Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Amen.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

We're going to be starting the meeting just shortly. Just give us a few moments and we'll be ready. Thank you. meeting of the Santa Clara Planning Commission, August 26, 2026. It's a special meeting. I'd like to make just a few very brief announcements. First of all, I'd like to thank staff that is here on a second night that might go along. I appreciate everything that you had to do before. So my condolences that you have to show up tonight, but thank you for doing so. The second thing is I did watch the council meeting last night, and I would like to just advise everybody. We try and solve problems, and we are not elected. We don't get paid for this. I know staff does, but I want to make sure that everybody acts in a pleased and professional and courteous manner. I understand people can get angry about things and such, understand that, but I will stop a speech if it starts going the wrong way. I understand you have freedom of speech, but I also understand that our staff doesn't need to necessarily have to be here to listen to something that's discourteous. So please, I will try and be as professional and courteous to everybody that comes up and speaks. And I really want to hear everything that's said. But let's be productive and do it in a way that we get some action and things change. Because I know people want things done and they want it done right. And here at the Planning Commission, we definitely, definitely want to hear your input. And we definitely want to get things done because of the obvious need to do so. As you know, a lot of what we do here is recommendations to city council. And when we do that, we also wind up having a few things that we can decide, but in general, it's a recommendation to city council. We've also talked to our staff about if we feel something is very important, one of our members will join the city council meeting to make sure that We are represented correctly in the statements that we make tonight. So we are really trying to represent the Planning Commission and what the citizens want for the city. So thank you very much for your attention on this. And let's get started. All right. President of Allegiance, so if you all stand, please, and then remain standing afterwards. 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.

Thank you. Remain standing.

Statement of values. As we gather, we humbly seek blessings upon this meeting. May we act with the 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 very much. Please be seated. Elizabeth, please call the roll.

Sure. Commissioner Botnagar? Present. Commissioner Chair Kuru? Here. Commissioner Wang?

Here.

Commissioner Busa?

Present.

Commissioner Slane? Here. Chair Crutchlow?

Here.

Thank you.

So we are absent one member that we... don't have on the board just so you know there's it's nothing that we have to excuse but it's something we will later tonight vote on a replacement for the vice chair because the chair had to resign and then later the city council will decide on a new member if any of you are very interested in being on the planning commission on this side of the dice Please go and volunteer. We would love to have you up here. All right. So, Secretary Kourou, could you read the Declaration of Commission Procedures?

Thank you, Chair. Public hearings are conducted by the Chair in accordance with the following procedures. The Chair of the Commission directs all activities during the hearings. All comments shall be addressed to the Commission. Any item on this agenda may be continued to subsequent hearing. Applicants will be allotted up to 10 minutes to present and justify proposal following staff presentation of the item. Other speakers will be given up to two minutes. The applicant is then allotted up to five minutes for rebuttal or comments. No additional comments will be accepted upon the close of public hearing, although the Commission reserves the right to direct questions to any speaker on any matter. Special procedures or time limits may be applied to any items as prescribed by the Chair. Appeal of Commission actions must be filed in writing within seven calendar days. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Copies of the current agenda and staff reports for each of the items on the agenda are available from the planning division office on the Friday afternoon Proceeding the meeting and available online Just one quick question Xander Given that this is a special meeting. Is there any other procedures or things that we should be cognitive of?

We handle our special meetings the same way as we handle our regular meetings so carry on. Thank you very much

Continuances and exceptions. This part of the meeting allows for the applicants, members of the public, or other interested parties to request that an item be one, continued without hearing, two, withdrawn, or three, taken out of order. Are there any requests for applicants, the public, or the commission for a continuance or exception for any of the items on tonight's agenda?

We have no hands raised online and no one in the council chambers requesting a continuance.

Thank you very much. The Planning Commission has only six members, as I said previously. And whenever a full commission is not present, applicants have the option to continue their items to another meeting. So in this case, you would have to wait until the City Council approves of somebody to be on. And that might take a little time. So we only have six. Does anybody that's an applicant want to do a continuance? I'll just ask that one last time. Seeing none, we'll continue on. All right.

Okay.

So there's no items in the consent. Okay, so there's no items in the consent calendar, correct? Okay, good. All right, so Secretary Cherukoglu. Do we need to read?

No, we don't. There are no items on consent.

Okay. Public presentations. Elizabeth, are there any members of the public that would like to briefly address the commission on any item not on the agenda?

Let's segue real quick. Commissioner Salim, do you have something?

Yeah, I just was hoping since this is the appropriate context, if our city attorney could explain the consequences of tie votes in this situation and how they consider to become no action which may actually fall back to uh... option to reconsider later well certainly under the city charter the planning commission needs four votes to take any action and

With only six members, that means you've got to get four out of six. So if there is a vote of three to three, the vote fails. So arguably, if you're looking at a split vote, I mean, your odds are a little better maybe if there are seven people up because you could get a four to three instead of... But it's... frankly rare that we end up in that situation. I don't know. It's just in the interest of everyone being fully informed, we have to have a minimum of four votes regardless of how it's spread. And so that's just one more thing to take into consideration as to whether or not you're asking for a continuance. But it sounds like nobody's asking for one.

Don't jinx it.

All right.

Commissioner Saleem, does that answer your question? I appreciate that very much.

I just want to make sure everybody realized that there is a potential issue.

Okay, so public presentations, things not on the agenda.

Okay, let me get the timer up just a moment, please. It's supposed to be two minutes, just one moment. Okay, very good, thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners. Former Councilmember Becker here, as well as a former Planning Commissioner who has served with all of you. I'm here tonight to apologize to all of you. I feel that I have failed the Planning Commission by not having that solid discussion about data centers between the City Council and the Planning Commission. I apologize it didn't happen. I should have never accepted no for an answer. I had pitched the idea to the City Manager for the joint discussion creating regulation or moratorium on data centers. His response was, we don't want to make waves with big data. I responded, you mean like Big Pharma? For years that has bothered me thinking back in my head. I should have just kept pushing. And why is Big Data calling the shots? Is it simply Big Data is driven by Related and its project? Is it Great America Recurrent Sets? Are we a data center firm? Either way, something has to be done about data centers. As I said last week in the city manager reports, he attempted to contradict what I had said. He also said that we had a robust discussion, which was at a joint dinner. I don't think that was a robust discussion. It was only maybe an hour. It's kind of like data centers and blight. We all kind of forget about these things, I think, in the end. But as you know, as I have heard since I have left the council, you guys have been talking about data centers a lot. And it tells me no one is listening to you. It is time Santa Clara comes together and does something about data centers. And I encourage you to push the city manager and the council to have that joint discussion on the future of data centers in the city of Santa Clara and what other cities are actually doing. San Jose just regulated their data centers. Lots of communities across the nations are doing it. And the concerns have been elevated not only amongst Santa Clarens, but all Americans. I wrote to Erin Brockovich. Yes, Erin Brockovich with the famous PG&E story. She is taking on data centers, and I told her the big data concerns here in Santa Clara, I encourage all of you to write to her directly your concerns. We need to make sure the voices are heard in regards to the big data and the data centers here in the city of Santa Clara where it seems like we're the center of big data. So again, please contact Erin Brockovich and let people know about data centers and also talk about the blight too. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Becker. Anyone else? Anyone online? No, we have no hands raised on line and no one in the chambers requesting to speak Okay, so public hearing items Let's start with number one is public hearing amend title 18 zoning of the Santa Clara City Code to establish a replacement housing unit ordinance implementing state law presentation

Good evening, Chair Crutchlow and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Lakshmi Rajagopalan, Assistant Director of Community Development Department. I'm here before you to request a recommendation to City Council on the proposed replacement housing unit ordinance. So to set the context, this proposed ordinance that you have before you responds to analysis and community feedback that staff received during the housing element update process and the subsequent action, housing element action 13 that was added based on community feedback and also council direction at the September 23, 2025 study session and the April 21, 2026 study session. So, action 13 of the housing element includes multiple objectives that direct staff to evaluate and provide recommendations related to no net loss of income restricted units during construction or rehabilitation of existing housing, replacement of housing units at the same or lower affordability levels, and also make sure that we are providing tenants the required tenant protections. Council at the study sessions in September and April also directed staff to evaluate next steps related to displacement and also requested us to provide clarity on the state required tenant protections and replacement unit requirements. So the ordinance will implement state law. So it's primarily an implementing ordinance and the purpose is to clarify and locally administer state requirements as it relates to Santa Clara. So this slide or this graphic illustrates the three-pronged or related state law components that are related to replacement unit requirements, tenant protections, and relocation assistance. And you can see the related state laws as it relates to each of these three topics. These three elements work together wherein the city must identify protected units, tenants or occupants who are lower income or impacted by the relocation, ensure applicable notice and relocation assistance is provided and also confirm and verify that the required replacement housing is provided. So the proposed ordinance will establish a local process for staff to administer and document these interconnected requirements. In terms of what state law requires us to do, so these regulations apply to any new development that would demolish any one or more existing housing units and this includes unpermitted units that have been used as housing. State law also requires no net loss of housing. What that means is a project cannot remove housing and produce fewer units than what existed on the site during a five-year look-back period. And this five-year look-back period is really important because a site may be vacant, but replacement unit obligations may apply if the units are no longer occupied or even if they have already been demolished. And you'll see that when we go through the ordinance. As I mentioned previously, this is an implementing ordinance. This adds Chapter 18.68 to our zoning code. It defines key terms and provides guardrails needed for local administration. It also establishes compliance documentation and ties project review to key project milestones. The objective is twofold. It provides staff with clear clarity on what the replacement housing requirements are, but it also provides clarity for developers or applicants who might be subject to these requirements. So the applicability follows state laws. So this applies to any development project or projects that propose to demolish housing units that are located on sites where housing existed at any point during the prior five years, which was the five-year look-back period. So if an applicant comes in today and if a housing project or a housing unit existed in the last five years, any time in the last five years, then the replacement unit requirements would apply. And I just wanted to touch very briefly on the key terms as it relates to this project, because you would see when I start talking, explaining the replacement unit requirements that we are requiring as per state law. So protected units includes units that are deed restricted for lower income households that are either subject to a local or statewide rent cap or occupied by a lower income household. Equivalent size generally means replacing a unit with the same number, at least the same number, total number of bedrooms. Comparable housing unit is only for protected units and for purposes of a tenant's right of first refusal. What that means is if a lower income tenant has to be relocated and a housing unit is rebuilt, they have the right of first refusal or to say that they don't need this property. But the comparable housing unit requirement here requires that the replacement home does not only have the same or equal number of bedrooms, but it should at least be 90% of the home's original size. So we are making sure that the homes being replaced or the protected units being replaced are equivalent in size. And finally, the ordinance also clarifies what constitutes a demolition of a housing unit. So it includes more than just physically removing a housing unit. It also includes the conversion of a housing unit that renders this unit uninhabitable. So this definition ensures that the replacement housing and tenant protection regulations will apply. So moving on to what is required by our ordinance. So the ordinance requires replacement of units that were both either occupied or vacant within the last five years. So this applies to both protected and non-protected units. So if you recall, protected units are subject to four key criteria. They should have been either deed restricted or subject to LS Act or be occupied by a lower income tenant or an occupant. So there are four key criteria. Non-protected units are basically units, housing units that are not subject to any of these. So it could be any market rate units. But the goal is to protect and make sure that housing units are replaced. irrespective of whether they are protected or not. But if it's protected, then the state offers more protections. So the replacement unit requirements also are based on whether the unit was occupied, demolished, or vacant, and if we knew the incomes of the previous occupants, or if we didn't know. And the equivalent size of these replacement units are required, unless the exceptions in the ordinance applies. So for units that were occupied, or units that were occupied, and if we know the occupant's income, we have to replace, the applicant has to replace with equivalent size units, and also at a cost that's affordable at the same or lower income level. And where the income level or income information is unknown, then the ordinance uses federal housing affordability data, which is the Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, or the HUD-CHAS data. So that uses a proportion, and we could replace the units using those proportions that's allowed by the federal housing affordability data. The ordinance also allows a developer to replace a low-income unit with a very low-income unit to establish deeper affordability levels. And these replacement units may also satisfy or qualify for a project that is subject to density bonus and may also satisfy the city's inclusionary requirements. This ordinance does provide a limited, identifies limited exceptions. So these exceptions include projects that are 100% lower income affordable housing developments, exclusive of the, the manager's unit does not count. units that were demolished outside the five-year look-back period. And the ordinance also includes a special standard for protected single-family homes that are being replaced in projects with two or more units. And these exceptions are narrow and do not eliminate the need to evaluate applicable tenant protections. And finally, the exception also includes The section also includes an exception for units that were demolished because they were declared unsafe or hazardous or were subject to a court-ordered demolition. That said, the demolition does not eliminate or otherwise impact any replacement unit requirements required either under this chapter or state law. So even if a housing unit were to be demolished because it was declared unsafe, they will still have to replace it or they are still subject to those requirements. Moving on to tenant protections, this is covered in Section 186809 of the Ordinance and it implements all the state required tenant protection and relocation assistance. Under state law, existing occupants are covered except unlawful occupants and occupants of short-term rentals that are rented for fewer than 30 days. So the developers must provide notices at key milestones. So at the initial development application submittal, at least six months before the residents have to vacate, which is typically around the time when they might be applying for a demo. So six months before the demo starts. And then at least 60 days before the temporary certificate of occupation or the CFO. And all the displaced occupants have the right to stay in their homes until at least six months before construction begins. And they also have the right to return at no more than the previous rent if the demolition does not proceed. And this is for all displaced occupants, not just lower income occupants. And finally, for lower-income occupants that live in protected units, the state relocation benefits will be provided by the developer or the applicant, and the eligible former tenants are entitled to receive the first opportunity to rent a comparable replacement home in the new development, and this is the right of first refusal. So moving on to public outreach and contact, This public notice did include standard agenda posting, newspaper notice, and staff also sent out listserv email notification to more than 4,500 recipients who are subscribed to our housing element implementation listserv. We also held study sessions with the council and received direction to clarify state-required tenant protection and replacement requirements. Furthermore, as part of the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative, there was a countywide survey that was done and Santa Clara residents participated and overwhelmingly supported tenant protections and the need to preserve affordable homes and the need for community stabilization programs. Moving on to CEQA evaluation, so staff do find that the ordinance is within the scope of the 2010-2035 general plan EIR addendum and this ordinance is also exempt under CEQA guideline sections 150183 and 15061B3 as the ordinance would not have a significant effect on the environment and these are projects consistent with the general plan and zoning. In summary, this again is an implementing ordinance. The ordinance before the commission is an implementing ordinance. It organizes multiple state law requirements in an easy to understand format, clarifies key definitions for local law administration, and establishes a documentation process for staff to track the requirements that applicants are required to follow. This also helps applicants understand what they are subject to and also helps staff verify compliance. So, in conclusion, staff recommend that the Planning Commission determine that the project is within the scope of the 2010-2035 EIR addendum and recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend Title 18 of the Santa Clara City Code by adding to include Chapter 18.68, Replacement Housing Unit Regulations. This concludes our presentation. We are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I can stop sharing.

I have to make one disclosure I forgot to make before. So Xander, you can listen closely to this one. I am running for city council and one of the things that I was invited to do was to meet with the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors today And one of the questions they asked me is what I thought about this. And I said, it is on the agenda. I cannot speak about it. You can please come. We would love to have your input, but I can make no comments about it, but I'm happy to hear whatever you have to say. So I wanna make that disclosure. I'm sorry I didn't make it sooner. All right.

Any questions for staff?

It's gotta be at least one. Who would like to go first?

I'll wait toward the end.

No, I go at the end.

Well, you were one time.

Mr. Watengard, I'm going to just go left to right.

No, go ahead.

Commissioner Boza? If you want to hold off, you can say, I want to hold off. That's fine.

Where do I begin?

At the beginning.

Where do I begin on this? This is the most cockeyed thing I've ever read. It's like they're taking control of a private property and telling us what to do. Let me give you an example. When I was going through this, when you were reading this, the staff did a good report presenting this. One of the things that I was... I just couldn't believe it in my head was, let's say that I own a property and I have a fourplex on it, but I decided to tear it down and build, instead of a fourplex, I'm going to build a fourplex with a main unit in front and have one of my family members live in the main unit. But then I'm going to be restricted on what I can charge for rent and on rent control and who I'm going to have live there. which is a property that I own and you go through all the expenses of building something better that will improve our city and improve the rental property in itself. Not only will I be access extra and my tax base is going to change, but I'm still going to have to be charging the same amount of rent and I'll be able to recoup my costs on this. This is completely crazy. This is just one of the things in here. This is what's funny with the state right now when they came up with this law here. The state has a problem with the federal government saying that they don't want the state to be told by the federal government what to do regarding some certain laws that they're just passing right now and this is taking over the state ability to make their own laws. Well, the state in itself is doing that. to the cities, the communities, and their own citizens of the state. You took all the power away from the city, all the power away from the Planning Commission, and all the power from the people that worked hard to be able to own properties And so you're taking things away from people. It doesn't make any sense. This is not what this country was based on. This is not what business is based on. There's too many regulations with this. And what is affordable housing here? Just to be realistic in this area, there's no such thing as affordable housing. It's either going to be subsidized housing or regular rent rent homes. So this is insanity.

Thank you. Was there a question for staff? No? Okay. Priya, do you have any questions for staff?

Of course.

Okay, so I'll go a little more methodical. Just to resonate, and I resonate in the sentiment, so I will be a little more factual here in my statements. So, in City of Santa Clara, we are a 55 to 61 percent rent-occupied household. That means 55 to 61 percent are actually owned by somebody else, that are impacted by this ordinance. That is the majority of the homeowners who currently are renting out their property, thereby increasing the supply of homes in this region, are going to be implicated by this ordinance. We are asking in the ordinance to go, one, with the state, which is pretty much, and I'll list you the areas, They're asking for three and a half years of relocation funding to a displaced renter. Three and a half years. I'm retiring in a few years. And I'm giving an example. I'm relying solely now on my financial income to be from a home that was either given to me or hard worked over the years to purchase as my nest, safety nest, that supplements to live in California, not in Oklahoma, not in Omaha, in California, to live as a aged person or financially relying on your supplemental income, that is where we are hitting with the state ordinance and with the Santa Clara additionally imposing more. So I want to make clear that when we are enabling these kind of ordinances, we ratify what are the actual impacts. We are going to discourage the rental housing supply in City of Santa Clara. That means I myself will be telling my children and my husband we are not going to rent any more of our properties. That's just me as a small landlord. The definition here does not define who is a property developer. It's not the Lennar Homes, it's not the Pulte Homes. These are mom and pops, too, that have worked over the years to either buy, purchase. Now they will be averse to even renting their home, because Prop 13 will already limit their ability to move out of the region or sell. Now we have some exceptions. But that said, that's one of the adverse effects of this law and what we at Santa Clara are enabling. We are going to have significant reduction in small landlord rental properties. Excessive legal requirements for tenant protections, not realizing that these tenants are relying on the landlord to, one, give them habitual conditions, enable their actual safe environments, already in California state law, and now we are adding to that. We are not—there's no encouraging of property maintenance incentives. What does it do for a landlord who wants to maintain his property for the benefit of his tenants so that he can actually have good tenants live there, work there for a long time? There's exhaustive, cumulative regulatory burden that is coming with the statewide rental caps, just-cost eviction requirements, security deposit limitations, notice requirements, habituality standards, and other tenant protections. Trust me, I know about it all. Additional regulations are not helping the actual intent of state law to increase supply, because not everybody is a homeowner in the state of California. Avoided unintended rental increases. For living in California as a retiree, relying both and as a financially dependent person for their rental income, if you are not able to actually map to the cost of living in California state and in the Bay Area, there's no point in renting out properties anymore. There is lack of clarity and, in fact, the state, the Santa Clara, I wanted to ask more specifically to staff the distinction between what the state is already mandating and what is Santa Clara asking above and beyond that. One of the requirements are—most of it is similar, thank you to the staff—but in the baseline, the application stage tenant notice. California baseline identifies tenant protection for six months, right? We are asking at the first development application, the developer—it could be a homeowner—must notify all existing occupants—could be a multiplex—and submit proof within 30 days. Where is this coming from? This is above state baseline, procedurally. Pre-occupancy notice. The state does not specify a specific notice before completion of replacement units. Santa Clara, we are recommending, staff is recommending, tenants holding a right of first refusal must receive at least 60 days notice before temporary certificate of occupancy, TCO. stating expectation completion and unit availability in accordance with the section 18.68.090. That is above state line. Comparable unit definition. State requirements provide a right of first refusal for a comparable unit. But our current ordinance does not identify a general square footage threshold. I mean, our state does not identify a square footage threshold. However, Santa Clara is now asking that the comparable unit generally means the same or greater number of bedrooms and at least 90% of the replaced units habitable gross square footage subject to the single family house exception. That local substantive clarification is even more restrictive. Definition of demolition. State law regulates demolition and replacement, but in our definition, in the actual ability for the state, it does not say the city's comparison identify an equal or quantitative detailed definition, but our definition includes removal, conversion, or substantial rehabilitation that renders the unit uninhabitable. If I want to go make upgrades, add square footage to the housing unit as a small landlord, now I am restricted by this ordinance. This is much more restrictive than even state law. Five-year unit inventory. The state requires jurisdictions to track and verify protected unit characteristics and replacement obligation, but does not prescribe milestone process. In our Santa Clara, now, we are requiring developer, aka small landlord of one unit, must provide unit-by-unit information. for the preceding five years, including unpermitted units, occupancy, names, household, size of bedrooms, square footage, income, first right of refusal eligibility, and tenant contact information. This is above state baseline. Income verification declaration. If income is unknown, state law uses rebuttable CHAS-based presumptions. Don't ask me what that is. Google it. In our ordinance, we are asking the developer must also provide a statement under penalty of perjury, explaining that the income could not be determined despite good faith efforts. This is an additional Santa Clara requirement. Proof that vacancies were unlawful. State demolition restrictions address adjudicated tenant harassment or illegal eviction. For Santa Clara, we are saying, for a previously occupied vacant unit, the developer must explain how and when it became vacant and demonstrate a lawful process subject to a limited good faith exception. Again, above state line. There's a list of this, and I could go on and on, where we are more than what the state is asking, which is already prohibited. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Very well said.

Commissioner Saleem.

Yes.

I think my question is embarrassingly simple compared to that. I just was curious if the right of first refusal applies one time at the offering price or offering rate of a rental improvement such that if the original tenant declined and then the owner reduces the rental amount on a second adjusted offering, do they get a reshot at first refusal? Did you follow that? Do they get one shot at refusal or do they get a second time if the price is reduced?

Through the Chair to Commissioner Saleh. So the right of first refusal only applies to lower income tenants who are eligible. And these units have to be protected units, so these are already established Proved that this was rented to a low a low at lower income to lower income tenants or occupants so if the tenant declined the Right of if they did not elect for the right of first refusal. I think it stops there then they don't get multiple chances Okay, okay, I have to read it again Good Commissioner Wang

One question on that. When you say low income, define which level of low income we're talking about.

We do have a definition in the ordinance and we follow the income limits that are set by the California Health and Safety Code. So it's low, very low and extremely low income households.

It caps at 80%. 80% AMI. 80%?

Mm-hmm.

Okay. Yep.

Commissioner Cherukuru, I can't say any better than you had. You really did an excellent job in explaining that. I agree with you. I think this is way too onerous. And I think what I would like to discuss at some point... is how we propose, if everybody is in agreement, of course, what is the alternative to this? I have a question.

Please. My question really has been bugging me when I saw this. Who in the heck prepared this? Who did this? Whose idea was this? I want to know this. I want to really know this. I'd love to talk to them.

I'll start and then I'll turn it over to Leslie and Zendel. Through the housing element process, again, we received a lot of community feedback.

Did you really? Because I didn't hear anything about this. I'm in the community and I deal with a lot of people in the community. I talked to a lot of people.

but i want to know who is the person that wrote this whose idea was this because it had to be somebody's idea to come up with this is an action that was in the that is in the adopted and certified housing element that for the city so it's the 2023 2031 housing element that the city has that we are required to follow and implement the actions so this action was added in response to community feedback that was done as part of this housing element update

Excuse me. You're not answering my question. Stop saying community feedback because sometimes with community feedback, a lot of people don't hear about it and it's only a question and answer thing that's slated. I want to know who did this. Can you say city planner, somebody in the city council, the mayor? Who came up with this?

with the action in the housing element or the ordinance itself?

The ordinance itself.

The ordinance is an implementing action of the housing element. As part of the annual reporting, we are required as staff. Staff, planning staff.

All of you came and said, let's get together and come up with this.

I'm just curious. I'll also provide some clarifications. Even if we do not have an implementing ordinance, what the city of San Jose, for example, has done is they have established a memo because we are required to follow state law.

I'll stop right now. Just wait a second. I'm used to just getting an answer. If I do something, I say I did something, I was responsible for something, but apparently I'm not going to get that answer. That's all I wanted to know, but apparently right now I'm not going to get that answer.

It's staff-initiated.

Who's ahead of the staff?

I initiated this because...

There you go. See how easy that was?

Okay, so hold on. I want to make sure we're clarifying. This is part of something that started with the state? Yes. Okay, so the state started it.

The state, so the SB 330 was first implemented or enacted in 2019. Since then, it has been clarified and several amendments and several clarifications have been provided, the most recent SB 21 in 2026. Progressively, the state, I mean, when we think of SB 330, we are thinking about fees and development, like streamlined review. But SB 330 also went further and required. So this is not just about lower income household units. It's also about any housing unit that's demolished, right? So replace a housing unit with a housing unit. It's not at the same, it could be at the same income level. So for example, if I lived in Santa Clara and I demolished my house, even if it was rented to a moderate income or at market rate, then all I have to do is replace the housing unit. I would not be subject to any of the requirements that protected units are subject. But through the housing element process, and this is not just true of Santa Clara, this is true across the Bay Area, high displacement risks are increasing. Tenants are being priced out. People are being priced out. and landlords are not providing just cause, or landlords are not providing the required notices, and they are evicting tenants, and tenants are being displaced. And there is also naturally occurring affordable housing. You would think of them as duplexes, triplexes, and these are typically not deed-restricted, but if you look at it income-restricted, adults live in those homes. So when those homes are, let's say a homeowner wants to convert the duplex into a single-family home, in effect, a lower-income tenant who's income-restricted. They might not be deed-restricted, but they are income-restricted, right? So they might be displaced, and they might eventually become unhoused, and there have been several reports from Turner Center and other advocacy organizations that point to that. So when Commissioner Boozer did ask who in the community, we did engage with several community groups. Again, I was not part of this city when this housing element update was being done, but I was part of another city and we all were part of a collaborative where we all heard similar feedback and the state did require cities to implement state laws. And even in terms of the compliance methodologies, the state law just provides A state law just provides the base. It's up to the city to figure out how to implement it. So the compliance milestones or the noticing requirements that we are requiring the developer to provide just helps us set a clear process so that we are not asking the applicant. Again, this is an applicant of a lower income protected development. We are not asking them for things that we are not sure of. So cities like Mountain View, they have a very strong tenant protection and rent stabilization program. They've gone further than what we've done, which is pretty much implementing state law. We have not gone further beyond. All we are requiring is some clarity. We are providing some clarity and making sure that protected tenants or lower income occupants still get replacement housing units that they can live with, for example, in an equitable and dignified manner. So if a lower income tenant is displaced and they want to move back, the replacement unit should be at a comparable size because let's say they are displaced from a three bedroom apartment that's like 900 square feet but if the replacement unit size is only 600 square feet but they still provide three bedrooms that is not equitable so the comparable housing unit is only for protected tenants and it makes sure that lower income tenants just because they are low income they still have the right to come back and live in a unit in a dignified manner okay that part i understand what i want to make sure is what part is this state saying we have to do that versus

what staff said, okay, we're looking at this and given feedback and everything else, we want to add these conditions as well.

We have not done that. For example, in the housing element, action 13B4, we do say staff should require developers and property owners of existing rental buildings to provide relocation benefits beyond those required by the state. Staff have not done that. Staff are requiring state-required relocation benefits, and developers are already providing it. Our housing department... regularly refers tenants to Project Sentinel, for example, and they are provided with the same information. So even if we do not adopt this ordinance, we still have to follow. We are required by state law to follow all these regulations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. A quick question, just a clarifying question in the spirit of things. Is this true what Commissioner Cherukuru said that a single landowner is a developer in the context of this ordinance? Is that true?

It depends. If Commissioner Cherukuru is renting her house, but her house is being rented at market rate, For some reason, if she's demolishing a housing unit for the city's purpose, she just has to replace the housing unit. She will not be subject to any of the noticing requirements or the protected unit requirements. She just has to make sure that a three-bedroom unit, a housing unit, is replaced with a three-bedroom housing unit.

So I cannot rent it to lower income anymore is what you're suggesting by that? I'm not suggesting... Because that would invoke all of this.

That would make it into a protected unit, which would affect what you could do with it in the future.

So what did you just do? You just made me not rent to a lower income.

I did not make you. State law made you. That portion of it is in state law. That is not an embellishment by the city.

No, but the reference was if Priyachar Kru has a house that she rents at market conditions. Market rate. then the market rate is already suggesting that if I was to even remodel or demo the house, first I have to give tenant eviction notice, 45 months of, 42 months of,

That applies only if your unit is a protected unit. When I meant market rate, it means you are renting your house at market rate rents. A protected unit rent will be significantly lower than market rate rents.

As a landlord, now I have my caution up. I rest my case, Your Honor. It applies regardless.

I just wanted to say something here. I wanted to be in the planning commission one thing because I care about the city and I care about the residents of the city. The regulations, a lot of the regulations are being made. I understand that if you work for the city, you don't have to live in the city, but a lot of the regulations that will affect all of the citizens of the city and the property owners of the cities are made, but people don't live in the city of Santa Clara. They'll never have any intentions of moving to the city of Santa Clara. In itself, I can say I'm prejudiced when it comes to staff making decisions that will affect all of us forever. This is one of the things that really hurts because I don't want to see our community being destroyed or being completely changed. The property owners, like mom and pop, You just have one property as a rental unit and you want to make it better. What is the affordable going rate? If I make my property better, it's going to go up in price, of course. Like all the new developments that are being built, things are just astronomical. You're talking $3,500, $4,500, $5,500 per one-bedroom apartment. It's just this thing is so crazy. I feel like I'm living in a third world communist country at the time.

Question to staff through the chair.

I got one question before you. Sorry.

Okay.

Real quick. I just want to understand. Let's use a different example. Let's say it's a 500-unit apartment building. I'm going to build it today. I have to have a certain amount of low-income housing, right? That means that that's protected?

Yes.

If I then say I'm going to tear it down, like 30 years of it down, I'm still around because I just have that kind of genes. I'm now going to go ahead and say I want to tear it down because it's 30 years, it needs to be renovated, whatever. But because of that, if I now go ahead and say I'm going to build 800 units there, I still have to then give everybody notice. I still have to make sure that anybody that's low income, because it's now protected, I have to take care of them, right?

So you would be required to provide notice for the percentage of lower income occupants in your development?

The 75.

Yeah.

And then I would have to pay for 42 months?

That's the current state law.

I understand, state law, not a problem. At 30 years, I might just say, I'm going to let it go, right? Because really, what is the economic incentive for me? I have all these, you know, restrictions and stuff against me. It seems a bit onerous. But, you know, I'm not going to ask you to reply to that. That's just a comment on my part. So, Commissioner Chirikuru, you have a question?

Why not just follow the state law and call it a day? We're already restricted. State is mandating us. What is the lead for Santa Clara to go above and beyond?

Well, I will confess I found your comments earlier very illuminating. I did not realize we had so many provisions that were more onerous than state law. As you've heard, HCD has required this in our housing element. It was a mighty battle to get our housing element certified. I don't know who drafted that originally, whether is it HCD, was it a community member, was it a planner, but it's in there. Put a replacement unit ordinance into your code. It is vital that we do this. We cannot lose certification. We have to do it, and we're behind schedule already. We have to put it in. But our starting point was, let's just enshrine what state law says. Now, state law is a little ambiguous in some spots, so we've got to clarify. We've got to add some clarification where it doesn't define something. Well, let's define it. What you described, though, sounds a little bit like we've gone a little further than that in some circumstances. Frankly, I mean, I hate to say it, but I would suggest we continue this, come back with a chart showing exactly what state law requires, exactly what we required, and then ask you column A or column B. I don't, I mean, with that many things causing you concern,

um please don't kill me what's that say so um the housing element action actually requires no requires landlords to notify tenants in the city at least one year in advance of redevelopment so well okay yeah and i get laws wrong all the time

Frankly, you might not have gotten every provision right either. Why don't we but regardless I can see tonight You do not have the confidence that we have done only what state law requires you you believe some things at least we have gone beyond state law So I think at the very least the Commission would like the reassurance That either we're giving them just what state law requires or if we're not What exactly are the differences and you'd like to see that maybe in a table. Is that fair?

That's a perfectly good solution

And so you have a bunch of notes. Could you share them? And make it public?

And make it public? I don't know.

It would have to be, right?

Yes, it would. So let me put this. With the disclaimers.

We would give it to staff first.

Yes. And let them come back with the facts, because what I would suggest is it be scrubbed for fact.

You admit that you might make a mistake.

I...

I hate to say that.

It's all going to be a public document, but whatever. Just give it to us. We need it.

I just want to make sure everybody's comfortable and do it the right way. Okay. Mr.

Chair, one more question before you go. I was just talking to a fellow commissioner here. How many of you knew that they had this issue that the questionnaire has the same community outreach and see what your thoughts were? How many of you were notified of that? Were you notified of that? Were you notified of that, Eric? No. I wasn't? He wasn't. You have the whole complete planning commission here. Never heard anything about this and never notified us. I don't know who you were talking to.

Hold on. I could have been notified. I didn't see it. I'll be very honest about that. Nobody saw it. That being said.

The housing element? You did not hear that we were adopting a housing element. The clause. The clause.

The clause that we have to have a tenant- A replacement unit ordinance. Action 13 was not clear. When we adopted that. Okay, look, at this point, it's kind of fair. It's been some time. It's been three years.

We noticed now.

Yes, now we are up.

All right. Last time. Do you have something you want to say?

No, this is a public hearing, so you should go ahead and ask.

I definitely would like to.

And then, you know, and assuming we don't get a lot of comments, maybe the most appropriate thing is just to move to continue. If people come here tonight to talk about it, I definitely think we should hear that. And then maybe just the most appropriate thing is to continue this to the next meeting, not next week, but October 7th or something. Okay.

whatever makes or November I sent okay number number one I have a question about this what is there a critical due date on this thing is there a critical due date on this when did we commit we're already late but that's because it was December 2025 have our ordinance

The housing element was drafted and adopted by the City Council in 2023, but by the time we received certification, it was 2024. So we were already a year behind the required certification date. And since then, we've been implementing other actions depending on staff availability, and this was the first opportunity.

Thank you. What does the policy say? Does it say by date X adopt a policy or by date X draft a policy? Yes, it says. What is the date?

It says by the end of 2025, within one year of housing element adoption.

Within one year of adoption?

Yes, it doesn't say certification.

We'd go with the last adoption date. What is that, mid-24? Yes. By mid-25, ideally. We have to do an annual report to HCD When is that due, April? April 1st. Let's get this done before April 1st. That is so appropriate, April 1st. Okay. So, okay, do the public hearing, but then I recommend you bring it back on November 18th.

We're good, no other questions?

Okay. Then let's open it up to public comment. Does anybody in the audience want to talk about this? I thought everybody was here for this one, no?

I know.

Okay.

We do have someone online.

Please.

Enrique, online you should be able to unmute and speak.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners. My name is Enrique Navarro, the Government Affairs Associate with the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors. Just following along with the conversation, we had a question that maybe staff might be able to touch on and maybe the Planning Commissioners could discuss as well. And I think a lot of what our concerns are been illustrated in the discussion already. But let's say, for example, a single family homeowner who has an ADU on their property. If they want to demolish their older home, for example, because perhaps it needs to be refurbished, would the ordinances written require that that homeowner replace not just the home but also the ADU as well? Or would you be able just to build the single family home on its own? And the reason why we're concerned about is that we could imagine, or we could rather foresee that blight would result and there'd be a disincentivization against investing in restoring housing, for example, if you have to replace both the house and the ADU on your own property. Let's say not even necessarily to rent, but if you just own a single family home. So, What would be the exact answer to this question? If I have a home in an ADU, do I have to replace both the home and the ADU, or could I just build a single-family home? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? I hope that wasn't too rambling.

No. We have no other hands raised online and no one in the chambers.

We are done. So I think that would be a very interesting thing to consider for staff. The other consideration I would ask also about that is if the ADU all of a sudden became part of its own HOA, condominium association, does that have any bearing on it?

An ADU became part of a HOA?

You can have an ADU be a condo. be part of a homeowners association? And I'm just throwing that one out as a curve ball, but you don't have to necessarily answer now, but I think it is, figure it out.

I heard an ADU is part of an HOA, but what's the question?

Does that have any bearing on the fact that it's an ADU and the person demolishes their primary home?

Oh.

But answer the first question, I think. Well, the first question. If they had an ADU, with a home and they decide to demolish their home.

And the ADU? Yeah. So the ADU will be considered a dwelling unit. The single-family home will be considered a dwelling unit, so both have to be replaced. But assuming that they are market rate, then they just have to be replaced.

If they're market rate, it doesn't matter.

It's a housing unit, it's a dwelling unit, so it will be replaced.

So if I have an HOA for the ADU and it's below market for a low income, Does that make any difference?

The fact that there's an HOA is unlikely to make a difference. Both the main unit and the ADU are considered dwelling units for purposes of replacement law, and the ADU is likely to be naturally low income, which would make it a protected unit and would have to be replaced as a protected unit.

Okay, so if I have a house, have an ADU, and I want to replace the house, which I'm living in, but the ADU is considered low income, it's protected, I have to demolish the ADU as well?

No. No, no, no. No, no, no. But if you knock them both down, you've got to replace them. They'll replace it. Yes. No, you're not required to.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. But if you're demolishing your house and you need another place to stay and you ask that ADU tenant to now move because now you have to occupy during your renovation, you would be required to do all this.

I think it would be easy. It obviously makes more common sense to say, given what I have to go through, given what we're talking about, we might as well just go ahead and rent an apartment somewhere else. But, you know, to go through all that stuff, yeah. So, anyway.

That's a deliberation for staff to come back.

That's a deliberation for staff.

You just triggered my stump the lawyer question. Um, I trigger you. Yeah, you got it So exactly the scenario that's described you have a home you have an ad you you demolish both in order to make the home larger Are you obligated to rebuild an ad you when you may not have the square footage on the lot? to support it

Yes, the state law defines ADU as a dwelling unit, and so you are obligated to replace it by state law.

Wow.

So I can never increase the size of my home on my own lot?

Forget owner's rights. You can reconfigure it. All renters' rights. You can reconfigure it.

Okay, all right. I'm sorry I triggered you. Wow, that was a good one. Now, anybody else, final? Will we like to continue this to a time in the future determined? November, whatever, or is there another way you want us to?

Well, if you do it to a date certain, we don't have to do newspaper again, so I would suggest November 18th would give us ample time. November 18th, okay, please.

All right, so anybody want to make a motion?

Do we need to close public hearing?

No, leave it open. So I'll move that we continue to November 18th. I'll give staff an opportunity to revise and review.

Second. For Lance. Seconded by Lance. Okay.

I made the motion.

I second it.

Sorry for all the silliness here. I'm sorry. Okay. So I don't have on my thing of ability to vote here. So I guess we're taking a roll call vote.

I'm getting it on this screen. It'll be just a moment. You should be able to vote. The motion was made by Chair Kretschelow, seconded by Commissioner Saleem. To continue this item, date certain to November 18th. You should be able to cast your vote.

Nothing changing.

You're not able to cast your vote? Correct. Several of you are, so I don't know why. Commissioner Botnagar?

Yes.

Thank you. Chair Kuhru, I have your vote. Commissioner Wang?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosa?

Yes.

Commissioner Saleem, I have your vote. Chair Kretschelow?

Yes.

Thank you. And the motion passed. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, may I request a five-minute recess? Certainly. Five-minute recess. Okay, next item, public hearing action on conditional use permit PLN 25-00491 to allow a place of assembly, i.e. church, with up to 900 attendees to locate within a portion of an existing office building located at 2929 Patrick Henry Drive. CEQA status, exempt from CEQA per section 15301. Staff?

Hi, thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Tracy Tam, associate planner, presenting on this item tonight. So as stated, the request before you tonight is for a conditional use permit to allow for a place of assembly or a church to locate within a portion of an existing office building. The reason why this application is before you tonight is that a place of assembly does require a conditional use permit as per the city's zoning code and the Patrick Henry specific plan. So the project site is located in the Patrick Henry specific plan noted by the red box that you see on the screen there. It is zoned urban village as the Patrick Henry specific plan had a specific plan that was adopted by the City Council. Some of the existing surrounding uses just to the north of the project site is an existing data center and the other properties surrounding the project site are office buildings. So the conditional use permit is to allow for a place of assembly within a portion of an existing office building. The remainder of the office building will continue to be used as office for another tenant. Now we do want to note that the place of assembly as per the city's city code and the Patrick Henry specific plan, the place of assembly is not required to provide parking spaces. understanding that there can be up to 900 folks at the place of assembly. The code also makes reference to allowed for shared parking with uses with different peak hours. And so as part of the place of assembly, the peak times will mostly occur on Sundays. during Sunday service from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. There's also going to be some Bible study after that. And then as noted in the applicant's written project description, there will be also weekday gatherings generally from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Okay, so on the screen here you see the site plan. The area sort of noted in the yellow color is where the proposed place of assembly will be locating. And so you'll notice that it is within the portion of the existing building. It is surrounded by a surface parking lot. On the screen here is the proposed floor plan. So you'll notice that folks will primarily enter through this area. It's a little hard to read on the screen, but it's noted as Fellowship Hall and where that will be the primary entrance to the building. The line that's shown in the screen on the right-hand side That will be, I believe, a firewall separating this tenant from the adjacent office tenant. Continuing on the floor plan, there will also be a sanctuary here where a lot of the Sunday service will be taking place. In addition to on the north side, if you can see my mouse, of the floor plan, this will be where the children's activity will take place. So there were 192 notices that were sent out to property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius of the project site. Ahead of this meeting, we did have a community meeting actually at the project site on July 13th. There were a few folks that attended in person as well as on Zoom since it was a hybrid meeting. There were some questions at the community meeting that were asked related to parking, whether a different school was proposed, and then also some questions about consistency with the adopted Patrick Henry specific plan. Now the project, as mentioned earlier, the project under the city zoning code is not required to provide parking. And so the project site is determined to be sufficient as far as parking. And the applicant noted at the community meeting that only a Sunday school is proposed in conjunction with the church and there aren't any other school activities proposed at this site. And again, a place of assembly is allowed with approval of a conditional use permit. The project is found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically utilizing Section 15301 for existing facilities. The project is locating within an existing office buildings with relatively minor site improvements. There's going to be a new trash enclosure on the left-hand side of the building. and a few changes to the exterior of the building. But for the most part, the existing building can accommodate the proposed use. And so staff does consider the project to be category exempt from CEQA. And so therefore, staff's recommendation on this conditional use permit is to determine the project to be category exempt from CEQA and to approve the conditional use permit to allow for this place of assembly to operate within an existing office building or within a portion, I should say, of an existing office building. And that concludes staff's presentation. The applicant team is also in the audience as well.

Questions for staff? One minor point. GTEN talks about housing from the house to the sidewalk. I'm assuming you mean house of worship? It's an office, right? So just a minor.

That's correct. I assume you're referring to condition of approval, GTEN, is that right, for landscaping? So that can actually be removed if the commissioner so wishes as part of the motion. Commissioner can make a motion to remove condition of approval G10 from the project. The applicant or the project rather is expected to maintain the landscaping as is, but this particular condition was an error.

Yeah, I don't want to remove it. I just want to correct it. That's all.

Okay, understood.

All right.

Couple of questions for staff. What is the current ratio for parking for an office building?

The current ratio I would need to pull up but I will say that the project site the Since the building existed prior to the adoption of the Patrick Henry specific plan The parking ratio for an office building at this site is a little bit different than our current standard so just as a point of clarification are you asking about the Office parking requirement for the site and not at the current.

Okay understood What is the parking ratio? for an office? And then if you're looking at it, what is the parking ratio for a religious facility?

So the parking ratio for office at this specific project site is one parking space for every 300 square feet. And the parking ratio for the place of assembly, actually the place of assembly does not require vehicle parking as per the There's a table in the zoning code that notes that community and civic uses within the Patrick Henry specific plan are not required to provide vehicle parking.

No, generally, beyond Patrick Henry, what is the ratio of parking for a religious facility? Church, temple, mosque?

So the city's general parking requirement for a place of assembling, thanks for the clarification, is one parking space for every 50 square feet of usable assembly area.

Okay. So we require one parking space if it was a standalone religious facility, not in Patrick Henry. We would require for every 50 square feet, so this is 50,000 square feet, what would be the number of parking spaces that we would have required in that math?

Well, it is one parking space per 50 square feet of usable assembly area, so things like bathrooms and hallways, unless they can be used for congregation.

Just to answer Matt's question, for a religious facility, standalone facility, it's requiring for 50,000 square feet, what would be your parking requirement?

I believe that would be 1,000 spaces.

Say that again?

1,000 spaces.

What's the parking right now?

311, or yeah, 311.

Okay, I just want us all to recognize what this is. So the biggest, and I say this, the biggest question was, okay, the parking is going to be the biggest concern, irrespective of Patrick Henry. I agree with the peak periods and the shareability might offset. I live next to church, and I also have Events 900 is a good gathering good celebrations space It will spill over into the neighborhood when Patrick Henry is built out. So whatever is the actual Plan, I don't know where we are in the current status of building out that Patrick Henry for residences Do we know the status of the current development?

Thank you, Chair. There is no current development in Patrick Henry consistent with the specific plan. We do have one project that was approved. It has not yet come in for building permits. They are currently in talks with us to try to make something happen on that site, but currently none.

Okay. So just to then validate from the current allocation for this project to use 50,000 square feet of a total 82,000 square foot building, which is the majority almost, for up to 900 attendees, with the remaining being potential for remaining office use. I haven't even gotten into that ratio. The total parking spaces provided is 311. If this was a standalone application for a religious facility for the same square footage, we would be asking 1,000. parking space. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff?

Got a question. Isn't the Sutter Health also coming there with a hospital close, going to be close to the area, isn't it? And then we have the University of Santa Clara. And don't forget the 49er games, especially when you have Bible study between 1 to 5, you can have 49er games on Sundays. How close are they going to be to Sutter Health?

Sutter Health, the hospital proposal is located south of this site, off of Mission College.

Yeah, so it's going to be about half a mile.

Yeah, past the college, up against the freeway.

Yeah, about half a mile and stuff. The same thing with the university then. Are they using any of the property around there for parking for the stadium?

We do have some lots over there, yes.

Right by there. They're going to be restricted getting in there too on Sundays.

On game days, there is restrictions on access, yes.

They got to consider that too.

The precise distance from the new Sutter Hospital to this site is 0.9 miles.

Yes.

Questions?

Okay. I have two semi-technical ones. Has there been any... Communication of the expectation of noise issues being adjacent to the data center for the church because when the data center tests their generators, I don't know what time of day or whenever, but it will be sufficiently loud to impact any congregation. gathering also is there any Consideration for safety given the density of the children's presence there for Sunday school and things given the high voltage Feed for the data center I know those are very edge case issues.

Could you repeat the last part of that question about the high voltage?

So there is high voltage supply to the data center. I believe there's even a substation for that one. So given that this is unusually, it's unusual to be adjacent to a child-friendly facility, is there any extra safety that needs to be done to safeguard or prevent any problems? of like falling wires or something, you know. It's a very edge case. I don't expect you to have a quick answer. I was just hoping that somebody would look at the implications of being directly adjacent to a data center with a high density worship facility with children and people simultaneously.

Yeah, not that I'm aware of. I will say when they come in for their tenant improvements, they'll be subject to building and fire codes. Fire does look at safety and hazmat in the area. So it's one of the things to look at during tenant improvements. I don't know about high voltage lines.

Okay, yeah, we went through so much for the daycare center. adjacent to a busy street. I would hope that we would do similar for a worship facility directly adjacent to a data center. That's all. Thank you.

Yeah, maybe let me ask a question first and then follow up. So I was learning from a colleague that churches and religious establishments don't pay property tax. Is that correct? That is correct.

Yes.

So conceivably, since this is the majority of the building, square footage wise, the landlord or owner of the building can claim this is a religious establishment building and then not subject to any property taxes for the whole building. Is that correct?

So the proposed conditional use permit, the place of assembly, I believe they are leasing the building. I think they have a long-term lease. The applicant team can speak to that better than I. But I believe it's not being owned by a religious institution, but rather it's being leased by one.

I'll stop here. Maybe later. Thank you.

May I respond to Commissioner Selim's? So it turns out there are regulations that apply to overhead transmission lines of 50 kilovolts or greater under the California Code of Regulations. They apply to K-12 schools, and there are specific setbacks that have to be maintained between the high-voltage lines and the schools, depending on how powerful the lines are, ranging from 100 to 350 feet, those regulations do not appear to apply to a church daycare. So at least just my preliminary research, it looks like there is nothing that would regulate what is being proposed here.

Do we have the applicant have a presentation Do you are Alex and you're representing the yes, okay, very good, okay, so you will have ten minutes then I

My name is Alex Ross. I'm the architect for City Light Bible Church. I put the plans together. I'm going to keep this kind of brief because you guys have met twice in a row. So I'll try to answer some of the questions that are going through. So obviously you understand it's a church. We have certain operational hours. I consider from a building modification standpoint, we're not doing a lot of modifications to the building. There's some tenant improvements, real minor doors on the outside that we need for legal egress in and out of the building. Maybe if I can address the parking thing, just because that's fresh on my mind right now, and Tracy can come back and correct me if I'm wrong, but every church I do in the city, they base the parking for a church on the assembly square footage. So we're in 50,000 square feet of building, but our assembly occupancy is only 12,000 square feet. So then you would, if I was coming into Santa Clara on the parking, I would say it's 12,000 square feet divided by 50, that's 240 parking spaces per the ordinance would be required, not 1,000. So just. Not 50,000.

That's an interesting observation. It's not based on the 50,000 square feet.

Because they're assuming that when you're driving, the highest occupancy is going to be the assembly occupancy. And you're going to have families that are coming in, multiple people. And so even though the rest of it is the Sunday school classrooms and the other things, all the drivers are in the assembly area that drove to the church. And also, I know... Right now they meet at Mission College. They've been going there for four years and meeting there right now. And they have volunteers that come out and help people. Like, okay, come over here. Oh, there's an empty spot over here. So they keep it moving so there's not any kind of a backup anywhere. People know where to park. It runs smooth. And it is the 240 that's required plus the 311 that we have now. But... So our hope is that the parking will be adequate.

You said that with your nose straight. Hold on, hold on. Let's let the applicant go ahead and make the, you know, we shouldn't be interrupting you. We'll ask you questions afterwards. I'm sorry.

I know our problem. So my experience is that typically you're going to average two to four people per car when it comes to these kind of churches. So especially when they're not necessarily in the neighborhood, because obviously we're not sitting in a residential neighborhood here. um and to clarify on the uses i heard i heard that there were some questions about when the church was used sunday's pretty standard with the the morning service most people are out by one then continued bible studies in the afternoon and during the weekday they list i've listed in the narrative that they have operating hours kind of office hours so to speak and that's your I think it's 9 to 5 or 8 to 5 that's mentioned in there. But then we have gatherings during the week. There's a youth group that comes at night. That's a 6 to 10. So if you want to say, when are your doors open during the week? Well, really, it's going to be from 8 till probably 10. But some nights, no. There's not going to be anybody there at night. And sometimes they'll only be there till late. So that's kind of all I have to say about the church. I'm more than willing to answer more questions

More for staff and then to the applicant What's the difference between a place of assembly versus a religious facility in our ordinance and Would the temple or a mosque have different standards versus?

No, we have scrubbed that in the 2024 zoning code. We don't distinguish assembly uses from religious uses Okay, so this is an application pre

Is this application post-correction? What is the new ordinance?

Well, I mean, yeah, the new zoning code is in effect. It's a little complicated because they're in the Patrick Henry Dive specific plan area, which allows existing uses to continue. But either under the old zoning or the current zoning, a religious institution is allowed use with a conditional use permit.

And what would be the parking then if it is considered a religious institutional use versus a place of assembly, which I just got the numbers from you that said it would be a 1 to 50 versus 1 to 300 for a place of assembly.

Right. I didn't mean to suggest that. there was a different parking ratio under the old code. I just said we had a term for religious uses that was, you know, in addition to assembly uses. But our code requirement outside the Patrick Henry area is, as he said, one space per 50 square feet of usable assembly area. If this was not in the Patrick Henry Drive area, which it is, so the ratio is zero.

So if it was not inside the existing building and it was a standalone facility, what would be the parking requirement?

No parking required.

No parking required because it's covered into the Patrick Henry specific plan.

For whatever reason, in the Patrick Henry Drive specific plan area, we said no parking for assembly uses.

And that would be okay from the CEQA perspective despite the increase in actual traffic? for the 900 additional uses? It depends.

It depends. Not in all cases. But this is an existing building. If they had to build a building from scratch, I bet we'd be doing a mitigated negative declaration. But for an existing building with 300-some spaces where, you know, arguably they need 240, if you look elsewhere in the city, it's reasonable to use a cat X.

Okay. And to the applicant, thank you for clarifying. I learn something new about every day. Are you expanding your school? What is happening in the remaining 35,000? Is that still in your lease or is that exclusive?

The remaining 35,000 is not in our lease. It's not in their lease right now.

It's a different company. And do you plan to expand your school daycare activities, Bible study, youth program?

My understanding is that they are not planning on expanding to a daycare use or any other kind of use. They have a 10-year lease right now.

Okay.

And if they're so fortunate, I think they would love to go buy a building somewhere and be owners and not renters.

Don't. You'll be asked to do more parking.

I will.

They don't want to displace anybody.

What you're getting here is quite a freebie. Take it as a lottery. Thank you.

She has a piece of property she wants to sell you.

Exactly. Now it's no longer for housing, yes.

Conflict of interest, sorry. All right, any other questions for the applicant?

Could you please come?

We still have one more question for you.

Yeah, I just wanted to help you understand maybe... The implications that I was mentioning on the data center is going to apply more to facilities like yours that are going to be after-hours centric. Data centers tend to schedule their noisiest activities after business hours to not be bad neighbors for

Business buildings and they would coordinate with the data center. Yeah, you guys should really probably willing I would hope not you can come back here be honest with you We were asking about that both.

We were all wondering. Where's the high power lines in that area? Where's this data center there? Right next to you like behind adjacent.

That's your building adjacent. So beware I

Yeah, the only thing to be aware of is that if you're in the middle of a service, it quite likely could happen that the data center will turn on their generators and you will sound like you're in a jet engine facility. You will have impact. So be aware of it. Maybe arrange with them to try and schedule there. their noisiest activities off hours for your facility.

We'll talk to the Niners about when they can score a touchdown. There you go, too.

That works too.

That's another day we don't pray.

Well, you can pray for them.

We will be praying only for the 49ers at that point.

All right. Any other questions for Alvin? Yes, sir.

So maybe my question's a little bit more, how should I say, off track, but I'll still ask it. It's an interesting proposition, right, to go find an office building and have a church or an assembly in it. Can you help me understand what's the background here? Who's wanting to do this? Is this a local community not finding a church nearby? Or what's driving this? And if you don't want to answer it, that's fine.

So they have a church. They have a... There's a group of them that meet right now at Mission College, and I think it's about, is it 400 right now, 400 people right now that are going to Mission College, and they want a permanent home. And Mission College only allows them to meet for so many years on their campus before they say, go find someplace else, we don't want anything to become permanent here. for a church. So the church is growing, and they need to find a home. So this is the first step for them to find a home. And I've done this with several churches throughout the Bay Area, putting them into commercial buildings, just because a lot of these commercial, especially R&D buildings, are heavy on parking, so they have enough parking for these people to do, and they have enough high space for them to have worship services in. I've done it in several commercial buildings.

Thank you for helping me understand that. I think there's plenty of office space available because of the new way of working, so if you're able to put it to some good use, then so be it. But thank you for helping me understand. Thank you.

I have a quick question. Have they tried to find another church that is diminishing in attendance and worship to kind of split the cost and split the... And what was the solution? Would they?

They're all nodding their heads. They're saying yes. They've looked at several.

And what happened?

Hold on, hold on. Please stop, because people are online and they'd like to hear you, please.

So we generally found that oftentimes they co-use the space, like another church would be using it on different hours, but then we found other places that were actually vacating the building, but they were choosing to sell the property rather than to hand it over to another church, so. Those are the things that we so we've really looked at really for the past five years.

We've been looking for a way that be more permanent than You can turn at least with option to buy We talked about that Any other questions Good, thank you Let's open up to public hearing Anybody in the audience would like to comment on this or is there anyone online that would like to comment on this? I And we'll start with who's here. So I don't see anybody wanting to step up. Elizabeth, is there anyone online?

No, we do not have anyone online requesting to speak.

All right.

Move to close public hearing. Second.

The motion is made by Commissioner Saleem, seconded by Chair Crutchlow to close public hearing. Can you go ahead and cast your votes? Are you seeing your?

I'd like to say yes.

Okay. So Commissioner Botnagar, I heard you say yes. Thank you. Several of you have been able to cast your vote. Commissioner Boza? Yes, you cast your vote. Chair Crutchlow?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. The motion passed unanimously to close public hearing.

No, no. That was just to close your comments.

You can wait for your recording later. Sir, we haven't given a decision yet. Celebrating ahead. Oh, my goodness. Sorry about that. I like your positivity here.

Preemptive. I know there's a higher power that might be giving you some inside information, but we can't talk about that here. All right, so with that, would anyone like to make a motion?

Where's Nancy when we need her?

Two motions would be appropriate.

Yeah.

Okay.

Since I have the agenda, Assuming you're all looking.

We're looking at you, yes. I got it.

Right.

Give me just a second, I'm going back to the top here. Okay. I'll just put a little comment in here to watch for your parking requirements, okay? So with that, motion to determine the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA facilities, if a CEQA guideline section 15301 plus one existing facilities.

Second.

Thank you. The motion was made by Commissioner Kuro, seconded by Commissioner Wang to approve staff recommendation 1. Go ahead and cast your vote, please.

I'll have to cast a voice vote.

I'm sorry.

I'll have to cast a voice vote.

Yes, please.

Yes.

Thank you. And the other person is Chair Crutchlow.

Yes.

Thank you, and that motion did pass unanimously. We have another adopt a resolution.

Hold on.

Hold on. You want to record? You have to allow me to speak. Adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit to allow a place of assembly that is the church within a portion of an existing office building located at 2929 Patrick Henry Drive, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

And can you add to that, if I may suggest, that G10 be modified to rename, to correct housing to office space or whatever the appropriate term is, please.

Friendly amendment accepted. I didn't quite hear that. What are you adding to the motion?

To correct G10. Condition G10.

Okay, thank you.

Second.

Place of assembly.

Place of assembly.

Otherwise they'd create a protected housing unit.

I do not want to create a technicality for some other poor lawyer that has to come up and defend it because of some bizarre situation. I'm trying to prevent that stuff. And what little I can do. All right.

So the motion was made by Commissioner Cherikourou, seconded by Commissioner Wang to approve staff recommendation 2 and to correct condition G10.

Sorry, point of clarification, if I may. Seeking clarification to understand if the weekday service from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. for weekday gatherings is also part of the motion.

That's your condition of approval, isn't it? So it's already there. unless you say it wasn't, and then we will make that friendly amendment from staff.

Yeah, it would be...

It's not there.

Okay, can you state that for the record louder? Subject to findings and condition of approval with amendment to condition G10 and... And condition P5A.

for the days and hours of operation to allow for the Weekday gathering from 6 p.m. To 10 p.m. 6 p.m. To 10 p.m. On weekday and weekends What is it the weekends already covered The weekend hours right now are 9 a.m. To 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Saturday. On Sunday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Okay.

So be it for the record.

Okay. So we're approving a staff recommendation 2 and correcting condition G10. And is it also a correction of condition P5A? Okay.

To add the weekday hours. Yeah, it's addition 2 p.m.

Hold on one second. Okay, go ahead and cast your vote, please. Commissioner Botnagar? Oh, you're able to vote on that?

Okay. I'm the last person then.

You're the last one for some reason.

Are you ready? Okay. Yes.

Okay. Well, in that case, it does pass unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome to our city again.

Wish they were all like that. Third year. Congratulations. Good.

Thank you for sitting through the first item. Okay.

All right, next item three, continuance of a pre-zone, pre-designation of a general plan land use annexation and vesting tentative subdivision map to allow for the development of 408 residential units at 451 El Camino Real. CEQA Environmental Impact Report, EIR, prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act CEQA. And I believe this is something you want to continue.

Thank you, Chair. Staff is just requesting that you open the public hearing and immediately continue this item to September 2nd.

Then I will open it to public hearing. To date certain. No, September 2nd. Next week, September 2nd. Yeah, this is why I took off. I'm taking vacation. So you get to deal with this without me, which makes it much faster and easier. All right. So now that it's up in the public hearing, do we actually ask if somebody wants to speak on it tonight? Okay, so if somebody would like to speak on this tonight, either here or online, this is the time to do it. Just remember, it's going to be continued to next week as well.

And there'll be another chance.

So you get two chances.

I think it's on. And your name, please?

Hi. Sean Collins, Santa Clara University Associate Vice President of University Operations. We occupy a building within the footprint right immediately around the development proposal. No G, sorry, on the name there.

I know, that was a mistake, sorry.

We had previously provided comment about concerns about the intersection at Oculte and Campbell Avenue where they intersect with El Camino Real. I'm not sure if those had been addressed. I don't know if this is the forum to find out about if the developer is proposing to do anything to help mitigate some of the concerns at that intersection, or that'll be discussed at the September 2nd meeting.

It's a good time to note to make sure that staff now addresses that. Okay, thank you.

Clarification, are you here on behalf of the Santa Clara University? I am. Okay, so that's for record that this is a public comment from Santa Clara University.

Correct.

Sean Collins.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Please.

Good evening. My name is Chuck Adamo. I'm from the North Coast States Carpenters Union. I'm a field rep. The project right now, as it sits, boost numbers for housing, be very great for the area. But at the same time, construction workers might be taken advantage of. So we're looking to... I guess speak with the developer. You guys put it out in the open for area standard language to apply to the project. That way we can put some safeguards in place to guarantee construction workers get a fair shake at making good money and have health benefits and apprenticeship. Right now, haven't heard if there's any agreements between the developer and contractor or anything like that. We'd like the opportunity to sit with the developer, and if they need help choosing a responsible contractor, we could give them that insight. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. And if Nancy was here, she would say she very much appreciates you being here. That being said, staff. He never looks down here. What? Okay, hold on one second, and then you can go next real quick. So staff, do you have any recommendations about if they want to, you know, obviously the Planning Commission can't say to the developer or anything like that, you need to meet with these people. Is there any recommendation for the best way that they can meet with the developer and or contractor?

Well, we can provide contact information, which I believe is,

Do you have their contact information? Okay, so Leslie will be the one that you can get in touch with, and she'll make that available to you. That being said, Lance, you have a question for the— Not a question.

It's a comment. I'll channel Nancy for this moment. It's a reminder for construction that we, as an advising body, don't require that support for labor. We can put in language to recommend it, and that is passed to city council, and they can include it.

Well, the city can't say that overall, but we can certainly recommend it. Yes, and yes, we always love to have Nancy here, so in her absence, we would definitely do that. Much better job than I do. We would recommend it. Suggest is probably the better way to put it. Okay. Okay, so anybody online that has a comment?

No, we do not have any requests.

Okay. Shall we continue?

Just to suggest that you're welcome to come back September 2nd and you can meet the developer in person.

All right. And same for Santa Clara University. We would recommend that. All right, so shall we make a motion to continue it to September 2nd?

Second.

OK. So I made the motion. Commissioner Baumgartner seconded the motion to continue to September 2nd. OK. Public hearing continued open.

Go ahead and cast your vote, please. I'm Commissioner chair Kuro. Are you able to cast your vote? Thank you. And then chair Crutchlow Your vote, please.

Yes.

Okay, it passed unanimously. Thank you to continue this date certain to September 2nd.

Thank you very much All right, and thank you for coming here and sitting through all that to appreciate it All right item for election of Planning Commission vice chair and secretary if needed

Yeah, I know it, Mr. Pulitzer.

Hold on, we're going to let our esteemed counsel here run the proceedings.

I can certainly run the proceedings if you would like. Please. At this time, the position of Vice Chair is declared to be open. Are there any nominations for Vice Chair of the Planning Commission?

Yes, Mr. Pulitzer.

A nomination for Mr. Booza. Are there any other nominations? I'd like to nominate Commissioner Cherukuru. Cherukuru is nominated. Are there any other nominations?

Are they acceptances? Well, hold on.

Are there any other nominations? Thank you, Leslie. I must ask a third time. Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, nominations are closed. Commissioner Boussa, do you accept your nomination? Yes, I do. Commissioner Cherukuru, do you accept your nomination?

I'll stay secretary and bear the brunt of speaking through.

I'm sorry, you're saying you're not accepting the nomination?

Yeah. You're not accepting it. Okay.

Okay. She did not accept it. She did not accept. Yeah, say that one more time since it's coming from you.

I will prefer to be the secretary and do not accept vice chair.

All you have to do is say no.

No, I don't like to keep things simple.

In that case, there being only one nominee, no vote is necessary by acclamation. Commissioner Bouza is now the Vice Chair of the Planning Commission.

Congratulations, Mr. Vice Chair.

Congratulations. You're running to the next meeting.

I don't know if that's a good question.

I'm running into the meeting next week. Okay. That's the end of public hearing items. Let's go on. Congratulations, Commissioner Booza. Where are we on? We're on reports.

We are on reports of commission, board liaison and committee, announcements and other items.

All right. Who has the announcements?

And other items?

Nothing? Nothing?

Nothing from staff. No announcements.

Okay, so it's gone two. Commissioner travel and training reports, requests to attend trainings. One item. Hold on.

Yes, sir. When are we talking about the representative to council? When? Yeah.

Do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do. We've got it on the next meeting. Okay.

Thank you.

Eric's not going to be here, I think. This is really, it's kind of an unfortunate timing if we're going to do it when one of the likely candidates for that... Can we just... Well, he can certainly accept in advance if there's a hypothetical nomination.

He can let us know that.

First of all, hold on. Next... What item are you thinking that you would like to have a representative

at the city council for. We are voting on a representation of city council to the council, I'm sorry, of the planning commission to attend and speak at city council.

If so needed. If we decide that we don't, then we don't have to send anybody. It's our call, right? Okay. You would like to know, okay, do we have, since when's the next city council meeting?

I think it's on the 15th, yeah. September 15th. Yeah.

Okay. So you won't have another Planning Commission meeting before that? Yes, we will on September 2nd. You'll have September 2nd, and then that's your last one before.

Okay. So first of all, since this is out of order and not on the agenda, is there any problem talking about this now?

It's legally awkward.

Can we do it as announcements and other items, or are we stretching that?

This is a procedural thing.

I didn't think it... You were asking when we were scheduling it. We've answered that. We should probably table the rest of it until we actually have the discussion next time. I can talk to you individually about what your absence means for all of that.

Well, I'll be absent there. And quite honestly, if it's on the 15th, I'll have just returned on the 14th. So I would not want to be the one there half asleep. I mean, yeah, and you can also... We can have anybody go anytime we want. So it doesn't have to... I don't think we necessarily have to have... two people that are always going to be the ones. We can rotate it, I think.

You don't have to designate your year-long people next time either. You could just do it for one meeting, and then once you have a full complement, have the designation of your, just some ideas.

Okay, so let's have it come up on September 2nd. And you guys can discuss it a bit more and go from there. Is that okay?

I thought the actual interest was that Zenda would come prepared with language. That was just an additional clarification on the zoning charter, planning commission charter.

The planning commission rules and procedures. Yes. Adding a rule to that.

So September 2nd we can. Review that language.

You can adopt the rules. You don't have to do the appointment at that meeting.

And then we could come back in October for the actual nominations.

Just to make sure the agenda hasn't gone out.

No.

Okay. For September 2nd.

No.

It will this week, though.

Thank you. Thank you. Got to do the report still.

We might be requesting a continuance Would you like then through the chair? Considering the burden of getting things would you want it to be in October? Barring that you could still go to planning City Council meetings as an individual Next week no, no, I'm saying should be allowed staff to work on it and not impose September 2nd Oh

We'll get to it if we can.

Okay. We won't. Okay. How about that? We give you the discretion to come to the planning commission back with the revised charter when the chair is still.

Mr. Chair, requesting the travel and training reports that we're going to talk about, I need to ask Alyssa with the question.

First of all, mr. Saleem, are you okay with that?

Everybody else okay with that?

Go ahead commissioner chair Akuru You're sitting right next to him What was it you we were talking about? Okay, we will ask staff to try and present this September 2nd and given the amount of work that they have if it's not a It's low priority is what we're going to say. And if it doesn't happen September 2nd, it will happen in October.

I understand. So, okay. If that is the way it is, then I understand and procedurally that's fine. I was just getting concerned that we are so wrapped in our procedural process that we're actually not accomplishing it. And that's the thing that bothers me a little bit is that we are pushing and pushing and pushing until it's eventually just falling off the edge of the cliff.

I will promise you that in October this will not be something that I will let go.

Okay. I'm certainly agreeable and amenable. Good. All I was asking was for clarification of when we would discuss it. Apparently it's September 2nd. We will discuss it even if we have to continue it for fractions. Makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you.

Okay, travel. Planning Commissioner attendance at the American Planning Association California Chapter Conference 2026 in Los Angeles. So I'm going to go for one day, which I believe is going to be October 5th. I need to give Elizabeth some information, an email, so she has that.

Yes, and we wanted to open this up to a vote if anybody else wanted to attend. I mean, this is our third time we've discussed it. We brought it up at the end of the fiscal year. At that time, Commissioner Wang wanted to attend, and that's being processed at the last meeting you discussed that you will be attending. Since then, I've had a commissioner ask about it. So we're opening up it again, opening it up the third time, and hopefully we can finalize this if anyone would like to attend, and we can vote to expend funds.

I have a question. Liz, can I let you know by tomorrow?

Yes, of course. What we can do, we can take a vote, correct, and we can vote to expend the funds, and if you choose not to go, then we're okay. Is that correct, Xander? Would that be fine? Okay, that way we're covering it.

I'm trying to move things around.

That way we won't have to discuss it again at the next meeting, correct? So this vote, at the last meeting we did not officially, I believe, vote to expend the funds for you, Commissioner, Chair Crutchlow, okay? Okay, so why don't we say in this one expend funds for both of you, Chair Crutchlow and Bozo to attend the conference, okay? Okay.

I'm presenting that.

So what happened here? Sorry. Hold on one second. I'm going down.

Yes, just so everybody knows, the reason I'm going down for one day is, first of all, work is kind of tying me down. But I am actually on a panel. So I'm actually going to present.

Right. You all should go. Yeah.

So everybody should vote no, I can't go.

Everybody should go.

All right. Leslie, thanks. Pull out your credit card. Thank you. You volunteered.

So who made the motion? So moved.

Second.

How much more are we talking about budgeting or we're just talking about TBD?

Well, at a previous meeting, I did outline all the costs. And it's also in the agenda packet that you have. Okay. It's approximately off the top of my head, you know, with everything probably about 2,000, could be a little less, but it was, the information was provided previously, but I can define it for you later. Okay, so go ahead and cast your vote, please.

I'll vote yes.

Okay, very good. Thank you. The motion passed. Thank you. Director of Community Development reports Planning Commission budget updates Elizabeth As far as the budget we do present that once a month at this time I have nothing new to add your budget did start at seventeen thousand three hundred and sixty-five and As a guesstimate if we have the three of you traveling we could we'd probably be at about Fifteen thousand or so after those expenses But right now it's at 17,000 still. Okay?

Regarding the airfare, I'll take care of that myself.

Okay, great. Thank you.

All right. Upcoming agenda items.

You have a meeting next week, September 2nd. Very quick turnaround. We do have a couple of items for you. The one that was just continued this evening, and then another possible rezoning action, and maybe a couple of things from our assistant city attorney. I'll hold off on this.

being indicted for anything, I assume.

Not today. Also, I just wanted to mention at the last meeting, Commissioner Saleem asked about ventilation for EV chargers, and I did consult the building official, and he informed me that the EV chargers that are used in residential and homes are such low power that they don't generate enough heat to justify ventilation in single-family homes and townhouses. In larger facilities like a condo building where there's a, you know, a shared garage, the building code already requires the type of ventilation that would be necessary. So he gave me a sort of a, yeah, that's a valid concern, but it's really already taken care of. So he wasn't enthusiastic about adding new ventilation requirements given the power requirements.

To clarify, it wasn't ventilation for heat. It was ventilation for gases that are produced as part of the charging process, which is 40 amp chargers. Ozone is created and other considered harmful gases are gathered and built up over time. So it was not ventilation for heat, but ventilation for gases. That's why we have carbon monoxide and other sensors in garages for ice cars.

Can I add a quick just feedback on while we are talking about agenda dates? So I'm trying to look at the October meeting dates and on our website, one, we don't have a clarity about public can see our planning commission dates now I can understand it used to have a like a list of you know a paper document that was a PDF that was attached I understand that we have changes we have special planning commission we have all sorts of other meetings in lieu but it's now stating when generally meets once a month on a Wednesday at 6 p.m. is there a way to be much more visible because I'm looking for when the next October meeting is and I can't find it

Oh, you're hoping for a sort of a consistent rule that it'll be the third Wednesday or something like that rather than sort of a little bit patchwork the way it is now?

It's not even clear. It's a Wednesday.

It's not a Wednesday. It is some Wednesday. I will tell you a lot of it depends on staff availability, and we sit down each year and go over the calendar pretty carefully. This year, weirdly enough, we had a bunch of Wednesdays that were holidays. So admission day is a day we were usually going to have one. We couldn't do that. Veterans Day is also Wednesday this year, so we couldn't do that.

So some of them... Only because I would like to have some legitimate way that we can anticipate our planning commission. I'd like to know.

Is really the question like look no we know what the calendar looks like for this year holidays are there we had possible to formalize it a little more in advance Typically adopted calendar meeting we always have as an annual occurrence.

Yes, I

adoption of the calendar of meeting events. We've taken into consideration summer. We've given one month off. We recognize there's always going to be something special when we announce it.

So historically, in October, you have always voted on the upcoming year meetings. And that's when we do it. And you do, each of you do get the listing of it. It's placed on your Outlook calendars also. We did used to have it on the website. We were directed not to do it. Correct, Leslie? Correct. To have that listing there due to an issue with PDFs. It is there. You just have to click on the link to the...

Yeah, even when I go into the legislature, it takes me into a black hole.

It gives me the whole world of planning.

You have to filter it by planning commission, yes. It is not friendly. Please don't go make me do this. I've been there, done that.

I don't disagree. Priya, I can show you when we end the meeting. I have it up. It is maybe a little more cumbersome. Yes. But on our end as staff, we have provided all the information to all of you. But I do understand what you're saying. If you were to look at it, it can be a little difficult to comprehend. It is practically not existent.

We haven't set 2027 yet. No. And I appreciate the sentiment to have, you know, hey, can we consistently make it the third Wednesday or something? Respectfully, no.

I don't want, but I want to know, when is October meeting?

This October. It's on your Outlook calendar. This October.

I'm looking for a date this October. It's the 7th.

October 7th.

Okay, so the first Wednesday is typical. No, no.