[{"_1":2,"_94":-5,"_95":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6517823,"mediaKeyId","5402479-3e87a0ed1272b42d96c13ccc6fea5186","parentId",5402479,"title","Council at a glance: approvals include two housing projects, weed abatement and consent items; charter panel formed","audioSeconds",3838,"startMs",9787000,"endMs",13625000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5402479-3e87a0ed1272b42d96c13ccc6fea5186&start=9787&end=13625","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5402479-3e87a0ed1272b42d96c13ccc6fea5186/thumbnail_9787000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6517823/Santa-Clara/Santa-Clara-County/California/Council-at-a-glance-approvals-include-two-housing-projects-weed-abatement-and-consent-items-charter-panel-formed","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6517823-d432de27e07da6b54bdfef8711eeb521/orig.mp4?Expires=1771078114&Signature=a5ZDjGG2H4Eik4Azt1nsahvbwmSHQCJwFsiv8MSjnjYMuLjbZ1VciBK~U6NzTpRrRnm~Tl5KrYPPxrjeI3GPqKn7e7KHdYcVenCESFBgiW~WxX-dFdVmcXco~TLpVoT~YZVnjmVP7i5jnilrA6By0xy~ujm2auJw7qB1kOs6HXoC3P8jKnNBUk9FiIrPk5Lc3cYqadV4v4bIvvRI1FS3dB~ccpwPXzPdnSawCkDXKHoBqFbGEGyXL3ThCpFn3Sabh5VM1IGUWf5zPKigWXuRZXBjGlXcWz5HSkbnRv7cAKLmLu0viL1dAz9Hx~nJAMJP6D4dfoom7qaQ21dy63gG0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Santa Clara","date","2025-07-16T06:09:21Z","article","This summary lists actions the Santa Clara City Council took during the meeting and brief context for each item. Formal motions and vote outcomes recorded on the public record are included.

Votes at a glance

- Charter Review Committee (Item 2) — Approved (6–1). Council directed staff to form a 13‑member committee (seven appointed seats tied to council selections and six lottery seats selected by district), require committee members to be qualified electors, allow existing commissioners to apply, and return with a work plan and recruitment materials. Council Member Park voted no. (See separate article for details.)

- Consent calendar — Approved (unanimous). The council approved the balance of the consent calendar with the note that Council Member Chahal would recuse on item 4k; item 4o (implementation of a Section 401(a) deferred compensation plan) was pulled for discussion and later continued.

- Item 4o (Section 401(a) deferred compensation plan) — Continued to date uncertain (unanimous). Multiple bargaining-unit representatives asked for additional time to discuss employee contribution options for the plan; staff agreed to return after additional meetings with HR and bargaining groups.

- Giannera Street project (2303 Giannere Street) — Approved (unanimous). Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), approved rezoning and a vesting tentative map to allow subdivision and development of eight semi‑attached single‑family residences. Conditions include standard mitigation measures for air quality, biological, cultural, geological and noise impacts; one unit will be below‑market‑rate.

- Cheney Street townhomes (4249 Cheney Street) — Approved (unanimous). Council adopted an MND and MMRP, approved a General Plan amendment to low‑density residential (8–19 DUA), rezoned to R‑2 (low density) and approved a tentative subdivision map for up to nine for‑sale townhomes. The applicant elected to pay the in‑lieu affordable housing fee prior to certificate of occupancy.

- Weed abatement report confirmation — Approved (unanimous). Council confirmed the county weed‑abatement report and ordered abatement costs be levied as special assessments where applicable after the public‑hearing opportunity.

Other votes and actions

- Excusal motion (early in meeting) — Approved (roll-call recorded as yes votes). Council moved to excuse Council Member Hardy at the start of the meeting (a routine procedural vote); Hardy later joined remotely under AB 2449 justification and was marked present.

- Meeting minutes and routine reports — Various consent items adopted as part of the consent calendar. Councilmember Chahal recused on 4k (use of city forces for fiber installation near his office); 4o was pulled then continued after public comment.

Context and next steps

The planning items (Giannera and Cheney) will proceed to architecture review and building permit stages subject to compliance with the conditions of approval. The charter review committee formation requires staff follow‑up to publish an application, conduct the lottery and collect roster information; staff told council they would return with a detailed formation plan and timetable.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Santa Clara City Council & Authorities Concurrent and Stadium Authority Mtg. - July 15, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The council approved land‑use entitlements for two small residential subdivisions, confirmed the weed‑abatement assessments, approved the consent calendar (with a recusal and a pulled item), continued a deferred‑compensation item, and formed a 13‑member Charter Review Committee in a 6–1 vote.","taxTitle","Santa Clara , Santa Clara County, California","taxId",2859,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6517828,"Council hears update on shared mobility program; staff reports limited device use and changes to permit rules",2344,8398000,10742000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5402479-3e87a0ed1272b42d96c13ccc6fea5186&start=8398&end=10742","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5402479-3e87a0ed1272b42d96c13ccc6fea5186/thumbnail_8398000.jpg","/articles/6517828/Santa-Clara/Santa-Clara-County/California/Council-hears-update-on-shared-mobility-program-staff-reports-limited-device-use-and-changes-to-permit-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6517828-0ce3670d5f9d7868239b1dce168a33bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771078114&Signature=Ije5UUaT~xRzhGL~~7m6-WqhC4XvGD932yba5MW-Fw8cSRJdgMsZ2Oed1ajhJQfStpVqCgqIUI5UFNRMwx1CQhXqV7N8-PCge0wAHq0QCWsx1MwLOCWaSAK4DCk9rkIJPWCVMAgktJR93UVf1a2n4eHk0N7eqATPk~T0xfrZs8hoFx7hsZB7KTzlczTp8bGUMwVdGNuv9Z2n03vrsTLgDulzGdKLZa4M-Z5j3mW-TwoR~j1azdwgMGbgsozCYQS272FM1gDwKyVeKVYntseoftEt5fuX7s87R5Uh3c2HNgWYZoJAnEOBO58zVX2Xqa3jO8Y7UoJdasmyMaSRp8zplg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff provided a study-session update on Santa Clara’s shared mobility permit program — the city’s regulation of dockless electric bikes and scooters — outlining program rules, recent usage data, enforcement practices and proposed administrative changes to permits.

Transportation Manager Steve Chan told council that Santa Clara’s current shared-mobility permit caps total devices at 3,000 across operators, requires devices to be GPS‑enabled and geofencable, and sets operational rules including a 15 mph top device speed per California Vehicle Code for scooters, a 2‑hour operator response time for improperly parked or unsafe devices, and a 24/7 customer service requirement in multiple languages. The permit also restricts device use on sidewalks and in city parks and allows devices on roadways with speed limits up to 25 mph and on high‑speed streets that have bike lanes.

Recent activity and enforcement: staff presented device and trip totals submitted by operators for recent fiscal years and a device‑use heat map showing ridership concentrated around Santa Clara Caltrain station, Santa Clara University area, Mission College, retail corridors on El Camino Real and stations along Tasman Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Reported trip volumes dropped after the first permit year: Bird recorded roughly 35,000 trips and about 41,000 miles in the initial year, but later years showed substantially fewer trips. In 2022–23 Bird’s data equated to an estimated 22,500 vehicle‑miles (VMT) reduced; later years’ VMT reductions were smaller (staff cited roughly 1,800 miles for Bird and 13,500 miles for Lime in 2023–24, and roughly 1,000 miles for the truncated 2024–25 reporting period). One operator (Veo) ceased operations citing low profitability and vandalism across the regional market, and staff said profitability — not local policy alone — was a driver for reduced deployment.

Planned permit changes: staff proposed several administrative changes to encourage operator participation: allow permit applications to be submitted year‑round, make permits valid for one year from date of issuance with an option for a one‑year renewal, and permit up to a three‑month temporary extension to bridge gaps in service. Staff also noted AB 458 (effective 2024) requires operators to offer liability insurance for riders and the program will reflect that state requirement.

Issues noted by council: members raised enforcement and equity questions. Vice Mayor Kelly Cox asked whether the program enforces the city’s requirement that a percentage of deployed devices be placed in “priority” or equity neighborhoods and whether there is enforcement for repeat parking or safety violations; staff noted the permit includes penalties and potential impoundment for unpaid or unresolved parking complaints and that geofencing can be used to restrict operations during major events. Council members also asked why ridership was low on the north side of the city; staff said land‑use patterns and less pedestrian activity in some industrial areas contributed to lower usage there.

Staffing and implementation: staff said no dedicated public‑works staff were added to manage the program when it was approved and that program management relies on existing staff resources. Data reporting from operators is required under the permit and staff makes heat‑map and usage information available on the city website for market research.

Public comment: no members of the public offered comments during the study session segment. Staff concluded by offering to return with any requested follow‑up and the council did not take formal action — the item was heard as a study session and noted for the record.

","Staff presented an update on Santa Clara’s shared mobility (bike and scooter) permit program, reporting lower ridership and device counts in recent years, operational rules, and proposed permit changes intended to encourage operator participation.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":90,"_53":91,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":92,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":93,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6517833,"Santa Clara council approves 13-member charter review committee after months of discussion","/articles/6517833/Santa-Clara/Santa-Clara-County/California/Santa-Clara-council-approves-13-member-charter-review-committee-after-months-of-discussion","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6517833-e625890d90bcf7482cf72ec99f53ceb9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771078114&Signature=IfARrwusBdHT9BfI5vHD6EkhfrpVfZPXPUVCmecVljeunxOgDw1VtC0~0fHpcKX2Dq~9-lb~ZSK5av3VDH2FSo0pLqp6orTGbEnfe8cqU0JG2TfOdt5KMC93m6ZaO7Vu8Rsylci8ztydh5dNav4KuXYHGLIlGwznottuVI2VOslnA-E0VO5GQXn4maXTdqGhAYuCvJss~VmsGozAnV~8bZ4azBmRmQIcpE5hwgaqjmGgQnFKTl7Z2HAqEi8hSOaNcbom~WxEh0Gxu80NDDRPhlYxsCugkJFz2svtkJD1eRKpQlZkvtqa0fHPliuq5SreZXJtyOcGJjZq5Teg9-BAtA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Santa Clara City Council voted 6–1 to form a Charter Review Committee tasked with conducting a comprehensive, operations-focused review of the city charter and producing proposed amendments for possible voter consideration. The panel will total 13 members: each councilmember will appoint one representative (appointments must be qualified electors in the appointee’s district or at-large as specified) and six additional members will be selected by lottery (one from each district). The council also directed staff to begin outreach and a work plan so the committee can begin work this fall.

City Attorney (title provided in meeting) framed the review as a “top-to-bottom operations oriented review” intended to modernize and clarify sections of the charter that guide municipal affairs, procurement, budget practices and department roles. He told the council the goal is to align the charter with current state law and best practices and to eliminate ambiguities that require repeated legal interpretation.

Why this matters: the charter functions as the city’s constitution and controls foundational matters—elections, fiscal procedures, structure of city government and many procurement and personnel rules. The city attorney told council members that a comprehensive review would help reduce costly staff time spent interpreting older language and could identify changes that improve operational efficiency. Staff said starting by September 2025 would be needed to produce any proposed charter amendment in time for a November 2026 ballot if the council desires that schedule.

Debate and outcome: Council members debated committee size and selection method at length. Several members supported a larger committee and a hybrid method (some council appointments plus lottery picks) to combine political representation and a depoliticized lottery. Vice Mayor Kelly Cox and council members argued for enough members to sustain subcommittees and ensure representation; others warned large committees are harder to schedule and manage. The final motion — read back by staff and adopted — requires that appointed members be residents and qualified electors of their district, that lottery members be qualified electors in the district they represent, and that existing commissioners not be barred from applying. The motion passed 6–1, with Council Member Park voting no. The council did not set final rules for committee terms, staffing levels, or detailed workplan; instead it asked staff to return with a formation process and recruitment materials.

What the committee will consider: staff and the city attorney provided an illustrative list of sections that commonly warrant clarification, including: residency timing rules for elected officials; thresholds and notice requirements for city real estate sales; what constitutes a disposition or change of use of parkland under existing Measure R (charter sec. 7.14.5); roles and duties for the elected city clerk and board of library trustees; budget provisions and possibility of a two-year budget cycle; procurement limits (the charter currently limits city-forced public works at low dollar thresholds) and whether to add design-build procurement authority to the charter; and general reorganization and plain-language edits. Staff emphasized the intent is technical and operational modernization, not to package controversial structural changes (for example, changing the form of government or the city’s voting system) into this single review.

Process and timing: the city attorney described two formation alternatives: (1) councilmembers each recommend a member from their district (and the mayor an at-large member), to be confirmed by council; or (2) a lottery process similar to the Measure I bond oversight committee. The council’s final motion blends those ideas: appointments by councilmembers plus district lottery seats. Staff advised that to meet a potential 2026 ballot timeline the review should begin no later than September 2025 to allow draft amendments and voter materials to be finalized by the registrar’s submittal deadline in July–August 2026.

Public comment: members of the public urged transparency and a broad outreach process. Brian Darby said the charter underpins city government and asked the council to preserve a democratic, inclusive process. Several public speakers later in the meeting also asked staff to release an RFP for downtown blocks A and B; council members noted that is a separate agenda item that will be considered later.

Next steps: staff was directed to return with a formation plan, recruitment and outreach materials, and a draft work plan for the council’s approval. The council will later confirm the committee roster and the committee’s charter and scope of work before substantive review begins.

","After extended debate over scope, size and selection method, the Santa Clara City Council voted 6–1 to form a 13-member Charter Review Committee to propose technical and operational updates to the city charter, with a projected process to begin this fall to meet a potential 2026 ballot timeline.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council at a glance: approvals include two housing projects, weed abatement and consent items; charter panel formed

Council hears update on shared mobility program; staff reports limited device use and changes to permit rules

Santa Clara council approves 13-member charter review committee after months of discussion