I’m at the @SantaClaraCity council meeting. Councilmembers will discuss joining an “Innovation Zone” with San Jose and a transportation collaborative for Stevens Creek Blvd. Here’s the agenda: santaclara.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&… And here is where you can watch along santaclara.granicus.com/mediaplayer.ph…
@SantaClaraCity Here is a story I wrote leading up to tonight's meeting: sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-of… I'll be updating it with more information tonight/tomorrow morning so you can get a summary of what happened tonight if you can't follow along in real time.
@SantaClaraCity So far, the council has approved the consent portion of the agenda, but is currently discussion the Exclusive Negotiations Agreement with developer Republic for a project at 500 Benton.
@SantaClaraCity This was set for the consent agenda, but councilmembers to pull the item for discussion because Republic's ENA is currently expired and the council wants a more concrete timeline for the project and also has concerns around water quality because there are wells on the site.
@SantaClaraCity Vice Mayor Mahan says this is setto be a "much needed" student housing project" but she also knows that this site also has some historic assets and acknowledges the water concerns.
@SantaClaraCity City Attorney Brian Doyle clarifies that there are kind of two ENA's out there -- one with the city and one with the VTA. Under the updated ENA that the council will vote on tonight, the developer needs to come back with more environmental info by Aug. 5, 2020.
@SantaClaraCity He notes that all the document is is direction to staff members to bring back a report on how the water/well issue is going before then so the council can decide what kinds of conditions of approval the city wants to make to grant a new ENA or developer agreement.
@SantaClaraCity City Manager Santana also clarifies that the ENA is *not* currently expired, as previously stated during the meeting. So there is an ENA currently active, but this item would update the ENA and extend it if approved by the council.
@SantaClaraCity Here is the ENA in question from the council agenda: santaclara.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&… It is just 6 pages long, if you want to read it and kinda understand a bit more about what they are talking about building here (basically a dorm-type living)
@SantaClaraCity A rep for the developer spoke and said that the developer has not been "dragging it feet" as one councilmember suggested tonight. Instead, it has been "very cooperative" and has had a lot of hoops to jump through with VTA and others. He also says the well isn't an issue.
@SantaClaraCity A resident, Jonathon Evans, says basically he doesn't like this project proposal. Wants the council to say no to the ENA because he doesn't think the developer has been responsive to resident concerns about the project (like whether this should be for students vs. professionals)
@SantaClaraCity Resident Patricia Leung says she also has concerns about the project and says the developer hasn't been very responsive to resident concerns. she wants the city to open up a new process that will "highlight this keystone property" and maximize the development potential.
@SantaClaraCity Resident and Planning Commissioner Suds Jain is here and says he lives int he Old Quad. He says something this close tot he train station should not be set aside for students but for workers who commute to jobs. With all the transit infra changes coming, not need to rush this.
@SantaClaraCity Robert Mayer agrees and says that because this is city-owned land the city should "drive the pro-forma" to make this "truly a destination." He thinks that the area south of this site should be for housing, and make this site a "gem" for the city near the Caltrain station.
@SantaClaraCity Resident John Faylor, who is also a part owner of a residential real estate firm, and he says he thinks it makes "full sense" for the city to approve this ENA. "The key about this location is it will move current students who live in the quad area ... closer to the university."
@SantaClaraCity Resident Brian Gregory who lives near the university says he is "fully supportive of any incremental housing being built." he says any housing on this location would be good, the project looks good, and this project "just makes sense."
@SantaClaraCity Jerry Smith (women's soccer coach at Santa Clara University) and he says that he is supportive of the project. Housing is the university's #1 issue he says, and housing on this site will relieve some of that stress in the Quad area. He says the size/design of this project "fits."
@SantaClaraCity John DeRigg, who works with Republic, says the developer is "committed to a project that enhances the community." He says 70 units will be "true affordable housing." he adds that they are not building a dorm. The project would be leased by bed, not by apartment, but the project..
@SantaClaraCity wouldn't just be for students. He says that by leasing by bedroom, not unit, that offers more affordable housing that anyone can come live in. He ends by reminding the council that there are 4K students living in the area who can't be housed on campus.
@SantaClaraCity Resident Adam Thompson asks councilmembers "what's the community's property rights?" and says he hasn't seen outreach to neighbors about what they want on the site. He acknowledges the housing issue for students, but says that will get solved as more projects come online. ...
@SantaClaraCity He also notes that students are only around for 9 months of the year and questions how that will affect local business.
@SantaClaraCity Resident John Dietrich, who lives in the Old Quad, says that he recently heard about the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement on the project and thought that would mean there would be a "great project," but he was disappointed in what he saw.
@SantaClaraCity He says that anyone who thinks that a non-student would live in a student housing area is not correct. Notes the partying that many students partake in and asks the city to get a project that offers more to the city/area.
@SantaClaraCity Resident Mathew Reed, who is from SV@Home and sits on the city's downtown taskforce. He says SV@Home is a "housing for all" group and says this is a "real opportunity site for housing." He notes this is the parking lot of the transit station and he says this project will ...
mostly serve students who won't get on the train, but walk to school, so he basically questions, like others have questioned, whether this is the right place to encourage student housing because its so close to transit.
Resident Kirk Vartan says he can't remember SV@Home ever oppose a housing project so asks councilmembers to consider that. He says he remembers when the project was just student housing, adding this project has "grown in scope, it hasn't grown in presence."
He is urging the council doesn't support an extension and instead does "something really amazing" on the site.
Resident Kathy Kelsey is supportive of the project because she isn't sure this project will become just student housing as some fear because this type of housing is growing in popularity (think co-living). She says she thinks the devleoper has reached out to the community and the
architecture will blend in with the existing train station. She is asking the council to consider making the hotels on The Alameda into student housing, because she says the hotels as they are today are "iffy" neighbors.
Resident Mark Kelsey wants more outreach to community and says the city is not pushing hard enough to get what the city needs to do here. He says building a dorm on this site is not the answer to our student housing problem nor is it necessarily the right use ... in the long run.
He is asking the council to direct city staff to make a comprehensive student housing plan for the whole neighborhood. (personal note: I would love to look at a plan like that!)
Resident Vince Rocha says he sees this as workforce housing and not just student housing "we should not look down on people who can just afford one room." He urges people not to judge other people's housing preferences.
Resident Emmy Mooreminister says the station is very important to the neighborhood and asks the city not to "discriminate" against people who would choose to live in a place like this and rent just a bedroom. She also hopes whoever lives on the site will support the downtown
as the city/residents work to revitalize the downtown.
Resident Mary Grizzle said she has met with CM Watanabe and a Republic representative and has suggested changes to the project. She says the developer has been very receptive to those suggestions. She is supportive of the project and working with this developer.
She said she is surprised that residents of the Old Quad aren't elated for this project because it will take students out of the Old Quad. She also says a walkable overpass will solve problems with students walking to the school across El Camino. Another person here says "yes!"
Resident Robert Fitch is supportive of the project. He says that if developments were built as fast as they should be they would not be so expensive, so he is supportive of the city moving ahead with the project quickly.
This person (didn't catch his name but he works at Santa Clara University) says it makes sense to build housing where transit is and it would benefit students. he says it would offer student more options other than residential neighborhoods to live.
Resident Gabby Seagrave pushes back on the assertion that this is not going to end up being student housing. "This gateway to our city should really be something more interesting and something commuters will actually use."
VM Mahan says this makes it clear there are two different sides of the story. She also says she doesn't want to denigrate the students at SCU who are residents and are often good students and residents. She says the biggest problems happen in the single family houses...
But she says this is not that, and this is the kind of student housing the city needs. She says that the fact that there will be four separate leases will be a remedy to a lot of the issues around student housing the city is facing -- like how to evict students not on a lease.
She says students are some of the most key elements to re-energizing the city's downtown. Mary Grizzle is in eager agreement with that. :) Mahan says the city needs to acknowledge that students are our residents, leases are often for a whole year and some stay all year round.
Now there is some confusion about what will happen with the well on the site. Kelly (rep from Republic) says the plan is to move the well, but keep it on site. She says that they ahve been talking to the VTA and city for weeks to figure out the location for the wells on the site.
She says once they get direction on that, they are prepared to pay the costs associated with moving or drilling the well(s).
@SantaClaraCity CM O'Neill reminds us that she was the lone dissenting vote on granting the ENA a few years ago because she is "generally not in favor of that process" but clarifies with Doyle that the city has a way out if they can't come to an agreement on what will rise.
Doyle basically confirms -- there's no approval of a project here until after the environmental work is done.
Mayor Gillmor said that the city has been working on this project for awhile and notes that Republic wasn't the only proposer for the site. She said a big impetus for the project was to get students out of the residential area in the Old Quad.
She said they can't discriminate and say it is only for students, but also suggests that others might like that kind of housing option. She says she doesn't want anyone to forget how the project got here and says the blame for anything people don't like so far isn't just on the
developer "everyone had a piece in this story. ... it's the city, its the developers and its the VTA ... we all had a say in what's been happening so far." She appreciates that the community is very engaged in what is happening, but notes that this is early. They are just working
on a negotiating agreement, not finalizing the project and there are a lot of issues still to be worked out. She supports the project &council unanimously votes to approve the ENA extension with direction to come back with updates on the well and historic building in 120 days.
Ok, I will do a bit of an update on that in the follow up story you'll see later tonight or tomorrow morning. I honestly didn't expect an ENA extension to be that controversial, friends, but here we are! :)
Now we are hearing about the city's user fee schedule. So, this is a multi-phase process, where the city has been evaluating the city's fees and whether those fees are effective in recovering the costs of certain services.
The city found that in some cases, the fees were recovering the cost for the service and more and in other cases, they were way under-collecting. Overall, the city found it needed to do an adjustment on the fees and they've been working on updating the fees this year.
Here is the outline of how the fees are working today. 
Here’s the performance of the fees under the recommended fee changes.
The city is now considering adopting the proposed fee changes, which will increase some fees for certain services in the city. The Council has no questions right now.
Resident Robert Fitch says one problem he has with cost recovery is it "double counts things" because the citizens pay taxes (city staff salaries) but then also the cost for individual tasks.
Santana says that user fees are common among other cities and that they are legal if they don't exceed 100 percent cost recovery.
So the city has voted unanimously to accept the proposed changes to this set of fees. I'll find a way to break them down a bit more, probably in a future story, because fees can be a bit complicated and a lot to digest. So, watch out for that if you want more info.
Now to the "Innovation Zone" which will likely be announced in a press release in January. San Jose Vice Mayor Chappie Jones is leading the charge on this and Santa Clara has to decide if they want to partner up. I explained it a little more in my preview: sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-of…
CM Davis says there are no real specific ideas being proposed here, and she prefers Stevens Creek Blvd to be an innovation zone if the city has one. She says the proposed area in Santa Clara is her district and she doesn't think residents want pilot programs happening there.
She says "being that it is in my district, I'm really concerned I'm going to get a lot of phone calls," because residents are already complaining about shuttle buses going through there. She also worries about staff time spent on the issue.
CM O'Neill clarifies that some people are getting two separate agenda items mixed up. One is this innovation zone with SJ, the other is a corridor study on Stevens Creek Blvd, partnering with the county, VTA, Cupertino and SJ.
"I'll be honest with you this was a chance to work together with San Jose ... on a shared border," CM O'Neill said. she says this is an attempt to have an area where people can try lots of things but if Santa Clara doesn't want it, San Jose will just do it within their boundaries
She says that if SJ came to them with a big project that would take a lot of resources, Santa Clara could say no because that isn't what they are signing up for. She stresses she saw this as an opportunity to work with San Jose cooperatively.
O'Neill said she feels the Stevens Creek Blvd study is more important to her, though. CM Watanabe said she has has reservations on putting more work on city staff members' plates. She likes the Stevens Creek Blvd study, but is hesitant to support the innovation zone.
CM Watanabe says she isn't sure if Santa Clara would really benefit from the Innovation Zone. She wants to defer the decision on an innovation zone to when the staff has more resources to work together on the the initiative.
CM Hardy says she worries they might be signing up their residents with something they didn't intend. She also notes there is a lot of technology that could help the city and improve services. She wants to defer the decision and not "write a blank check" for pilots in the city.
Mayor Gillmor said that she's met with Jones and asks Santana if the city got back info they'd asked his office for ahead of continuing the discussion. Santana said they got some info, but not all the specifics they'd asked for.
Gillmor says this proposed area is mostly single family residential and she doesn't see a SFH neighborhood being the best for a new innovation zone where companies would be testing "all kinds of things." She says she wants to give it a chance, but she wants more information.
San Jose resident Ken Pyle says the "probably the biggest innovation we could have is governments working together." He said no one knows what the cities who participate are signing up for, but that's the opportunity. When grants come up for innovation, these partnerships are key
SC resident Kirk Vartan says what Pyle is talking about is an olive branch to both cities coming together. He agrees that no one knows what it means, but it is also not a blank check, in his view. He suggests the city can opt out on a project-by-project basis for the pilots.
Suds Jain (Planning Commissioner) says he agrees with CM O'Neill that working with SJ would be a good thing. He talks about pop-up bollards that Mountain View has tested as an example of what could happen in Santa Clara. He adds he thinks the city could learn a lot from SJ.
Robert Fitch says the city is working on both Pruneridge and Stevens Creek Blvd -- two major projects -- and this is not the time to be making such a decision when the city doesn't know what it is all about.
One of Jones' staffers is here emphasizing that the proposed innovation zone is really just about collaboration and trying new things out. Gillmor presses her on the Mercedes pilot that has been buzzing in San Jose and she says that pilot is separate from the innovation zone.
(That Mercedes pilot is about testing autonomous vehicles in the city of San Jose, for those who haven't heard about it yet.) This staff member says there is no confirmed project for the innovation zone, but those would come back to the city on a case-by-case basis.
CM Davis says the idea of collaboration is great, but stresses the city has a lot on its plate already. She wants to have a robust conversation when SJ has more info about the innovation zone. She wants to defer the convo.
CM Hardy says she "desperately wants to like this" but she needs an example of what would come to the innovation zone to take to residents and make sure they feel comfortable. Gillmor said she hopes when the convo comes back around in January, they have more info.
Ok, the city is deferring this conversation and will take it back up in the new year when they hope to have more information.
Now we are onto the item about the transportation collaborative along Stevens Creek Blvd with Cupertino, Santa Clara, SJ, the county and VTA. This is an effort to study transportation/transit options along the busy corridor and VTA will lead the charge.
Tonight, Santa Clara leaders will have to decide if they want to collaborate with the cities and county and VTA on the study. That will likely mean that the city will eventually need to divert resources (and money) toward the effort.
CM O'Neill says that the VTA has expressed hope that if they get resolutions of support from each of the cities then they may be able to seek out grant funding for any future project. She hopes the city will support this collaboration because the city needs to start thinking ...
about what it wants to do with Stevens Creek Blvd, which is today dotted with car dealerships. She name-drops Elon Musk when talking about options. It's not confirmed he'd be involved in a project here, but it's not the first time his name has come up re: this corridor.
VM Mahan said she wants more info about what a potential project will add to the city's workload and budget, but she is supportive of forming a collaborative with neighboring cities.
CM Davis says "this is what we need to do. We need to work with our neighbors." She says she knows people and organizations are looking to help ease the gridlocked. She says this is more what she's talked to Chappie Jones about. "If you want to work together, this is it."
She sees this as like a "grand boulevard" to get form point A to point B. (side note: I think there is a regional effort to make a "grand boulevard" plan, but for El Camino, so don't get that confused!)
CM Watanabe says she talked to Jones about this effort two years ago and it made a lot of sense to her back then, and she is still happy to support this collaboration.
CM O'Neill notes that all the groups involved in this effort are "very resource strapped," so if they can't get grants or "Elon Musk to come drop $5 (million or billion -- i didn't hear) on us" then it is not going to happen."
Ken Pyle is glad city is supports the measure. He wants the cities to focus on the street, but also the land use on Stevens Creek Blvd, and make it all multi-modal. "let's take this opportunity to create something that is that grand boulevard for all modes of transportation."
Kirk Vartan is also happy the city is supportive. He says the experience of a pedestrian is so different than that of someone in a vehicle, so he wants the city to be paying attention to that.
Planning Commission Chair and resident Anthony Becker says he would like to see the city, SJ and Cupertino all working together instead of "having a peeing contest to see which is the better city." His vision is by the time he is retired, he wants some kind of ...
mode of transportation going down the middle of Stevens Creek. He says he talks to people who have asked why there isn't a light rail down the street. In his view, there is an appetite for something like that.
Robert Fitch asks what assumptions the city is making about the future. "It's interesting that one little new light in the middle between Winchester and San Tomas is a lifesaver to get across Stevens Creek. ... How many other things are like that that we need to be looking at?"
Ok, the city passes this unanimously. They are agreeing to partner with neighboring cities and the VTA to work on a transportation study for Stevens Creek. What will it look like? Not sure yet, so stay tuned!
Now on to a public hearing on potential rate increases for the city’s electric service. Here’s a rundown of past increases and the current proposal
Notably, Santa Clara still has significantly lower eclecticism costs than PG&E.
So the question now is whether the city will approve this rate increase. Davis makes a motion to approve the increase.
CM O'Neill says the city got a letter from the school district saying they weren't aware of the pending rate increase, which would impact their budget. It sounds like city noticing came after they approved their budget.
The city approves that rate increase unanimously.
Ok! Now onto a controversial topic: the ballot measure that will appear on the March 3 ballot to split the city into three districts for future elections. Need a primer on this and why it is controversial? Read this please: sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-to…
*electricity. What a weird autocorrect
Tonight city leaders are going to talk about putting this on the ballot officially with this language.
Why is this controversial? Well, I explain that in my story linked above, but basically the question really came down to whether the city should stick with the 6 districts ordered by a judge and used in 2018 to elect Hardy and Chahal, or move to 3 districts, per a recommendation
by a council-appointed Charter Review Committee, which in a split vote opted to go with the 3 districts and recommended a slew of other updates to the city's charter to dictate who can run for office in the city.
CM Mahan is concerned whether the first section of the ballot question is needed because the city is under court order to keep six districts through 2020, and she worries residents may get confused by the language. City Clerk says that was part of the council's direction before
CM Hardy is agreeing with VM Mahan. Now City Clerk says that is a fair suggestion but says then maybe the city just makes the ballot question to not indicate how many districts at all, but he says the voters deserve to know what they are voting on.
(CM Hardy and VM Mahan weren't suggesting to remove all info about how many districts the cit will be split into, but wondered if the note about the 6 districts in 2020 would be confusing and if it is necessary because the city is under court order to keep 6 districts in 2020.)
You can see from my past stories and this conversation that this is confusing and nuanced. There are a lot of passionate arguments on both sides of this issue. The city is putting this on the ballot after its Measure A failed in 2018. ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara,_C…
Residents said clearly in 2018 they wanted to vote by district (Measure N) but voted down 2 districts the same year. Will 3 districts be the magic number?
Resident Wesley Mukoyama says in 2011 he asked the city to change its at-large voting, and the city didn't so in 2017 they sued the city. he voted against Measure A as well. "This is really against what we fought for for our civil rights as Asian Americans."
Resident Minh Steven Dovan says the city is trying to subvert the court's order to split into 6 districts and says that the city will get itself into more litigation and more cost to the taxpayers. Says the order is clear the judge meant the city to stick with 6 districts ongoing
Resident Victoria Smith says the city should reject the 3 district plan and go with a 6 district plan "because the data, the people and the court say so."
She says that an (unscientific) survey that the city put out showed that a majority of residents wanted 6 districts. She says the city is setting itself up for more legal issues and costs by not going with the judge's ordered 6 districts and what the survey said.
Sameena Usman said that the city used 6 districts in 2018 and residents elected a minority member. She says that shows the 6 districts work when it comes to electing people chosen by a diverse body of residents. She also fears the city is setting itself up for more litigation.
She repeats an argument that we've heard before: making smaller districts will allow more diverse people of differing socio-economic groups to run more easily because it costs less to run for a smaller district.
Suds Jain, who chaired the Charter Review Committee, is here and he is advocating for 6 districts. He voted for 6 districts but was out-voted on the committee. He, too, is concerned the city is setting itself up for more litigation.
Resident Steve Chessin, president of Californians for Electoral Reform, praises the city for "out of the box thinking," in the process. He pushes back on the concern about further legal issues due to going with 3 districts.
Anthony Becker says that that he is for 6 districts and that going to 3 districts seems like "going backwards." He says it is cheaper to run with six districts, and he thinks that it should be about who you know in your neighborhood, not city hall and 6 districts will do that.
He notes that other cities that are smaller than Santa Clara have split into 6 districts why shouldn't Santa Clara?
Ben Cooley, who was also a Charter Review Committee and voted for 3 districts, agrees with VM Mahan and CM Hardy about the first part of the verbiage of the ballot question being kind of confusing.
He said that during the committee meetings he would not have selected this system if he was "king and drawing the process" but feels that 3 districts was what came out of the process. The biggest argument for that he mentioned was that people want to vote in every election.
Bob O'Keefe (resident) said he voted against Measure A but he liked the process with the Charter Review Committee. He doesn't think there is a real threat of a lawsuit because there is no proof of racial polarized voting with 3 districts.
Resident Kevin Park said there was "very sparse discussion" at the charter review committee and the meetings weren't well noticed. He felt a lot of the discussions were already predetermined. He felt some committee members came in focused to come to a specific result.
CM Davis said she appreciates people coming and making comments but "I would really like to make some comments back to you." She says back to the criticism re: not following the data and she says "data can be manipulated. On his way out, Park says, "So can votes."
She says that the reason Measure A failed is because people didn't understand the situation. She says from what she understands the judge was given a map of seven districts so she believes there was a political agenda to get rid of the mayor.
CM Davis said that they took the recommendation of the Charter Review Committee because the council picked people from their districts to represent their districts. She said in the past people have been upset they can't vote in every election and 3 districts takes care of that
She calls out a resident who is shaking his head in the crowd and says residents "have a right to vote, we're Americans." He yells "You're just protecting your *ss."
She says they asked the Charter Review Committee to make a recommendation, and they took the recommendation. She is making a motion to put the question on a ballot.
CM O'Neill said she has served on a large and diverse Charter Review Committee in the past. She said at the time people were less interested in districts, but in new voting systems, like ranked choice voting (that wasn't discussed this time around.)
She said at that time there were not minority groups clustered together enough to represent those groups without gerrymandering. She said their findings were the biggest issues were that people weren't voting or registering so the city started a big education campaign.
She feels that the 3 districts is a good option because they are small enough to hear peoples' voices in elections. She said "unfortunately we probably should have had somebody who puts together surveys for a living because it's not statistically meaningful."
VM Mahan says the CVRA is intended to eliminate racially polarized voting. She said this doesn't mean the voting population is racist or that minorities always vote for minorities. She said all it means that at an at-large election 50 percent of the voters control all seats.
She said this happens because other voices, including minorities' voices, get diluted. The judge who ordered 6 districts found that was happening in Santa Clara. She says every case that has come down in CA has found that a one-member district is the only thing that will ...
satisfy the CVRA and eliminate racially polarized voting. She says the 2018 election shows 6 districts works, noting that Raj Chahal got elected in a district that has many Hispanic residents, though Chahal is not Hispanic.
Mahan adds she does not think 3 districts satisfies the CVRA because they are too large and she thinks 6 districts with one person in each district is the only thing that will satisfy the CVRA.
CM Watanabe says as a result of her background and marriage she understands cultural diversity and respecting it and she lives in a community where the majority of the population is Asian American -- it has the largest percentage of Asian Americans in the city.
She says she ran a grassroots campaign with $13K to run against four men in an at-large election. She said she didn't have much money to send out mailers but was happy to know she won with how little she raised because she capped her donations at $100
When she won she found she had won every precinct in the city despite running against four men and that "meant a lot to me because it showed the people voted for me because they knew I was going to represent me." When people said the only thing Asian about her is her last name
she said her name does not represent who she is or her work. Basically, she says nothing was racially polarized about the election she ran in. She supports the 3 districts and the appeal the city has ongoing about the judge's ruling re: 6 districts.
She says she heard many people talk about how they want to vote in every election and if they don't like somebody who represents them in their districts, they have a chance to vote for someone they want to represent them in their district.
She says the 3 district system will open up the doors to have a council that will be diverse and have representation. She is glad the city has come to the resolution and hopes people will adopt the ballot measure so "we can continue to move forward."
CM Hardy says she doesn't feel she can support the motion for 3 districts because when she went to the league of CA Cities she sat down with leaders in other cities and found that other cities much smaller are going to 5-6 districts so the idea that Santa Clara
is too small for 6 districts "doesn't hold water." On the topic of voting every election she says she doesn't get to vote for the governor every election or senator or representative every election. She says how people vote isn't important, it's how the council governs
She believes that 6 districts would allow more people to run competitively and she feels going to 3 districts would be a big step back.
City Clerk Hosam Haggag responds to a public comment that he should have recused himself from the Charter Review Committee process because he was part of Measure A push. He pushes back and says he was elected at-large to do this job.
City Attorney Brian Doyle said that if formal polling was how decisions were made then Hillary Clinton would be president right now. He says this was an "entirely democratic" process. He says all the council can do is put something on the ballot and it is for the people to decide
He says "Call me old fashioned, but I like democracy." He says this was the proper way to put this on the ballot. Doyle also notes that "this is not forever. He thinks the judge was wrong in his ruling on 6 districts.
He says that he thinks the city is very diverse. He believes that some people in the city want to segregate racial minorities by district. He says the process has been very painful and that people have spoken at the lectern and called city officials racist.
VM Mahan asks what if a voter wants to vote yes on 2020 election with 6 districts but no on the 3 districts for 2022 on beyond. She wonders why the council can't have two separate ballot questions. She says they are two different questions.
Mayor Gillmor says Mahan should have brought that up earlier but Mahan pushes back and says she has only just now seen the language in the ballot. She thinks it would be more transparent and simple to split the question: 1) 6 districts in 2020 and 2) 3 districts after that.
Haggag pushes back and says that residents can vote on this. Mahan pushes back and asks why the two pieces can't be split for the ballot. Haggag asks "what if both pass?" Mahan says that is what would be ideal. Gillmor steps in and says they'll vote on the current language.
Mayor Gillmor says there is a lot of good info and bad info presented tonight and she can't go into all the bad info because they'd be here all night. She says that Santa Clarans do not vote by race. The council selected a process to have a charter review committee
to amend the charter because the charter right now says that elections will happen at-large, which needs to change. Each councilmember appointed a charter review committee member and agreed with the process. Shenotes this was a really difficult situation and she watched the
committee go through hours of discussion to come to a recommendation. "Make up your reasons that you don't want to support he committee that we appointed to go out and engage with the people," she said.
She says she thinks the ballot question is clear. "why are people so opposed to asking our residents what they want on the charter?" She says "we need to move ahead, we are accepting the recommendation." Then the city can educate the community on what it means.
The ballot measure passes 4-2 (Chahal is not here tonight)
The mayor is going to write the argument in favor of the ballot question with CM Watanabe and CM O'Neill.
Now the city is looking at adding a chapter to the city's code to grant an expedited permitting process for electric vehicle charging facilities. And that passes unanimously.
The city is now looking at adopting the 2019
California Fire Code into its own code. And that passes unanimously.
California Fire Code into its own code. And that passes unanimously.
Doyle just announced that the 49ers has sued the city over the city's vote to effectively take away the team's ability purchase items or sign contracts for work at Levi's Stadium. "So that's what the 49ers think of your elected officials for the folks playing at home," he says
I just checked with Doyle, who said the request for arbitration on the matter came in today. I will get as much info as I can on this and share as soon as I can.
