, infrastructure, neighborhood character, and quality of life. How will you approach balancing these competing interests when considering a development proposal?

I think just simply meeting in the middle is the best way to appease as many people as possible. You can't really pick overwhelmingly one side or the other. You have to show that you care a little bit for everyone and show that you're not being unjust towards some people and not listening to other people. So kind of like gathering an opinion pool of what the thoughts are out there in the community is the most important thing you have to do. I think also finding alternatives to especially just big development plans. I was thinking like kind of in relation to the other question that's been asked, that it's probably a better idea to place more development in areas, certainly along corridors, like the major expressways, Lawrence Expressway, and probably Santa Mas, even though there isn't a lot of development going on Santa Mas because it's mostly surrounded by residences. But it makes most sense to have those kind of corridors developed more so than... like the middle of corridors or in areas that are far away from transit corridors. And also, this kind of is a related topic, but there is what's called SB79. It is kind of like a state-imposed legislation to promote the construction or... basically control the development of the corridors in the area. It kind of overshadows local, or from what I know, it overshadows most of the, a lot of local planning. So in one example of how you meet in the middle with that, it's kind of hard when you have the state saying something and then local residences being at odds with that and they're like, we don't have voices because our city is being overshadowed by the state. And the other alternative that has shown up for people combating that kind of things is like getting sued by the state because you're not abiding by like the legislation that's being suggested. I think some kind of pushing against that is probably necessary just to have the voices of the residents heard. But just so input is from both directions.

Thank you. And the final question will be read by... That was the third question.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thanks for applying, Nicholas. Planning Commissioners are sometimes faced with strong opinions from residents, developers, organized groups, and other stakeholders. How would you evaluate a project fairly and independently when there is significant public advocacy on both sides?

I think this question is a little bit similarly worded to the other one. And my response would just be almost the same thing. It's just meet in the middle with both parties or all parties. Make sure everyone's voices are considered. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. You have your one minute of closing statement now.

So I might not have all the experience as all the other candidates here. There are certainly a number of other, or everyone here is certainly qualified to, in my eyes, have like a position here. I really liked what I heard here. But I think Specifically, if you want a voice for the El Camino itself, just the corridor, I travel the corridor every single day, weekends included. So I know what, I've seen the changes that have happened across the El Camino over the last 25 years. And for input on the corridor itself, I think I'd be the best candidate. because I'm familiar with all the communities along the corridor, and I've seen it change over the last couple decades.

Thank you, and thank you for applying. All right, with that, our last but not least candidate, Sean Williams, if you can go ahead and give your three-minute opening statement.

Thanks for the confidence.

First off, I want to say to each candidate that got up here, you guys had some valid points. Your passions are amazing. And listening to what you had to say about our city filled me with even more pride as a Santa Clarin. So thank you guys. That's pretty awesome. My name is Sean Williams. I've been a Santa Clarin for quite a while. My children went to school here. I almost sound redundant with these guys, but... I've been involved with a lot of city activities as of recent, the EDMC, the Global Relations Committee, the Faces of Santa Clara, which I saw many of you at last night, but not you, man. Where were you at? But it's okay. It's been a privilege and an honor to be involved with these voluntary projects. to showcase my love for the city and to highlight other people that have been involved with our city and to bring some really awesome events to the city. The other thing I did a while back, I wanna say it was 2016, was serve on the planning commission. I had to step down for some personal reasons. I had some family issues going on. I regret that that happened, however, Those issues have been resolved for quite some time, which is why I got involved with the EDMC and other committees, as I previously stated. And now I'm coming back for the Planning Commission. As a Santa Clara, I've seen a lot of growth and I've seen both ends. I've seen growth that I like, I see growth that I don't like. But ultimately, I think that Santa Clara is headed in the right direction. And as a proud Santa Clara, I really want to be a part of that. I'm also a small business owner. I own a studio, tattoo parlor, drum school, and live venue in downtown San Jose. We actually had to move because they built condos on our old property. So I understand that growth is important and the future is moving forward no matter what. It's one of the biggest reasons why I wanna be a part of this. I'm passionate about our city.

Thank you.

We will get started with our questions. So Council Member Harding.

What development in Santa Clara is a good example of planning and why?

What John said. Everything he said, Santa Clara Square, what I wrote down was it took an industrial area and created a neighborhood that aligns with the hometown vibe of our city while truly showing growth and where the future of Santa Clara is headed. A lot of these little pop-up cities, you know, these little 15-minute cities, I think they're calling them, or 15-minute towns where everything is right there, even... Oh, my gosh. Is Montecito, is that the name of it? Yeah. I was just over there. I'm in a shop at that Knob Hill, and California Pizza Kitchen's cool. That kind of stuff, having the convenience of that, it cuts down on congestion, just as everybody else stated. I think that is that, but over there off of Santa Clara Square, that's brilliant because it has been sitting empty for quite a while, and to see something popping up right next to the stadium other than empty office buildings is pretty awesome.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I have question number two. Do you have any thoughts about the El Camino specific area plan?

Sir, yes, sir. It is a solid concept, again, allowing growth for our city while keeping our hometown vibe that we all love so much. It's a win-win for Santa Clara, and it sets a stage for future projects. That's clearly where everything is headed, and I think it was a good vision, it was executed well, or it will be executed well, and I think that as it moves forward, it's gonna be a good win for us. I mean, we're on the global stage now, so let's show them what we can do with our space.

Thank you, and question number three is by Council Member Park.

Thank you very much for coming.

Hey, you're welcome. I came to see you, buddy.

I actually knew that. So Santa Clara continues to face significant pressure for new housing and development while residents are concerned about traffic, infrastructure, neighborhood character, and quality of life. How would you approach balancing these competing interests when considering a development proposal?

That is a great question, I'm glad you asked. One approach is to not treat it as a competition at all. Rather, evaluate each proposal as a complete neighborhood assessment or investment. With an ongoing housing crisis, we have to ask how much the housing proposal, what it brings to our community and what comes with it to keep a functional Santa Clara moving forward. Thank you very much, sir.

You're welcome.

Councillor Margiano asked question number four.

Thank you, Sean, for replying. Sorry I missed you yesterday.

That's okay, buddy. Thank you for, or you're welcome for replying.

Planning commissioners are sometimes faced with strong opinions from residents, developers, organized stakeholders. How would you evaluate a project fairly and independently when there is significant public advocacy on both sides?

Okay, well, to reiterate what's already been said, you can't please everybody, all the people all of the time, but we're also not selling ice cream here either. What we're doing is building the future of our city. And I think the most, solid approach would be to review what the evidence and what the city policy is and the current laws tell me. It's not which side has the better argument, but what we are legally allowed to do, and I mean, as John stated, you listen to everybody, you take in their input, but what it boils down to is the law and what we're really allowed to do, I think.

Thank you.

Thank you, and with that, we'll have your one minute closing statement.

Okay, these guys are great. I really was impressed and I felt underprepared as I listened to their speeches and their answers. However, I do have experience with the city planning commission and I would like to continue that experience. I have experience giving back to the city and I would love to continue that. So with your vote, I think that gives me the opportunity to do so. And also thank all of you for listening to me. I'm usually verbose, but I kept my answers short on purpose.

Thank you. So with that, I'll open it up to the council.

The council may deliberate, and when you're ready, you can either, however, that we do have a public speaker. This normally doesn't occur, but we have someone online who has their hand up to make a comment. This is a public meeting, so it is open to public comment.

All right, so we'll go ahead and take public comment now. Is anybody here from the, in the chamber that want to speak? We'll take the person online, Kirk Vartan.

Good evening council members, Kirk Vartan here. You've now heard from all five candidates. As you deliberate, I ask you to weigh what you heard tonight against three tests. First, when the city's adopted policies, the general plan, the housing element, point one direction and the loudest voices in the room point to the other, which way did each candidate tell you they'd go? The seat you're filling only matters on the nights when following adopted policy is uncomfortable. Second, What weight did they give the commitments already made? Covenants recorded on title, conditions of approval, promises made when public land and public money changed hands. A commission seat is not a place to renegotiate the public side of a bargain after the private side has been paid. And third, did they treat the housing element as binding site by site or as a document we celebrate when it's adopted and abandoned parcel by parcel? And one candidate stood out tonight. Mr. Mariano raised placemaking unprompted, mentioned San Juan Capistrano, where the ecology center is grounded and the agri-hood farm was modeled on, and when asked about pressure, described standing with one voice against 10 because everyone needs to be heard. That last answer is the whole job. I spent a decade and a great deal of my own money on placemaking in this city, and I know the lens this seat needs when I hear it. I support his appointment. The commission has a major item pending where exactly these tests will be applied. Appoint the candidate whose answers showed backlog. Thank you.

Thank you. And I don't see any other hands. So we will get on to voting. Typically, we have your top pick. And Nora, unless I'm wrong, that's usually how we've done it, correct? Our top pick and then... We'll give you a name.

This evening, you have one to select, right? In other meetings, you've elected to choose your top two candidates. The highest vote getter would be the appointed person. If you choose to establish an eligibility list, then that second vote getter can be on that should a vacancy occur within six months from today.

Councillor Jane?

I believe the instructions that were given to us is if there's more than four candidates, we do two votes.

Yeah, that's what you said.

Yeah.

If there are four or fewer applicants, so if there are five or more applicants, the council casts one vote each for the two desired appointees. So only one vote per applicant is allowed. If Council Member May choose to vote for only one applicant, but we'll relinquish the other vote. Okay, so vote for two, top two you're saying.

Yeah, that's what it seems to read.

So I'll let Nora pull us.

Okay, if the council's ready, then I will begin. We'll start with Council Member Shahal online. Would you like to cast your vote please, Council Member Shahal.

Okay, I'll go for Jeff Barraza and Nazmul Haid.

Thank you, Council Member Hardy.

Jonathan Marinari and Sean Williams. Council Member Park.

I'm going to go the odd man out. I'm going to say Nick and John.

John being Jonathan? Yeah, Jonathan, sorry. Thank you. Council Member Jane.

Thank you. Jeff and Sean.

So it is between Jonathan Marinaro. You forgot me. No, no, no.

Albert needs help.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought this looked... And I have Jonathan and Sean.

Okay, so it's between Jonathan and Sean, three and three. Shall we... Do another vote now? We were supposed to take the vote again with one.

Or we can look that Jonathan has the most number one votes.

Or you can do that. Let's just make it clean. We'll take another vote for the top of the two. So we can just do that.

Okay. Council Member Hardy.

Jonathan.

Council Member Park.

Jonathan.

Councilmember Jane.

Sean.

Councilmember Shahal.

John.

Vice Mayor Gonzalez. Sean. Okay, so Jonathan gets the appointment, and Councilman Sean Williams will be on the list.

We could have a motion to approve the resignation and then... appoint Jonathan to the Planning Commission for one partial term and put John on the eligibility list? Oh, sorry. Councilmember Hardy.

I'd like to make a motion. First, we need to accept the resignation of Nancy Biagini, unfortunately. and um and i will nominate jonathan marinara as our next planning commissioner and then sean williams on our eligibility list which will be in place for six months second we have a motion by councilmember hardy and a second by councillor jane if we can have roll call vote okay just

I'll just read the motion back. It's accepting the resignation from Planning Commissioner Nancy Biagini, appoint Jonathan Marinara to the partial term ending June 30, 2030, and set the eligibility list with Sean Williams for six months. Council Member Shahal?

Yes.

Council Member Hardy? Yes. Council Member Park? Yes. Council Member Jane? Yes. Vice Mayor Gonzales?

Yes. And just- That motion passes unanimously by all those in attendance. Thank you and thank you for applying.

Thank you to all the candidates.

All right. Your seats, council members. We're gonna get started here. We're gonna get back in session. I mean, hopefully, we'll see how long it takes, but Councilmember Jayne, Councilmember Park, please take your seats.

Are we doing any?

We're not doing that today, are we?

No.

No, we're not doing it today, or the pledge.

I mean, I can do it, or somebody can do it. Yeah, no, it's not on here. All right, let's take our seats.

All right, so we're gonna reconvene our meeting for September 1st, and we have one item, but we'll start with public hearings, general business.

Vice Mayor, roll call.

Okay, yeah, roll call, please.

Before I take the roll, I will mention that in accordance with the Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953B, Councilmember Chahal is attending tonight's meeting via audio-only teleconference. The location from where Councilmember Chahal is attending was included on the agenda for this meeting. Councilmember Chahal, at this time, I ask you to please confirm that the agenda for this meeting is posted at your teleconference location and that this location is accessible to the public.

Yes, agenda was posted and accessible to the public and nobody's in my room right now.

Okay, thank you. All votes taken during this teleconference meeting shall be by roll call vote. With that, Council Member Shahal.

Present, remotely.

Council Member Hardy. Present. Council Member Park.

Here.

Council Member Jain. Here. Vice Mayor Gonzales.

Here.

And I'll note for the record that Council Member Cox and Mayor Gilmour are both absent this evening.

Thank you.

I will read the one statement of behavioral standards. The city of Santa Clara has adopted a code of ethics and values and behavioral standards for the public meeting 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 the presiding officer, the vice mayor's direction in matters of process and decorum should be followed. and that use of the gavel indicates all conversations must conclude and everyone in attendance should come to order and attention. Welcome and thank you for your participation.

Thank you. We have one item tonight, which is item two here, action on the City Council's response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled BTA's Management and Oversight of BART, Silicon Valley Phase II. That was deferred from our August 25, 2025 meeting. City Manager? Sure.

Good evening, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council, and the public. This item was on your August 25th agenda, but you did not have time to hear it. This is the second report of the grand jury from their 2025-26 season that has recommendations specifically related to Santa Clara. The report focuses on VTA's management and oversight of the BART Silicon Valley Phase II project. Importantly, it contains 10 findings and recommendations. The city is responsible for responding to findings six and seven, which relate to appointments of the VTA Board. I will now turn the presentation over to Assistant City Manager Araceli Azevedo.

Good evening, Vice Mayor and council members.

Good evening.

Do I need to wait?

We'll take a quick pause here. Council Member Park, if you can join us. All right, we're good.

Okay, great. So this evening, the item before you is requesting council approval on the city's response to the civil grand jury report titled VTA's management and oversight of Silicon Valley phase two. As background, the report was published on June 17th. We have 90 days to provide a response, so we are required to provide a response by September 15th. The report focuses primarily on VTA's management and oversight. There are two findings and recommendations, six and seven, that focus on how cities appoint VTA board members. So the city of Santa Clara, along with other agencies, are required to respond to that. Just for reference, the VTA's administrative code does have six groupings. Under each grouping, there's a list of agencies. We fall under group five, along with Sunnyvale and Milpitas. So with respect to responses to findings, the penal code provides two options. We either agree with the finding or disagree with the finding in whole or in part, and we are required to provide a response if we disagree. With respect to recommendations, the penal code provides four options. One, the recommendation has been implemented. Two, the recommendation will be implemented over a period of time. Three, the recommendation needs further review and analysis and we are required to complete that analysis within six months. Or four, the recommendation will not be implemented because it's not warranted or is not reasonable and we are required to provide an explanation. As I mentioned, we are required to respond to finding and recommendation six and seven. So for finding six, it states that city groups often do not follow VTA's administrative code on appointing members with transportation experience, and we also don't reappoint individuals to consecutive terms. So the city's proposed draft response is to partially disagree with this finding. And the reasons for that are as follows. So the city's appointments comply with the state law, which requires that the mayor or a council member be appointed to the VTA board. Second, the city charter section 600 outlines the requirements for an elected position, and it doesn't include any specific subject matter expertise. And three, VTA's own administrative code, section 214, states that appointing authorities are strongly encouraged, not required, where possible to appoint individuals with transportation experience. Again, it's not a requirement. It's just strongly encouraged. So moving on to the recommendation, the recommendation is to have each agency certify adherence to VTAs code the proposed draft response is that the city not implement the recommendation because it is not warranted the reasons for that is we will continue to follow the state law which is to appoint either the mayor or the camp or a council member and the city currently has a practice when making appointments to commissions and boards and that includes City boards and commissions as well as external boards and commissions. And our current practice is that the mayor brings forward recommendations. We bring that forward in open session and there is a discussion and consideration of the recommended appointments and ultimately the city council approves those. Also, the city cannot guarantee what a future council makeup will be. So we can't confirm that a future council will have a council member or mayor that's gonna have expertise in the area of transportation. So moving on to finding and recommendation seven. So the proposed draft response is to partially disagree with this finding to the extent it suggests that the absence of the uniform process results in appointments that do not comply with state laws. Again, we follow the state law and we have a consistent annual process. We have not deviated from that process. We also cannot speak to what other agencies do. The report doesn't include any specificity on what those agencies have done. And we have a couple of policies that some agencies have, but they do vary. Recommendation seven states that agencies should agree on a uniform process for making appointments. The proposed draft response is that the recommendation not be implemented because each city's approach reflects its own charter, practice, policies, and needs. And again, we follow the state law. So with that, our recommendation is that the city council approve the draft responses to the civil grand jury report and authorize the city manager to issue a report prior to the deadline of September 15th. With that, I'm available to answer any questions.

all right we're going to take council questions and let me see here council member jane um yeah um i'm gonna make a few comments before i ask my questions to set the stage for my comments The VTA's project, the BART, Silicon Valley Project, which this refers to, is a very long-term project. It's over 20 years in the making, and one of the things that the grand jury proposed is interested in is having longevity with the commissioners, the committee members, because the project is so long, you lose a lot of institutional knowledge, you lose a lot of history if you keep changing members, board members. But that balances against expertise and interest. So this project is, you know, I've been very skeptical and critical of the three grand jury reports against the city of Santa Clara around the stadium. There were a lot of errors in those reports and such. In this report, I'm actually probably 80% in agreement with what the grand jury has recommended for the rest of VTA. So, I just want to say that when I was appointed to be the representative to the VTA, I had a little bit of a fight on the council. The mayor had been the previous representative to the VTA but she didn't seem to have a lot commitment to the agency. So as a result, you know, now that I've been on the VTA board, I'm now on the oversight committee for this BART project. I'm the representative to the Capital Corridor, JPA. I'm now gonna be the new chair of the Safety Security Transportation Planning organization, and so, and operations. And so I've been very committed to this agency, spending a lot of my time talking to a lot of people. And so you have to balance longevity with commitment to the agency. And sometimes those are competing interests. So it doesn't actually make sense to, there's the longevity, Doesn't matter if the person serving is not terribly interested in the agency, misses meetings. Sunnyvale had this problem with one of their members. Didn't show up to meetings, I was the alternate. And I showed up to all the meetings and I got to be able to vote on the items. This project is seriously over budget and over schedule. It started out a $4.7 billion project, then went to $6.9 billion, then went to $9.3 billion, then to $12.1 billion, then $12.7 billion, and now they're doing a re-baselining that will probably put it at $13.7 billion and up. So this project really does need to have very dedicated Board members who pay attention to the packets read the packets follow the issues and we don't always get that we often get people that are there to build their resumes to run for higher office and It is unfortunate because it doesn't serve the agency but We want people who are more committed than longevity, but there's no way, having the longevity allows us to then get into leadership. You can be vice chair of the board and then you can be chair of the board, but you have to be there for a number of years. The current strategy kind of disadvantages the smaller agencies like Santa Clara because we're actually on for two years. We're in a group of three and we only have two board seats. That means each member will serve for two consecutive years then is off for one. So then it makes it hard for us to get into leadership positions because you're not there long enough to be able to get into the leadership positions. So I like the fact that we have some flexibility. I've been very committed being on the oversight committee for the for the BART project that our normal rotation is I've been on for two years and then I would be off this coming year, but Carmen Montano from Milpitas was gracious enough to allow me to stay on for another year so that I could follow through some critical votes that are coming up for this project. So having flexibility is important, and I agree with our responses and so I will be voting for these responses but I just wanted to put in perspective why it's important to have some flexibility but I think there's some real need for the governance of VTA to change and and there have been And that's really kind of what the grand jury report refers to, is the governance of VTA. But that is gonna be done at the state level, because we're authorized by the state.

So, Councillor Virginia, is there any questions?

So, my question is that I don't really have a question, I just have the comments. My question is that is there any way that the city can try to advocate to change the governance of VTA? That's my only question.

Thank you, Council Member Hardy.

That is very similar to my question because I too was frustrated with past grand jury reports and this one was in my mind much better, but we have very little control over things. So I felt staff's answers were very good. and I can support that, but my question is knowing that our representative needs to be committed and then they have to go off for a year is confusing to me. So I was wondering if that could be any part of our answer back that some of the other agencies, can they have more of a consistent vote or a consistent voice on this committee?

All right, I don't see any other hands.

I have comments, not questions.

Okay, so I think Councilman Shahad will have his hand up, correct? Okay.

All right, with that, we'll take the answers or staff responses.

Why don't I start with the first question from Council Member Jane, which is essentially, how can the city advocate for its desire to have changes to the VTA governance structure? And so, as Council knows, we have an LAP, Legislative Advocacy Policy, that the Council reviews each year. You adopt what your legislative policies are, and there are certain guidelines for how staff responds to pending legislations and any legislation at the state or federal level. That does not govern or speak to VTA's governance structure. And so amending that is one way. A 030 with direction to staff to issue a letter would be the other way. So either 030 or an amendment to the LAP and we can follow up later once I have some time to talk to staff if there's a preference for the two.

i guess the only thing i would add is you know we fall under group five but what we don't know is if the other groups have a certain procedure they follow so we wouldn't be able to speak to those other groups we can only speak to group five and it's really in speaking to council member jane on how that process works there's nothing formal on the appointment of the two board members and the alternate. It's just a consensus that that is a process they follow, but it's not written.

Thank you. I don't see any other hands. Is there anybody from the public that wants to speak on this? Anybody online? Okay. All right. Any comments? Our motions, Council Member Hardy.

I'd like to make a motion for, oh sorry.

Yeah, no problem.

I thought we did, yeah. I'd like to make a motion for staff recommendation. Second it.

We have a motion and a second. Council Member Park.

Yeah, so I wanted to make some comments. I didn't really have any questions, but I actually was a little bit worried about our responses because, like many of the other council members, I was here during the previous civil grand jury reports. And some of those reports were, I mean, I'll just say they were factually incorrect. And I was worried that maybe perhaps with Gilman amnesia we would accept a report that wasn't exactly pointed at us but the fact that we looked at the report we looked at the recommendation look at the findings that came up with Well, this is what we need to do. These are the changes, these are the slight disagreements that we have. I'm actually very happy with that. I also want to make a point that Councilmember Jane has probably been the most educated person on the VTA Board. I mean, I hear about this all the time. I am an alternate on VTA PAC, the Political Advisory Committee, with Councilmember Chihal. Like, you need a lot of knowledge there. It's not a secret, but I attend, as the alternate, I attend most, if not all, of the meetings that I can attend because it requires a lot of information, a lot of background. What they talk about, I attend the briefings that Manolo gives, I attend all of those things. And I'm the alternate, because my fear is, well, I'm gonna be called to serve on the committee, and I'm not gonna know what they're talking about. But I think that, you know, people who are involved, I know who they are. I'm very happy with the involvement of Councilmember Jain. I think that he, I cannot think of a better representative. I understand the concerns that we had initially when he was appointed, and I agree with Councilmember Jain, which is you cannot beat interest, but along with interest, the interest didn't start when Councilmember Jain was on council. He had this interest for years. He has made a... a background of finding out things about transportation and many of the things that have served us very well on VTA. So I would later on, perhaps, not now, it's not appropriate, but like to look into an O30 request to the city for a letter or perhaps amending our policies so that we can try to adjust or ask for an adjustment to VTA's policies. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Chauhan.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, staff, for presenting the report. I don't have any questions, but I do have the comments. As mentioned by a couple of my colleagues, we actually disagreed with some of the previous grand jury report, but this one is basically I agree to a large extent, especially because of the project I discussed and about the board issues. And I remember that we had a VTA grand jury a few years back which touched the topic of expert nominations on the board. I'm not sure where that is because losing the institutional knowledge by rotation of council members, elected officials, can be fulfilled by having some expert nominated to that committee. So I'm not sure what's going on with that particular grand jury report and submission of that. That would be a good idea to have some permanent nominations of experts in this domain, basically. And I would also mention Council Member Jain's contribution toward this committee. I hear he has been very knowledgeable and ask hard questions, which pertains to make sure the project is feasible financially, as well as it does not bankrupt VDA. And I get a lot of being on the VTA Policy Advisory Committee, I do also hear that Council Member Jain is doing a great work. So I want to commend his contribution for last so many years on this committee. Thank you. And I'll be supporting the motion. Thanks.

Thank you, Council Member Jain.

Yeah, this is actually the third grand jury report concerned about the governance of ETA. So this has been coming up year after year about the governance of ETA. And unfortunately, staff and the board have basically ignored these grand jury reports year after year. So I firmly believe that the governance needs to change somehow. And I agree with the grand jury report on that. Thank you.

I don't see any other speakers. I don't have any comments tonight, but with that, we'll take a roll call.

Motion on the floor is for staff recommendation. Council Member Shahal. Yes. Council Member Hardy. Yes. Council Member Park. Yes. Council Member Jane. Yes. Vice Mayor Gonzalez.

Yes. So that motion carries unanimously, 5-0. And with that, we'll adjourn the meeting at 7.30.

Vice Mayor, Vice Mayor, one quick request. Like, you know, we always recuse the absentee, so I would like to make a motion to recuse Mayor Gilmore and Council Member Cox for today's meeting. before you adjourn.

Councillor Schell, since this is a special meeting, we don't have to do that, I was told.

Okay. If it's not required, no worries.

Thank you for the thought.

Okay. Have a good morning over there.

Thanks. Bye-bye.

Bye-bye.