City Council and Authorities Concurrent
February 7, 2023

Resolution/Terminating Local Emergency – COVID19 Page 1 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

TERMINATING PROC LAMATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
REGARDING COVID-19

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property arose within the City, based on the following, commencing on or about March 11, 2020:

1. On January 31, 2020, the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in the County of Santa Clara ("County").

2. By March 4, 2020 the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the County had increased to eleven (11) with confirmed community spread, the California Department of Health Services reported its first death related to COVID-19, and the Governor of California declared a state of emergency.

3. On March 5, 2020, the County issued guidance on social distancing, large event, and mass gathering closures.

4. By March 6, 2020 the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the County had increased to twenty-four (24).

5. By March 9, 2020 the County Public Health Department announced the first death from COVID-19 and the Public Health Officer issued a mandatory order requiring the cancellation of mass gatherings of 1000 or more people in the County taking effect at 12:00 a.m. on March 11, 2020.

6. By March 11, 2020 the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the County had increased to forty-eight (48).

7. On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.

8. On March 11, 2020 the CDC issued recommendations for 30-day mitigation strategies for the County based on the current situation with COVID-19 transmission and affected Resolution/Terminating Local Emergency – COVID19 Page 2 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17
health care facilities including the recommendation to cancel large gatherings e.g., greater than 250 people or move to smaller groupings.

9. On March 11, 2020 the Governor of the State of California announced that California public health officials have determined that gatherings of more than 250 people should be postponed or canceled across the state until at least the end of March.

10. The efforts required to prepare for, respond to, mitigate, and recover from the emergency conditions caused by COVID-19 have imposed or will impose extraordinary requirements and expenses on the City.

WHEREAS, the Director of Emergency Services of the City of Santa Clara did proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a local emergency within the City of Santa Clara on March 11, 2020;
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2020, the City Council found that the above-described conditions of extreme peril did warrant and necessitate the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency in the City, that the associated emergency conditions were ongoing, and the declaration of emergency should not be terminated at that time;
WHEREAS, since the City Council’s ratification of the emergency proclamation on March 17, 2020, the degree of the emergency conditions has decreased as follows:

1. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) determined Santa Clara County had low community transmission of COVID-19 among the categories of low, medium and high during the months of September, October and November 2022.

2. As of September 13, 2022, other than the mandatory requirement to wear Face Coverings in Higher-Risk Settings, all other mandatory COVID-19-related countywide Health Officer Orders that were currently still in effect were hereby rescinded.

3. During the month of December 2022, the CDC’s determination of transmission in Santa Clara County fluctuated between medium and high, with the expected “holiday surge” in transmission.

Resolution/Terminating Local Emergency – COVID19 Page 3 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17

4. The County Public Health Officer’s recommendation regarding continued Remote Public Meetings of Governmental Entities has been rescinded as of December 29, 2022.

5. As of January 1, 2023, employers in non-healthcare settings are no longer required to report COVID-19 outbreaks to the Public Health Department.

6. Public health and infectious disease professionals have stated the worst of the holiday surge for COVID-19 is over, and the CDC has categorized Santa Clara County as having low community transmission of COVID-19 since January 12, 2023.

7. As of January 4, 2023, face masks are no longer required to be worn in non- healthcare County facilities.

8. Variants of COVID-19 have contained mutations with greater immune evasion but not more serious illness.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 8630, the City Council deems it reasonable to proclaim the termination of the local emergency at this time.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:

1. That the local emergency ratified by the City Council on March 17, 2020, related to COVID-19, is hereby proclaimed terminated in accordance with Government Code Section 8630.

2. Effective date. This resolution shall become effective immediately.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED

AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

Resolution/Terminating Local Emergency – COVID19 Page 4 of 3 Rev: 11/22/17
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Resolution Ratifying Proclamation of Local Emergency dated March 17, 2020

S:\Attorney\RESOLUTIONS\Form Resolution-City.doc
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-51 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Receive Silicon Valley Power Quarterly Update

COUNCIL PILLAR
Deliver and Enhance High Quality Efficient Services and Infrastructure

BACKGROUND
Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is a recognized industry leader with a strong history and reputation of providing excellent customer service. The electric industry is rapidly changing and undergoing a fundamental transformation, shifting from a centralized resource grid toward an increasingly decentralized electrical grid with distributed renewable energy resources (e.g. wind, solar, hydrogen, and biogas), shifting variability in supply, and greater customer choice.

DISCUSSION
The report to be presented to Council will provide an update to Council on the status of the utility, current load and sales, recent accomplishments, and upcoming Council Actions for consideration.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this update. Implementation of certain elements will require funding which will be requested through the normal budget process.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and the City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
23-51 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
Note and file the Silicon Valley Power Quarterly Update.

Reviewed by: Manuel Pineda, Chief Electric Utility Officer Approved by: City Manager’s Office
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-1452 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Report on a Written Petition (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Councilmember Jain Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Discuss Allocating up to $150,000 to Create a Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee Using Funds from the Stadium Authority Budget

BOARD PILLARS
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency
Ensure Compliance with Measure J and Manage Levi’s Stadium

BACKGROUND
On June 8, 2022, the City Clerk’s Office received a Written Petition from Councilmember Jain requesting an item be placed on a future Council agenda to discuss allocating up to $150,000 to create a Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee using funds from the Stadium Authority Budget (not the City of Santa Clara’s General Fund) (Attachment 1).

On August 16, 2022, the Council approved the petition to be heard by the full Council. This report provides information for Council’s consideration of the 030 Council Petition.

DISCUSSION
At the August 16, 2022 meeting, the Council offered general suggestions regarding the proposed Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee, including modeling the Committee after the existing Neighborhood-University Relations Committee; allowing for the Committee to meet on an ad-hoc basis; the Committee addressing event-related noise issues; and nature of Forty Niners Stadium Management Company, LLC (Stadium Manager) participation.

As the Council discusses the potential formation of the Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee, the following should be considered in relation to its structure:
· Proposed Committee membership
· Proposed goals for the Committee
· Proposed scope of the Committee
· Proposed frequency of Committee meetings
· Proposed term (if applicable)
Committee Structure
The City and Stadium Authority have established committees to review and address priority issues that are comprised of assigned Councilmembers/Board members and staffed by City/Stadium Authority staff. Councilmembers are also assigned to represent the City in area wide/outside agency City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
23-1452 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
committees which are usually, but not always, staffed by outside agency staff. A list of existing City/Stadium Authority committees and area wide/outside agency committees are included as Attachment 2. Separately, there are also City boards and commissions, and taskforces which are comprised of community members and stakeholders. These boards, commissions, and taskforces act in an advisory capacity to the City Council and provides a conduit for citizen/stakeholder input on numerous issues pertaining to Santa Clara.

Councilmember Jain’s Written Petition requested the creation of a Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee that models the Neighborhood-University Relations Committee (NURC). NURC is comprised of three assigned Councilmembers and the committee meets three times annually during the Santa Clara University academic year. The NURC was established to provide a forum for on- going communication and problem solving among City officials, neighborhoods, property owners and Santa Clara University officials and students. Staff from the City’s Community Development Department are responsible for preparing the meeting agendas and City departments, including Police and Community Development, and Santa Clara University are responsible for preparing presentations for reports and updates at the NURC meetings.

Alternatively, the Council may want to consider a commission or taskforce made up of community members and/or stakeholders that advises the Council/Stadium Authority Board on issues within its still to be determined scope. A commission would be a formal, ongoing forum of residents and the formation of one requires an ordinance amending Santa Clara City Code Chapter 2.120. In comparison, a taskforce is intended to have a more informal, temporary structure and there is more flexibility regarding its membership (i.e., it can include stakeholders beyond residents such as the Stadium Manager). The Stadium Manager is aware of the proposed committee and has indicated a willingness to participate if it is established.

If the Council directs the formation of a Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee/Commission/Taskforce, its direction should include input and guidance on the proposed structure (e.g., Committee, Commission, or Taskforce), membership (e.g., Board members, residents, and/or stakeholders with membership based on nominations, appointments, or open membership), goals, scope of work, meeting frequency, and term (if applicable).

Current Efforts to Mitigate Event Impacts
Over the years, staff have implemented various efforts to address Stadium-related traffic, parking, and disruptive behaviors pre and post Stadium events, and increase communication to the community about Stadium events. These efforts include setting up a complaint line for Stadium events, hiring a noise monitoring consultant, providing neighborhood protections, and increasing communications about event impacts. The City and Stadium Authority continue to engage the Stadium Manager to assist with mitigating these issues.

Staffing Costs and Resources
Staffing any committee, commission, or taskforce involves agenda preparation and management, meeting participation, pre and post meeting research and follow up, and preparation of minutes.

Without more information on the specific goals and scope of the proposed meeting body and the issues that may be discussed, it is anticipated that the following staff will either participate in meetings and/or provide support outside of the meetings:

City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
23-1452 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
· Executive Director, Executive Director’s Office
· Assistant to the Executive Director, Executive Director’s Office · Management Analyst, Executive Director’s Office
· Administrative and/or Communications Staff, Executive Director’s Office · Assistant Police Chief, Police Department
· Police Captain, Police Department
· Management Analyst, Police Department
· Battalion Chief, Fire Department
· Director of Community Development, Community Development Department · Assistant Director, Community Development Department
· Planning Manager, Community Development Department
· Code Enforcement Officer, Community Development Department · Assistant Director, Public Works Department
· Deputy Director, Public Works Department
· Other staff as necessary
Based on the assumption that the proposed Committee/Commission/Taskforce would meet quarterly (four times a year), it is anticipated that 0.38 full-time equivalent (FTE) of the staff above would be required to support the meeting body. The 0.38 FTE is equivalent to 790 hours in staff time and $160,100 in salary and benefits. Staff costs will likely decrease if the Committee meets less frequently; however, it should be noted that the list does not include City Clerk’s Office staff whose assistance will be required if the Council decides on recruitment for open membership.

The positions will be involved in different ways pending the issues that will be discussed, hence time commitment will differ among individual staff; however, the table below outlines a calculation of the average staff time it would take to support the Committee.

It should be noted that several of the existing City committees have not been able meet as scheduled in 2021 and 2022 due to reduced staffing resources. As the involved departments have vacancies and have been impacted by increased workloads, existing work and projects assigned to these positions may also be impacted (e.g., delayed, reprioritized, etc.) so that staff may support the Committee/Commission/Taskforce as needed. The Chief of Police has noted to the former City Manager that he has concern regarding the Police Department’s ability to staff this Committee given current staffing resource and upcoming budget discussions. He has submitted a memorandum to the Council on this matter, which has been included as part of this report as Attachment 3.

Measure J, which was passed by Santa Clara voters in 2010, prohibits the expenditure of City funds to cover Stadium-related operational and maintenance expenses (as outlined under the Santa Clara City Code Section 17.20.20(j)). As such, the Stadium Authority will be responsible for all costs related to the proposed Committee/Commission/Taskforce.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
23-1452 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
Next Steps
Pending the Council’s feedback and direction, staff may bring back additional information and/or separate items for approval (e.g., ordinance if Council directs the formation of a commission). Should Council direct the formation of this Committee/Commission/Taskforce, it is anticipated to be a significant workload given the citywide/cross-department support needed so its initiation will be dependent of available staff resources.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated staff time required to support the proposed Committee/Commission/Taskforce totals $160,100 based on the assumption that the meeting body will meet quarterly. The Stadium Authority will be responsible for these costs in accordance with Measure J. These costs may adjust depending on the Council’s feedback regarding the proposed membership and meeting frequency. As noted above, the current estimate does not include staff time from the City Clerk’s Office in the event there is recruitment for open membership. Should the Council decide to move forward with forming the Committee/Commission/Taskforce, an updated cost estimate reflecting the Council’s discussion and direction will be included in the proposed Stadium Authority FY 2023/24 Operating Budget.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney/Stadium Authority Counsel’s Office and Finance Department/Treasurer’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Direct staff on the formation of a Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee/Commission/Taskforce that will be funded by the Stadium Authority; or

2. Do not approve the formation of a Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee/Commission/Taskforce at this time.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff makes no recommendation.

Prepared by: Christine Jung, Assistant to the City Manager/Assistant to the Executive Director Approved by: City Manager’s Office/Executive Director’s Office

ATTACHMENTS

1. Councilmember Jain’s June 8, 2022 030 Petition

2. Council Committee Assignments

3. Chief of Police’s Memorandum to Council
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of Wh at's Possible

COUNCIL ITEM REQUEST FOR

RECEIVED
JUN 1 5 2022
City Clerk's Office \
City of Santa Cfar~J
The Council Item Request Form is for members of the City Council to submit written requests to the City Manager's Office for inclusion of an item on a future City Council meeting agenda. At the meeting where the initial written request is heard, discussion should be limited to whether the item should be added to an agenda and a date, not the merit of the item. A majority vote of the City Council is required for the item to be added to future Council meeting agenda foraction.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Requesting Member of City Council and Stadium Authority : Suds Jain Contact E-mail_ [email protected]_
Contact Phone 408-499-2955 _______ _
Today's Date_G/8/2022

WRITTEN R EQUEST
I, Suds Jain _______ , hereby request that the following item be placed on the City of Santa Clara Council and Authorities Concurrent meeting agenda:

The CouncilPolicy 030 states: "Members of the City Council shal l use t h e Council Item Request Form to submit a written request for inc l usion of an ite m on a f u t u re City Council agenda ."
While the 030 policy doesn't explicitly cover Stadium Authority Agendas there seems to be no other mechanism for Authority members to add agenda items to Stadium Authority meetings so I'm taking the liberty of using this form to do so.

On November 24, 2021, I submitted a 030 request to consider the creation of a Stadium Relations Committee similar to the NURC committee. And during CIP budget discussions I ask a question about the cost of implementing such a Stadium Relations Committee. This is the reply I received from Staff.
11The estimated cost of the Stadium Neighborhood committee is premised on the Measure J requirement that all costs associated with the Stadium not be borne by the General Fund. Therefore, the cost of this committee would be a Stadium Authority cost to the extent it works on stadium -related issues. The high­ level cost estimate of $156k was solely based on the presumed key staff involved and an estimate of the hours required to support the committee (e.g., agenda preparation, reports, meeting time and follow up) with staff from the City Manager's Office, Police Department, Fire Department and Public Works Department. The estimate for other committees would be different based upon staff involved in those committees. There is currently not a separate accounting of the costs associated with Council committees as these are budgeted in the various departments . The cost for these committees can also be looked at as an assignment of resources or staff capacity. If staff resources were not used for committees, they could be re-deployed to support other areas. The number of Council members on a Council committee does not markedly impact the costs associated with the implementation of a Council committee but rather the scope and breadth of the committee agendas and the follow up required." I'm now asking for a discussion to be agendized to allocate up to $1S0K to create a Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee using funds from the SCSA budget (not the City of Santa Clara's general fund).

Reference: Council Policy 030-Adding an Item on the Agenda Resolution No. 20-8895

Last Approved 01-25-22

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Council Appointments to City Committees

CITY COMMITTEES (City staff responsible for preparing and posting the agendas for the meetings).

1. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Committee:

Date: Meets on call
Time: TBD
Location: City Hall Council Chambers
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara
Councilmembers: Raj Chahal (Chair) Alternate: Anthony Becker Staff Members: Director of Public Works, City Attorney
Staff Liaison: Kelly Conoscenti, Staff Aide Phone: 408-615-3000 Established on September 29, 1992, to review accessibility issues, the Committee includes individuals and representatives from community organizations such as VIA Rehabilitation, Self Help for H ard of Hearing People, and the Adult Independence Development Center.

2. Audit Committee:

Date: Meets on call
Time: TBD
Location: City Hall
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara
Councilmembers: Kevin Park (Chair), Kathy Watanabe, Suds Jain Alternate: Raj Chahal Staff Members: City Manager, Director of Finance, City Auditor, City Attorney Reviews the annual independent audits, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report , Single Audit Report, Electric Utility Financial Statements, Stadium Authority Financial Statements, and City Auditor’s Annual Report. Meetings are attended with independent auditor.

3. Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC):

Date: Meets on the fourth Monday of January, March, June, August, and October Time: 4:00 p.m.

Location: City Hall Council Chambers
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara
Councilmembers: Karen Hardy (Chair) Alternate: Suds Jain Staff Members: Director of Public Works, Traffic Engineer, Pol ice Depart ment Traff ic Sergeant, City Attorney
Staff Liaison: Marshall Johnson, Associate Civil Engineer Phone: 408-615-3023 Originally established on May 14, 1991, the Committee was established to explore developing safe bicycle lanes and routes on City streets. The Committee name and duties was revised in March 25, 2014 to include pedestrian aspects and to also provide input on non-engineering activities to increase pedestrian and bicycle usage in the City.

4. Economic Development, Communications, and Marketing Committee:

Date: Meets on the third Wednesday of February, May, August, and November Time: 3:00 p.m.

Location: City Hall Council Chambers
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara
Councilmembers: Anthony Becker (Chair), Kathy Watanabe, Kevin Park Alternate: Raj Chahal Staff Members: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Director of Communications, City Attorney Staff Liaison: TBD Phone: 408-615-2210 The Economic Development, Communications, and Marketing Committee was esta blished by Council action on February 5, 2019, to consolidate the Economi c Development Commit tee and the Marketing Committee. The Committee focuses proactive economic development and effective communication, as well as reviews the City’s marketing and branding strategies.

Last Approved 01-25-22

5. Governance and Ethics Committee:

Date: Meets on the first Monday of March, June, September, and December Time: 3:00 p.m.

Location: City Hall Council Chambers
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara
Councilmembers: Suds Jain (Chair), Lisa Gillmor, Raj Chahal Alternate: Park Staff Members: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk Staff Liaison: TBD Phone: 408-615-2210 The Governance and Ethics Committee was established by Council action on February 5, 2019, to consolidate the Governance Committee, Ethics Committee, and the Facilities Naming and Honorary Recognition Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee focuses on the refinement or establishment of policies and procedures regarding City Council operations and general good government practices, as well as the further implementation of the City’s Code of Ethics & Values program. This committee is also responsible for reviewing requests for facility naming and honorary recognitions.

6. Ad Hoc Stadium Audit Committee:

Date: Meets on call
Time: TBD
Location: City Hall
1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara
Councilmembers: Lisa Gillmor (Chair), Karen Hardy, Raj Chahal Alternate: Kevin Park Staff Members: City Manager, Director of Finance, City Auditor, City Attorney On July 19, 2016, the Santa Clara S tadium Authority Board (Board) approved appointment of a three - member committee to oversee the work and p rogress of the audit being performed by Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC.

Last Approved 1-25-22

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Council Appointments to Outside Agency Committees

OUTSIDE AGENCY COMMITTEES (Outside Agency responsible for preparing and posting the agendas for the meetings).

1. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) (General Assembly):

Date: Meetings held once a year
Time: From approximately 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Location: TBD
Contact: ABAG Clerk of the Board Phone: (415) 820-7913
Councilmember: Kevin Park Alternate: Anthony Becker
Staff Member: Director of Community Development
Established in 1961 to protect local control, planning for the futu re and promoting cooperation in area - wide issues. No stipend for attendee.

2. Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA):

Date: Meetings held every odd numbered mo nth (January, March, May, July, September, November) on the third Thursday of the month Time: 6:30 p.m.

Location: San Mateo Main Library, Oak Room, 55 West 3rd Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402 Contact: Nicole Sandkulla Phone: (650) 349-3000
Councilmember: Karen Hardy
Staff Member: Director of Water and Sewer Utilities
Established in February 2003 to allow the City to have a greater voice in planning and funding of improvements in the Hetch- Hetchy regional water supply system. BAWSCA term is four years (June 2018-2022) and has only one representative (no alternate). $100 stipend for meeting attendance.

3. Caltrain Modernization Local Policymaker Group (CalMod):

Date: Meets monthly on the fourth Thursday; ex cept in December, mee ts on the third Thursday
Time: 5:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Location: Caltrain Joint Powers Authority Board Headquarters Bacciocco Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 Contact: Ryan McCauley Phone: (650) 508-6200
Councilmember: Anthony Becker Alternate: Raj Chahal
Staff Member: Director of Public Works (advisor only, does not attend meetings) Established by Caltrain Joint powers Board for Caltrain modernization/e lectrification. Members represent cities along the Caltrain corridor. No stipend for attendee.

4. Cities Association of Santa Clara County:

Contact: Andi Jordan,
Executive Director
P.O. Box 1079, Los Gatos, CA 95031
Phone: (408) 766-9534
A. Board of Directors:

Date: Meets on the second Thursday of every month, except in July Time: 7:00 p.m.

Location: Sunnyvale City Hall, 456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale Councilmember: Kathy Watanabe Alternate: Anthony Becker Staff Member: City Manager or Assistant City Manager
No stipend for attendee.

B. City Selection Committee:

Date: Meets on call
Time: 6:45 p.m. (Immediately before the Board of Directors meeting)

Last Approved 1-25-22

Location: Sunnyvale City Hall, 456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale Councilmember: Suds Jain Alternate: Kevin Park Staff Member: City Manager or Assistant City Manager
Established to promote cooperation among the fifteen cities of Santa Clara County and to promote legislative action that will affect local control.

C. Legislative Action Committee:

Date: Meets on call
Time: 6:45 p.m. (Immediately before the Board of Directors meeting) Location: Sunnyvale City Hall, 456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale Councilmember: Kathy Watanabe Alternate: Anthony Becker Staff Member: City Manager or Assistant City Manager

5. City/Mission College Liaison Committee:

Date: Meets on call twice a year
Time: TBD
Location: Alternates between Santa Clara City Hall and Mission College Contact: Mission College President’s Secretary or
Santa Clara City Manager’s Office
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
Phone: (408) 855-5123
(408) 615-2250
Councilmembers Karen Hardy (Chair), Lisa Gillmor, Anthony Becker Alternate: Raj Chahal Staff Members: City Manager, Director of Community Development, Director of Parks and Recreation
Established on-going communication and re view of joint programs with Mission College. The Mission College President and two board members participate on the Committee. No stipend for attendee.

6. City/School Liaison Committee (Santa Clara Unified School District):

Date: Meets first Wednesday every other month beginning January Time: 11:45 a.m.

Location: Alternates between Santa Clara City Hall and Santa Clara Unified School District (SCUSD) Office
Contact: City Manager’s Office or
SCUSD Superintendent
Phone: (408) 615-2210
(408) 423-2006
Councilmembers: Lisa M. Gillmor (Chair), Kathy Watanabe, Raj Chahal
Alternate: Jain
Staff Members: Assistant City Manager, Director of Parks and Recreation, Chief of Police Established on-going communication and coordination of joint projects/programs between City officials and SCUSD officials. The School Board representatives and School Superintendent are members of the Committee. No stipend for attendee.

7. Grand Boulevard Task Force/El Camino Real:

Date: Meets quarterly on the last Wednesday i n March, June, September and December
Time: 10:00 a.m.

Location: Alternatively held at the SamTrans Auditorium in San Carlos and the Hi storic Adobe Building in Mountain View
Contact: Dave Pape, SamTrans Phone: (650) 508-6210
Councilmember: Raj Chahal Alternate: Suds Jain
Staff Member: Director of Community Development
Member and alternate appointed by Council on February 21, 2006. First meeting was held March 2006. Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network/Peninsula Policy Partnership formed the Task Force for the purpose of looking for ways to raise the status of the El Camino Real to a world-class boulevard with special attention to the aesthetic, safety and interjurisdictional issues. No stipend for attendee.

Last Approved 1-25-22

8. Human Trafficking Commission:

Date: Meetings held once per year, generally at the end of the year (November) Time: 1:00 p.m.

Location: Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose
Contact: County of Santa Clara - Deputy Board Clerk
Phone: (408)299-5083 or 408-299-5001
Councilmember: Kathy Watanabe Alternate: Kevin Park Staff Member: Pat Nikolai, Chief of Police
The Human Trafficking Commission was established on April 29, 2014 to investigate the nature and scope of human trafficking in the County, including both labor and sex trafficking; identify model victim-centered policies, services, and preventative measures to address this issue; make legislative and policy recommendations to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors; support the apprehension and prosecution of traffickers; and collaborate with partners regionally, nationally, and internationally to share information and strategies for ending human trafficking. No stipend for attendee.

9. Northern California Power Agency (NCPA):

Date: Meets most months, fourth Thursday of every month Time: Usually 9:30 a.m.

Location: Rotating NCPA Cities (half in Roseville)
Contact: NCPA Phone: (916) 781-4202
Councilmember: Suds Jain Alternate: Kathy Watanabe Staff Members: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Chief Electric Utility Officer, Assistant Director of Electric Utility, Electric Division Manager.

10. Police Activities League (PAL):

Date: Meets second Wednesday of every month
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Location: Police Department Community Room, 601 El Camino Real, Santa Clara Councilmember: Lisa M. Gillmor Alternate: Kathy Watanabe Staff Members: PAL Executive Director, Chief of Police
Founded and incorporated in 1970 as a nonprofit organizat ion to provide a place where the youth of the City may enjoy educational and social benefits and athletic activities under competent supervision.

The organization is managed by a board of directors comprised of volunteers.

11. Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities:

Date: Meets four times per year. Additionally, the Peninsula Division holds a “Legislative Day” in April of each year in Sacramento
(Invitations sent out quarterly.)
Location: Alternating between San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties Contact: Seth Miller Phone: (415) 595-8629
Councilmember: Kevin Park Alternate: Suds Jain Staff Member: City Manager
Established to encourage greater participation in the Division’s activities, thereby creating a strong and unified voice for cities in the Peninsula Division. The responsibilities of the liaison include keeping the Council informed about and engaged in the Division’s legislative activities, to provide periodic League updates at Council meetings and to attend Division and League events whenever possible.

No stipend for attendee.

12. Joint Recycled Water Policy Advisory Committee:

Date: Meets third Thursday in April and as needed
Location: Alternates annually between San Jose City Hall (even years) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District Headquarters, San Jose (odd years) Contact: Jeff Provenzano, City of San Jose
Environmental Services
Phone: (408) 277-3288
Councilmember: Karen Hardy Alternate: Kathy Watanabe

Last Approved 1-25-22

Staff Member: Director of Water and Sewer Utilities
Established in 2010 to review and advise the Santa Clara Water District and the City of San Jose (lead agency for the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant) on all policy issues related to recycled water including operations and capital improvements.

13. Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of Santa Clara County (RWRC):

Date: Meets the fourth Wednesday of every even numbered month except the December meeting (date to be determined due to holidays) Time: 5:30 p.m.

Location: Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, 1st Floor, San Jose 95112
Contact: Recycling and Waste Reduction Division Phone: (408) 282-3180 Councilmember: Kathy Watanabe
Staff Member: Deputy Director of Public Works
Established per requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and subsequent amending legislation in order to coordinate and provide input to the countywide solid waste management program. Membership appointed through the City Selection Committee of Santa Clara County Cities’ Association. No stipend for attendee.

14. San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water System Financing Authority:

Date: Meets once a year, in January
Time: Immediately prior to the BAWSCA Board Meetings at 6:30pm Location: San Mateo Main Library, Oak Room, 55 West 3rd Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94402 Contact: Nicole Sandkulla Phone: (650) 349-3000
Councilmember: Karen Hardy
Staff Member: Director of Water and Sewer Utilities
Established February 2003 to allow the City to have a greater voice in planning and funding of improvements in the Hetch-Hetchy regional water supply system. The Regional Financing Authority is a parallel organization with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). Same stipend for this and BAWSCA meeting attendance.

15. San Jose/Santa Clara Clean Water Financing Authority:

Date: Meets quarterly (February, if necessary), May, August, and November) on the second Thursday of the month
Time: 3:30 p.m.

Location: San Jose City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara Street, Room T-1352, San Jose
Contact: City of San Jose Finance Department Phone: (408) 535-7010

Councilmembers: Kathy Watanabe, Kevin Park Alternate: Suds Jain Staff Member: Director of Water and Sewer Utilities

16. San Jose/Santa Clara Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TPAC):

Date: Meets second Thursday every month (third Thursday in May, due to budget; no meeting in July)
Time: 4:00 p.m. (if there are other meetings, this group would meet last) Location: San Jose City Hall, City Manager’s Office, 17th floor, Room 1734, San Jose Contact: Eva Roa, City of San Jose
Environmental Services
Phone: (408) 975-2547
Councilmembers: Kathy Watanabe, Karen Hardy Alternate:

Lisa Gillmor

Staff Member: Director of Water and Sewer Utilities
Reviews and advises the City of San Jose City Council on all issues relating to th e operation and capital improvement of the San Jos e/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Pla nt. $100 stipend for regular meeting attendance.

Last Approved 1-25-22

17. Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board (PAB):

Date: Meets as needed
Time: TBA
Contact: Ellen Talbo, County of Santa Clara,
County Transportation Planner
Phone: (408) 573-2482
Councilmember: Kathy Watanabe Alternate: Karen Hardy Staff Member: Director of Public Works (Advisor only, does not attend meetings) The Santa Clara County Comprehensive Expressway Planning Study Policy Advisory Board (PAB) will provide a forum for policy input from elected officials for updating the Expressway Study’s Implementation Plan originally adopted in August 2003. No stipend for attendee.

18. Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Counties Airport/Community Roundtable Date: Meets on the fourth Wednesday of every other month beginning in January Time: TBD
Location: Varies
Contact: Cities Association of Santa Clara County Phone: (408) 766-9534 Andi Jordan
Executive Director
P.O. Box 1079, Los Gatos, CA 95031
Councilmember: Kathy Watanabe Alternate: Raj Chahal
Staff Member: City Manager

On July 2018, the Council approved for the City to become a member of the Committee, which is scheduled to convene for the first time within the coming months. Participation in the Roundtable will allow the City of Santa Clara to contribute to policy solutions that mitigate aircraft noise in affected communities, as well as create partnerships with neighboring cities, counties, airports and the Federal Aviation Administration.

19. Santa Clara Sister Cities Association
Date: Meets as needed
Time: 7:00 p.m.

Location: Headen Inman House for Board Meetings
Councilmember: Kathy Watanabe Alternate: Kevin Park
Staff Member: City Manager’s Office
The Santa Clara Sister Cities Association, an independent non-profit organization, assists the City in exchange activities with Coimbra, Portugal, Izumo, Japan and Limerick, Ireland -- Santa Clara's three sister-cities. The Council appoints a representative to serve as liaison to the Association.

20. Santa Clara University Liaison/Neighborhood-University Relations Committee (NURC):

Date: Meets three times annually on Monday evenings during the academic year Time: 7:00 p.m.

Location: Mission Branch Library
Councilmembers: Raj Chahal (Chair), Lisa M. Gillmor,
Anthony Becker
Alternate: Kevin Park
Staff Members: City Manager, Director of C ommunity Development, Code En forcement Technician, Chief of Police
Established in 1990 to r eview student housing i ssues (formerly Student Hou sing Committee).

Established a forum for on -going communication and problem solving a mong City of ficials, neighborhoods, property owners and Santa Clara University officials and students. Santa Clara University/City Liaison Committee and NURC were combine d because of the similar topics that the two committees cover. Three NURC meetings will b e held per y ear (October/November, February and April) for neighborhood issues, and the STAFF TASK FORCE and the CI TY-NEIGHBORHOOD FORUM w ill no longer be held (purs uant to Counci l ac tion of June 23, 2009). A Uni versity-City Subcommittee comprised of NURC City Co uncilmembers, University officials and City Executive

Last Approved 1-25-22

Team Members will meet as needed.

21. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA):

Contact: Board Secretary, SCVTA Phone: (408) 321-5680

A. Board of Directors:

Date: Meets first Thursday of every month (except July) Time: 5:30 p.m.

Location: Board of Supervisors Chambers, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose North East Cities Group
Position includes a ppointment to one of three sub-committees appointed by the VTA Board of Directors. Small Cities Group representation is a 2-year rotating term with two member cities and one alternate city. The Small Cities Group is comprised of the Cities of Milpitas, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara.

Councilmember: Suds Jain
Staff Member: Director of Public Works
Sets VTA policy; establishes committees to give advice on policy matters and provide in-depth review. $100 stipend for meeting attendance, per day. The VTA Administrative Code states that appointments to standing committees are approved by the VTA Board of Directors based on the recommendations of the current chairperson. At the first m eeting in January, the Board shall a pprove the members and chairpersons of all standing committees of the Board based on recommendations for these positions provided by the Board Chairperson. The term of each appointment shall be for one year.

B. Policy Advisory Committee:

Date: Meets on the second Thursday of every month
Time: 4:00 p.m.

Location: VTA Offices, 3331 North First Street, San Jose Building B, Conference Room B-106
Councilmember: Raj Chahal Alternate: Kevin Park Ensures th at all jurisdiction s within the C ounty h ave access to development of VTA's policies. No stipend for attendee.

22. Santa Clara Valley Water Commission (SCVW):

Date: Meets quarterly in January, April, July, and October on the fourth Wednesday of the month
Time: 12:00 p.m.

Location: SCVW District Headquarters, 5700 Almaden Expressway, San Jose Contact: Glenna Brambill
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Phone: (408) 630-2408
Councilmember: Karen Hardy Alternate: Kathy Watanabe Staff Member: Director of Water and Sewer Utilities
Established by the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors to review and advise on issues relating to water supply and water pricing. No stipend for attendee.

23. Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA):

Date: Meets on the fourth Wednesday of every other month beginning in January Time: 8:30 a.m.

Location: SVACA Headquarters, 3370 Thomas Road, Santa Clara Contact: Heidi Springer Phone: (408) 764-0350
Councilmember: Raj Chahal Alternate: Anthony Becker
Staff Member: Police Department Patrol Lieutenant
Established in 2000 to provide ani mal control field ser vices and shelter services for the participat ing cities. The Board is comprised of four members representing the participating cities of Santa C lara, Campbell, Monte Sereno and Mountain View. No stipend for attendee.

24. Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) Board of Directors:

Date: Meets every other month - must meet annually a m inimum of two regula r

Last Approved 1-25-22

meetings
Time: 5:00 p.m.

Location: Santa Clara Police Department, 601 El Camino Real, Santa Clara Contact: Eric Nickel
Executive Director SVRIA
Phone: (408) 615-5571
Councilmember: Karen Hardy
Primary: Sunnyvale is the primary member and Santa Clara is the alternate member until June 30, 2022 (Santa Clara alternates primary member position with Sunnyvale and Milpitas).

Staff Member: Chief of Police
In 2001, several agencies in the area established the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Project to design an i mplementation strategy for an interoperable communications network; purchase a radio and data communicatio ns s ystem or networ k; in tegrate this system or network with other nearby regional public safet y communications systems; participate in regional i nteroperability; and t o jointly apply for grants and funding to facilitate these goals. In 2010, a Joint Powers Agreement wa s established t o i mplement and operate the SV RIA a nd other projects. The nine-m ember Board of Directors of the JPA consists of elected officials from different geographic regions of the County and will serve as the governing body for the agreemen t. The Ci ty of Santa Clara is represented in the “Central County Agencies” that also includes Sunnyvale and Milpitas. No stipend for attendee.

25. Triton Museum of Art Liaison Committee:

Date: Meets generally on the third Thursday of every month Time: 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.

Location: Triton Museum Boardroom, 1505 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara Contact: Triton Museum of Art Phone: (408)247-3754 Councilmember: Kevin Park Alternate: Raj Chahal Staff Member: City Manager’s Office, Management Analyst The Triton Museum of Art is an independent non-profit organization. The Council appoints a representative to serve as a liaison to the Triton Museum Board. The participation of a Councilmember at the Triton Museum Board meetings will further the communication and knowledge of the City’s support. No stipend for attendee.

Police Department
Memorandum
Date: February 1, 2023
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Pat Nikolai, Chief of Police
Subject: Proposed Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee

Agenda item 23-1452 for the February 7, 2023 Council meeting is a report from staff regarding the proposal by Councilmember Jain to fund a Neighborhood Stadium Relations Committee (NSRC) with up to $150K from the Stadium Authority budget.

I am submitting this memorandum in opposition to the proposal.

The staff report is thorough and documents many issues that would need to be addressed in order to create a new committee. The first glaring issue is the dedication of $150,000 in Stadium Authority budget to this new committee. The stadium has failed for years to bring any direct economic benefit to the City’s general fund. It appears that this event season, which included several large concerts and home 49er play-off games, might break that trend. To funnel any of those proceeds to an unnecessary committee would be a waste of financial resources.

I use the word “unnecessary” because there are a multitude of ways that we communicate with the public regarding stadium events. These include:
• Community outreach to businesses and residences prior to the event season. • Directed outreach to the Hyatt, Hilton, and Marriott Hotels. • A community “hotline” that is always available to receive calls and is specifically monitored by a police lieutenant during stadium events. • Informational magnets that are distributed to residents by our neighborhood protection detail during event days.
• Extensive information sharing via social media surrounding stadium events.

All these methods allow those impacted by stadium events to reach us directly, allowing us to respond to issues immediately. In addition, our Special Events Unit follows up on all concerns brought forth by the community and liaisons with the 49ers to collaboratively work together to find lasting solutions. The creation of a quarterly meeting would do nothing additional to address concerns raised by the public.

The most important issue, in my opinion, is the staffing of the various City departments that would be involved in this new committee. Every impacted department, including the police department, has vacancies. Many of them have frozen positions from prior budgetary reductions. And all the involved departments have been asked to present reduced budgets for the upcoming two years that will likely include more staffing reductions. As noted in the staff report, several of the existing City and Stadium Authority Committees, have been unable to meet as scheduled due to these staffing constraints. For example, the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force, whose work is especially relevant today, has been forced to cancel several of their meetings. To add an additional committee would only exacerbate this problem, and flies in the face of common sense.

To be clear; the Police Department currently has eight (8) frozen or eliminated positions. Our initial 23/24-24/25 budget reduction exercise freezes an additional eight (8) positions. As a result of these reductions, which put us at nearly the same staffing levels as 10 years ago, we will be unable to staff or participate in the proposed NSRC.

The staff report has two alternatives. I urge you to adopt alternative 2 and not form this committee.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-74 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Informational Report on a Written Petition (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Anurag Aggrawal and Ajay Thadhlani and Other Residents of North Santa Clara Near Levi’s Stadium which Requested a Debrief of the Noise Levels Associated with the Coldplay Concert Held on Sunday, May 19, 2022. (Deferred from January 10, 2023)

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
A written petition per Council Policy 030 (Attachment 1), was submitted by Anurag Aggrawal and Ajay Thadhlani and other residents of North Santa Clara near Levi’s Stadium. The petition requested six pieces of information related to concerts conducted at Levi’s Stadium. At the June 21, 2022 City Council meeting, the petitioners shared their experiences related to heightened noise at their residences during the Coldplay concert. The residents also commented on the especially loud nature of fireworks towards the end of the concert. In response to the petition, the Council voted unanimously to direct staff to place on a future Council agenda a debrief of the noise levels associated with the Coldplay Concert held on Sunday, May 19, 2022.

Allowable noise levels for the stadium and events at the stadium, including concerts, are established within the Stadium Permit issued by the City in 2010. The Stadium Permit provides the governing regulations for the stadium’s operations and takes the place of the City’s general noise standards for fixed sources that would be otherwise applicable. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the development of the stadium and certified by the City when the City issued the Stadium Permit. The EIR does not establish City policy, but it is referenced within the Stadium Permit and in some cases provides clarification of the City’s intended standards for the operation of the stadium.

The City has contracted with a consultant, Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, since 2018 to provide noise monitoring for events at the stadium, including the ongoing installation of four noise monitors within the residential neighborhoods to the south and east of the stadium, and for occasional in-person (attended) monitoring as needed by the City.

The submitted written petition also includes questions regarding the City’s process for granting curfew extensions as well as data received on complaints regarding noise. Responses to the questions are included in the Discussion section below.

DISCUSSION
The following discussion first addresses the Council request for information regarding the Coldplay City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-74 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
concert and then provides a summary of the City’s response to other items included within the petition.

Noise Analysis
In preparation for the agenda item to discuss the written petition, staff engaged with city consultants, Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, to analyze noise data for the Coldplay concert utilizing data collected by the City’s noise monitoring stations located in the neighborhoods surrounding the Stadium. Staff also requested Wilson, Ihrig, & Associates perform attended noise monitoring during two subsequent concerts (The Weeknd and Elton John) to provide more information to the Council regarding Stadium concert noise. The attended noise monitoring for the Weeknd and Elton John concerts took place adjacent to resident addresses which were identified as experiencing heightened noise experiences in the written petition as well as adjacent to one of the noise monitoring stations (Cheeney and Lenox) in order to compare attended monitoring data with unattended monitoring data.

The attached report (Attachment 2) provides the analysis and conclusions of the noise monitoring data collected from the fixed noise monitors as well as the subsequent attended, in-person monitoring. The noise analysis reflects refinements to remove jet noise from the noise levels attributed to the concert noise. The data also accounts for the drop in noise levels that would occur between the portion of the stadium nearest to a residential use (e.g., a rear yard property line) and the location where noise monitoring took place.

Concert noise levels are benchmarked against ambient noise levels, the noise levels called for in the Stadium Permit conditions of approval, and the target noise levels predicted in the Stadium EIR.

The concert noise levels can be summarized as follows:
· Noise levels from the Coldplay concert on May 15, 2022 exceeded both the noise level called for in the Stadium Permit by up to 9 dBA and the concert-noise level target predicted for the EIR by up to 3 dBA at the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring station. · Noise levels from The Weeknd concert on August 27, 2022 exceeded the noise level called for in the Stadium Permit by 3 dBA, but did not exceed the concert-noise level target predicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring station. Noise levels also exceeded the noise level called for in Development Permit at 2382 Avenida De Guadalupe (east of the Stadium) by 1 dBA.
· Noise levels from the Elton John concert on October 9, 2022 did not exceed either the Stadium Permit noise level or the concert-noise level target predicted for the EIR at any location.

The Stadium Development Permit and EIR use a decibel level for the 1-hour Leq (“average”) level applicable to the residences closest to the Stadium. This standard was established in the Community Noise Analysis report dated May 27, 2010 and referenced in the Stadium Development Permit.

Although the regulatory standards established regarding noise levels at the Stadium are based on an hourly average, residents often express concerns about single noise events. Residents who submitted the 030 Written Petition referenced the late fireworks at the Coldplay concert as being especially loud. Wilson, Irhig & Associates provided data regarding the maximum noise levels due City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-74 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
solely to fireworks during the Coldplay concert, which were 77 to 87 dBA Lmax at the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring station.

No noise complaints were received by the City for the Weeknd and Elton John concerts.

Other Questions Raised in the Submitted Written Petition The following questions were raised in the written petition with responses are provided.

Question: Request for reports of all noise complaints received by the Santa Clara Police Department either through Stadium Event non-emergency number or through the Santa Clara Police Department non-emergency number.

Response: The City received three noise complaints regarding the Coldplay concert. The callers reported concerns regarding the volume and duration of the concert and two of the callers identified where they were experiencing the noise. One caller was located in the Rivermark area and the other caller was located in the Don Callejon area.

Question: Request for a copy of the amendment that changed the curfew agreed to in November 2010 that was a condition of approval for the stadium to be built.

Response: The existing Stadium Permit Condition P22(c) allows the City Manager to approve curfew exemptions for night outdoor Non-NFL events. For reference P22(c) reads as follows:

Night outdoor non-NFL events shall be scheduled to end not later than 10:00 PM Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 PM Friday and Saturday, unless otherwise approved by the City Manager or their designee.

1. Stadium event field lighting (not including emergency lighting, normal operations lighting, or lighting necessary for post-event cleanup, maintenance, or equipment load-out) shall be doused not later than one hour following the conclusion of the event.

2. Speaker sound system shall be operated not more than one-half hour following conclusion of a non-NFL event.

Additionally, on November 16, 2021, the City Council took the following actions:

1. Directed the City Manager to provide exemptions under Conditions of Approval P22(c) for up to five weeknight concerts per year, including pyrotechnics, that are scheduled to end no later than 11:00 PM Sunday through Thursday,

2. Directed the City Manager to provide those exemptions within 48 hours of the request by the Stadium Manager, and

3. If there are additional requests for an exemption beyond those five exemptions, direct the City Manager to bring the requests to Council for consideration where the Council will weigh the pros and cons.

Question: Provide report and data showing what outreach was conducted to get input from the residents regarding the change from the curfew being 10PM on Sunday to 11PM.

Response: No specific outreach was conducted regarding the curfew prior to the Council’s November City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-74 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
16, 2021 action.

Question: What happened to the community survey done in 2018 that gave residents input regarding weekday concerts?
Response: As part of a City Council study session on June 21, 2018, the consultants, The Lew Edwards Group with EMC Research and Public Dialogue Consortium, presented the final results of the Stadium Authority Board Community Outreach and Engagement Project. The consultants’ summary and presentation shared at the June 21, 2018 study session are attached (Attachments 3 & 4). Through their engagement efforts, the consultants found that residents were dissatisfied with the level of traffic, parking, and “disruptive behavior” following stadium events. In general, stadium- related issues were not “top-of-mind” concerns in relation to other issues, such as generalized traffic concerns and the high cost-of-living. However, it was noted in the summary and final report that stadium-related issues did become more important and higher intensity among the near neighbor population.

As part of a May 2018 solutions survey that was conducted, the consultants found support for specific solutions to community concerns, particularly related to parking, neighborhood security, and stadium-related issues. In general, residents strongly supported services that would mitigate event related issues following stadium events. Specifically, residents seek solutions to: (1) Stadium-related traffic, (2) Stadium-related parking, (3) Disruptive behavior pre/post Stadium events (particularly loitering, security/enforcement and noise control), and (4) Improving city-constituent communication.

Residents were satisfied with the existing curfew system but were open to changes and additional community engagement on that issue.

Several Council directions have resulted in City and Stadium Authority staff implementing various efforts to address Stadium-related traffic, parking, disruptive behaviors pre and post Stadium events, and increasing communication to residents about Stadium events. These efforts include setting up a complaint line for stadium events, hiring a noise monitoring consultant, providing neighborhood protections, and increasing communications about event impacts. Both the City and Stadium Authority continue to engage the Stadium Manager to assist with mitigating these issues.

Next Steps
Based upon the information provided in the noise analysis, noise levels generated by the Coldplay concert exceeded the City’s standards, while The Weeknd concert was in substantial conformance and the Elton John concert remained within the City’s standards. This suggests that noise levels vary from concert to concert and can be influenced by the way in which the concert is conducted. Staff will follow-up with stadium management to discuss these conclusions and work with them so that future events at the stadium conform with City requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, the City’s noise consultant, as part of their contract, which was extended through Amendment No. 5 by the City Council through March 31, 2023, conducted noise monitoring City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
23-74 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
and performed analysis of noise data. Funding for these contractual services were included in the annual operating budget.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and File the Informational Report
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director, Community Development Approved by: Rajeev Batra, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Written Petition submitted by Anurag Aggrawal Ajay Thadhlani and other North Santa Clara residents near Levi's Stadium

2. Wilson, Ihrig & Associates Memorandum on Stadium Noise Level Monitoring Project 2022 Concert Level Noise

3. Lew Edwards, Group EMC Research, and Public Dialogue Consortium summary of the Stadium Authority Board community outreach and engagement project, June 19, 2018

4. Presentation provided at June 21, 2018 Study Session on community engagement report for Levi’s Stadium
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™

CITY COUNCIL WRITTEN PETITION
RE(!E't!VED
MAY ~f 1 2022
City C!erl<'~; Office
City of Santa Clara
Please provide the information requested below. When comple te, please submit to the City Clerk's Office 1500 'Warburton Avenue. Santa Clara, CA 95050 .

Date:05/30/2022
I, Anurag Aggrawal and Ajay Tt adhlani and other residents of N0(1Jl Santa Clara arnuJ'ld Levi's stadium, are hereby requesting to bo placed on the Santa Clara City Council Agen da fo< the foflowing purpose
A debriefing of the CotdpJay concert held on Sunday , May 19, 2022 We are requesting :
(1) All the compla ints received by 49ers r porting line during and days aft r the concert regarding the noise and othe r disruption s in the area , (2) Reports of ALL noise complaint:;; rece.ived by the Santa Clara Police Department either through the Stadium Event Non-Emergency Number or the SCPD Non-Emerge cy Number.

Many Santa Clara resjdents 'hav had expressed their conc-erns and compla ints due to noise from Coldpl.:iy concert on Ncxtdoor . Nextdoor link is: wwyl,tjnyurl com/coldplay-Saa1ac1ara. (3) a copy of the amendmen t t t changed the wrfew agreed to in November' 2010 that was a conditron of approval for th-e stadium to be built; and (4) Report and data showing what outrench was conducted to get input from he residents regarding the change from the curf w being 10 PM on Sunday to 11 PM (5) Request tor noise dB level of the sensors inside and outside the stadium (in relevan t areas) durrng the concert.
,(7) Vv'hat happened to the commun ity survey dofle in 2018 that gave fi,.Srdents input regarding weekday concerts
derstand that it is imPortant that I attend the meeting in the event there are any questions the Counci l wishes to 8$k me.

Signed~
NAM : AQ!irag Agg.ra,..vaJ
ADDRESS: 4305 Vll'atson Circle. Santa Clara, CA 95054
\
·• I i .

NAM : Ajay Thadnlam /
ADDR ESS: 234().-Espcr ca Ave. Santa Clara . CA 95-054
EL PHONE:• _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _
Optional
DAT . 05/30/2022
"NOTE: Thi.s is a public doc mcnt. If your lelepho n.um .1 · unLi ted or if you do no wMt i lo be public, 1ea ~. provi e an a cmal·e numbef" wt.ere you c.a:n be re ch-ed orm • 2016.doc

1 WI #16-125

MEMORANDUM
3 January 2023
To: Andrew Crabtree, Reena Brilliot, Leah Ruch
Community Development Department, City of Santa Clara
Fr: Sarah Kaddatz, Derek Watry
Re: Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring Project
2022 Concert Noise Levels

Executive Summary
The community noise levels from three concerts are analyzed in this report: Coldplay, The Weeknd, and Elton John. In addition to using data from the unattended noise monitoring stations installed in the neighborhoods south and east of the Stadium, Wilson Ihrig conducted attended measurements for The Weeknd and Elton John Concerts on 8/27/22 and 10/9/22 respectively.

The noise levels are compared to the target maximum noise exposure level in the Stadium’s Development Permit, the concert-noise level predicted for the environmental impact report (EIR), and typical noise levels on days when no events (NFL games, concerts) are held.

The closest noise monitoring station is at Cheeney and Lenox in the neighborhood south of the Stadium. The closest attended measurement location was at 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe (east of the Stadium). The concert noise levels can be summarized as follows:
• Noise levels from t he Coldplay concert on 5/15/20 exceeded both the Development Permit target and the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox location. • Noise levels from The Weeknd concert on 8/27/2022 exceeded the Development Permit target, but did not exceed the concert-noise level p redicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox location. Noise levels also exceeded the Development Permit target at 2382 Avenida De Guadalupe (east of the Stadium).
• Noise levels from t he Elton John concert on 10/9/2022 did not exceed either the Development Permit target or the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at any location.

Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

2 Introduction
This memorandum presents concert noise levels, compares them to the community noise level target set in the Stadium’s Development Permit, and puts them in the context of average non-game- day noise levels and noise level estimates taken from the Stadium’s environmental impact report (EIR). Because jets are a major noise source in the area, noise from jets is explicitly noted. The community noise levels analyzed in this report are for three major concerts held in 2022 at Levi’s Stadium: Coldplay, The Weeknd, and Elton John.1
Since 2017, noise level data has been collected continuously in the neighborhoods around the Stadium using Seti-Media unattended noise monitoring stations installed expressly for this purpose. Measurements are being made at four locations around the Stadium (see Figure 1), but this memo only reports data from the monitor at Cheeney and Lenox. The Cheeney and Lenox monitor characterizes noise in the neighborhood south of the Stadium which was the focus of the Stadium’s EIR noise analysis; it is about the same distance from the Stadium as the Hughes Elementary School monitor; and it is lined up with the open, southern end of the Stadium. The Hughes location is shielded from Stadium noise to some extent by the bleacher seats on the eastern side, so stadium-generated noise levels are typically lower than those at Cheeney and Lenox. At the City’s request, data from the Hughes and the other monitors could be analyzed and added to this report.

Additionally, attended measurements were conducted on 8/27/22 and 10/9/22 both to collect more data and to make site observations while two concerts were taking place (The Weeknd and Elton John, respectively). The attended measurement locations are shown in Figure 22.

Concerts Analyzed The 2022 data analyzed are for the following concerts:

Event Date Event Start Time End Time
5/15/2022 Coldplay 7:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m.
8/27/2022 The Weeknd 6:30 p.m. 11:00 p.m.
10/9/2022 Elton John 8:00 p.m. 10:40 p.m.

Explanation of Sound Level Metrics Sound (noise) levels vary continuously, so acoustical engineers and scientists have developed a number of metrics to characterize them. This memo, following the EIR analysis, primarily uses the “Leq”:

Average or Equivalent Level (Leq) The equivalent level, abbreviated “Leq” is the steady sound level that contains the same amount of acoustical energy during the measurement period as the actual, time-varying sound level did. For all intents and purposes, it is the average level and shall be referred to as such in this memo. While the measurement period may be of any duration, in this report the duration is 1 hour.

1 Elton John also played a concert on10/8/2022.

Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

3 This memo also reports some maximum noise levels (Lmax):

Maximum Noise Levels (“Maximum”) The maximum noise level as discussed in this report refers to the loudest 1-second during documented events, e.g., the single loudest second when fireworks were used.

Unattended Noise Monitoring System Data Analysis and Assessment • The unattended noise monitoring stations collect data on a second-by-second basis, but, for the most part, the Leq, Lmax, and other data are summarized on a 1-hour basis for consistency with the EIR noise analysis.
• The noise monitoring system can filter out most jet noise based on the typical characteristics of jet noise.2 When it detects a jet, the system disregards the 30 seconds during which the jet flies over. Data with and without the inclusion of jet noise are presented in this report. The levels without jet noise include Stadium noise and all other non-jet sources. • The Stadium’s Development Permit includes the following condition regarding noise:

In order to control noise, the stadium loudspeakers systems (permanent and temporary) shall be oriented in a manner consistent with Community Noise Analysis prepared by WJHW, dated May 27, 2010 for the proposed 49ers Stadium, in order to control noise impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods. In accordance with Section 9.10.070(c) of the Santa Clara City Code, and t he recommendations of this noise analysis, sound system levels shall be limited to 100 dBA for NFL games and other uses of the permanent speaker system, and not more than 105 dBA for temporary concert speaker systems as presented in the analysis. For soun d system installations and modifications within the stadium site, the target for maximum sound level exposure in residential areas to the east and south shall be 60 dBA, in order to minimize noise impacts to sensitive receptors.3
The concert noise levels are compared to the “60 dBA target”. As established in the WJHW report, this decibel level target is intended for the 1 -hour L eq (“average”) level at the residences closest to the Stadium – about 1,200 feet from the center of the stadium. The Cheeney & Lenox sound monitoring station is more deeply embedded in the community, about 50% farther away. To account for the extra attenuation with distance, 4 dB have been subtracted from the 60 dBA Leq target4, meaning that the target at the Cheene y and Lenox

2 If the jet is not particularly loud or there is another, constant noise source such as a lawnmower at the time, the filter may not identify the jet. The filter excludes the noise from about 85% of all jets. 3 Development Permit PLN2008-06947, 11/30/2010, Condition P23 4 Technical note: Noise attenuates with distance for the same reason that the height of circular waves resulting from a rock thrown in a still lake get smaller as they travel away from the source location: the energy in the wavefront is spread over a larger and larger area which reduces the wave’s amplitude. This is called “attenuation due to geometric spreading”. Noise that is fairly far from the source – even a large source such as Levi’s Stadium – spreads at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The distance from the center of the stadium (which is the effective location of the noise source) to the homes where the EIR predicted noise levels is about 1,200 feet, whereas the distance from the center of the stadium to the Cheeney and Lenox monitor is about 1,800 feet, a 50% Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

4 monitoring location is 56 dBA Leq. The 2340 Esperanca location is about 2,200 feet from the center of the stadium , so the target there is effectively 55 dBA Leq. Noise levels at 2382 Avenida De Guadalupe are assessed using the 60 dBA Leq target as this location is representative of the residences closest to the stadium to the east. Measurements made at 4305 Watson will not be assessed relative to the Development Permit target as this location is too far away to adjust the target in a meaningful manner. • For context, data from 46 Sundays in 2021 when there were no NFL games (“non-game days”) were arithmetically averaged to ascertain representative ambient levels on an hourly basis for non-game/non-event days.
• Also for context, the concert-noise level estimated for the Stadium project EIR is presented.

From the Environmental Noise Assessment done for the project:

A concert at the proposed stadium would also be expected to generate noise levels audible in the su rrounding residential neighborhoods. Concert noise levels would vary depending on the type of music performed. On average, concerts typically generate an average noise level of approximately 95 dBA Leq measured 100 feet from the stage and speakers. Concert generated noise levels are likely to be similar or slightly less than the maximum crowd noise (i.e., cheering) at an NFL event. Concert noise levels would be approximately 66 dBA Leq or less at the nearest residences south of the stadium site .

Hourly average noise levels would exceed the ambient hourly average noise levels by 4 dBA Leq and would exceed background noise levels by 19 to 24 dBA. Because concerts would occur during evening hours, the increase in ambient average noise levels over an approximately two to three hour period would be more obvious to nearby residents. 5 The EIR predictions are for the residences closest to the Stadium whereas the Cheeney & Lenox sound monitoring station is more deeply embedded in the community, about 50% farther away. To account for the extra attenuation with distance, 4 dB have been subtracted from the levels predicted in the EIR 6, meaning that concert noise levels were nominally predicted to be 62 dBA Leq at the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring location. Similarly, predicted concert noise levels at the 2340 Esperanca location (about 2,200 feet from the center of the stadium) were nomi nally 61 dBA Leq. The 60 dBA Leq target directly applicable to 2382

increase. Given the logarithmic mathematics of decibels, one may calculate that the expected attenuation for a 50% increase in distance is about 4 dB using the equation 20 log 10 (distance1/distance2). 5 Illingworth & Rodkin, 49ers Stadium Project Environmental Noise Assessment, Santa Clara, California, I&R Job No. 08-046, 24 February 2009, p 14. Underlined emphasis added. 6 Technical note: Noise attenuates with distance for the same reason that the height of circular waves resulting from a rock thrown in a still lake get smaller as they travel away from the source location: the energy in the wavefront is spread over a larger and larger area which reduces the wave’s amplitude. This is called “attenuation due to geometric spreading”. Noise that is fairly far from the source – even a large source such as Levi’s Stadium – spreads at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. The distance from the center of the stadium (which is the effective location of the noise source) to the homes where the EIR predicted noise levels is about 1,200 feet, whereas the distance from the center of the stadium to the Cheeney and Lenox monitor is about 1,800 feet , a 50% increase. Given the logarithmic mathematics of decibels, one may calculate that the expected attenuation for a 50% increase in distance is about 4 dB using the equation 20 log10 (distance1/distance2).

Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

5 Avenida de Guadalupe as it is as close as any other residence to the east of the stadium. The EIR did not predict concert noise levels at distances as far as 4305 Watson Circle. • The 202 2 concert hourly average levels (Leq) as measured by the Cheeney & Lenox unattended noise monitoring station are plotted along with the 56 dBA Leq target from the Development Permit and the contextual backdrop of average non-game Sunday noise levels and the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR in Figure 3 to Figure 5. The approximate timeframe of the concert is indicated on each data plot along with commentary on the noise levels vis-à-vis the relevant assessment metrics.

Manual Analysis of Coldplay Concert Noise Monitoring System Data At the request of the City of Santa Clara, additional manual analysis was conducted on data collected by the unattended noise monitoring station at Cheeney & Lenox during the Coldplay concert on 5/15/22. Our understanding is that this request stems from a written petition (Council Policy 030) which complained about noise from the Coldplay concert. Specifically, complaints were made about late-night fireworks which occurred after 10:00 pm.

Manual review of the data and audio recordings enabled us to ident ify events above 60 dBA Leq (mostly jets and fireworks) that occurred between 9 :00 and 11:00 pm, the period of concern. The concert noise level including fireworks noise during the 10:00 to 1 1:00 pm hour was 65 dBA Leq (excludes jet noise). This exceeds the 62 dBA Leq concert-noise level predicted for the EIR . The concert noise level during that same hour excluding both fireworks and jets was 61 dBA Leq. This is below the predicted noise level of concerts presented in the EIR, but still above the 56 dBA Leq target in the Development Permit. A plot of the results of this additional analysis is presented in Figure 6.

As discussed previously, the E IR analysis and, therefore, the Development Permit noise target uses the one-hour average (Leq) metric, which are the standards established for the Stadium , but this is not what people typically respond to in situations like late -night concert fireworks. Rather, they respond to the maximum noise levels. For completeness, the maximum noise levels due solely to fireworks during the Coldplay concert were 77 to 87 dBA Lmax at Cheeney and Lenox . For context, the maximum noise levels due solely to jet aircraft were 64 to 83 dBA Lmax (jets flew until midnight on the night of the Coldplay concert). These maximum noise levels were analyzed during periods when jet aircraft and fireworks did not occur simultaneously.

Attended Noise Measurement Data Analysis & Presentation Wilson Ihrig conducted attended measurements during the concerts on 8/27/22 (The Weeknd) and 10/9/2022 (Elton John) to document noise levels near residences who filed official complaints regarding the Coldplay concert on 5/15/2022, as well as to gather additional information about the concert noise, such as how much traffic influenced the noise measurements. For control, attended measurements were made near the Cheeney and Lenox unattended noise monitoring station. In addition, measurements were made at 2340 Esperanca, 2382 Ave nida de Guadalupe, and 4305 Watson Circle.

Two Wilson Ihrig staff members made measurements during both concerts between 9:00 and 11:00 pm, one stationed near the Cheeney an d Lenox unattended noise monitoring station for the entire duration and one making shorter measurements at multiple locations throughout the area over the Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

6 two hours. Attended noise measurements were made at a 5 ft height at all locations shown in Figure

2. The continuous measurement at Cheeney and Lenox was done to ensure that if fireworks or other unusually loud conce rt-related event occurred, the events would be captured in real -time on an attended recording, however, no fireworks were utilized during either concert nor were there any unusually loud noises.
8/27/22 Concert (The Weeknd)
Over the 2-hour period centered on The Weeknd concert time (9:00 to 11:00 pm), noise levels measured by the unattended noise monitoring station at Cheeney and Lenox – with jet noise filtered out using the automated filter – did exceed 56 dBA Leq (the adjusted target at this location), but were below the 62 dBA Leq level predicted for concerts in the EIR.

As seen in Figure 2, one of the attended measurement locations was right below the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring station. The attended measurements were later post-processed to eliminate all major noise sources not related to the concert (e.g., cars, pedestrians, jet planes, etc.). This manual analysis resulted in noise levels approximately 2 to 3 dBA lower than those measured by the unattended noise monitoring stations even with jet noise filtered out using the automated filter (reflecting the fact that the jet filter does not eliminate car or pedestrian noise, nor even all jets).

Results from this spot check establish that concert-noise levels at Cheeney and Lenox did exceed 56 dBA Leq but were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR throughout the entire concert.

Additional spot-check measurements were made near 4305 Watson Circle, 2340 Esperanca Ave, and 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe. Again, data from these attended measurements were later post- processed to eliminate sources not due to concert-related activity. Results from these spot checks indicate that noise levels at 2340 Esperanca Avenue did not exceed 55 dBA Leq (the adjusted target) and were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at the time of measurement. At 4305 Watson Circle, it was observed that concert activities were not audible unless noise levels from local traffic were 43 to 44 dBA Leq or less (which only occurred when there were no vehicles in the immediate vicinity). Concert-only noise levels near 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe indicate that noise levels did exceed the 60 dBA Leq Development Permit target between 10:00 to 10:30 pm by approximately 1 dBA, but were still below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR.

It was observed during these measurements that the noise level of the crowd commonly exceeded that of the amplified music at the Cheeney and Lenox, 2340 Esperanca, and 2382 Avenide de Guadalupe locations. Crowd noise was not audible at the 4305 Watson Circle location. 10/9 Concert (Elton John)
Over the 2-hour period centered on the Elton John concert time (9:00 and11:00 pm), noise levels measured by the unattended noise monitoring station at the Cheeney and Lenox location – with jet noise filtered out using the automated filter – did not exceed 56 dBA Leq and were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR.

Attended noise measurements were made at three locations shown in Figure 2, locations #1, #3, and #4.7 One of the attended monitoring locations was next to the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring

7 Analysis of the 8/27 Concert (TheWeeknd) indicated the noise levels measured at Cheeney and Lenox were within 1 dBA of those measured at 2340 Esperanca. Therefore, measurement efforts during the Elton Joh n concert were focused on the other locations.

Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

7 station. The short-term measurements were later post-processed to eliminate all major noise sources not associated with the concert. This manual analysis resulted in noise levels approximately 2 dBA lower than those measured using the unattended noise monitoring station (with jet noise filtered out using the automated filter). Results from this spot check indicate that noise levels at Cheeney and Lenox did not exceed the 56 dBA Leq target and were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR throughout the entire concert.

Additional attended measurements were made near 4305 Watson Circle and 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe. All attended measurement data were later post-processed to eliminate all major noise sources not associated with the concert. Results from these spot checks indicate that noise levels at 2382 Avenida de Guadalupe did not exceed 60 dBA Leq target and were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR throughout the entire concert. It was observed that concert activities were not audible at the 4305 Watson Circle location (while clearly audible at the closer Cheeney and Lenox location at the same time).

It was observed during these measurements that the noise level of the crowd commonly exceeded that of the amplified music at the Cheeney and Lenox and 2382 Avenide de Guadalupe locations.

Crowd noise was not audible at the 4305 Watson Circle location.

Data Analysis and Assessment Conclusions
The analysis of data from the unattended noise monitoring station at Cheeney and Lenox for all three concerts and of data from the short-term attended monitoring locations for the 8/27/22 concert (The Weeknd) and 10/9/22 concert (Elton John) is summarized in Table 1 below. The Coldplay concert on 5/15/20 exceeded the 56 dBA Leq Development Permit target and the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox location. The Weeknd concert of 8/27/2022 exceeded the 56 dBA Leq Development Permit target, but did not exceed the concert -noise level predicted for the EIR at the Cheeney and Lenox location. The Weeknd concert -noise levels also exceeded the 60 dBA Leq Development Permit target at 2382 Avenida De Guadalupe. Noise levels from the Elton John concert of 10/9/2022 did not exceed the Development Permit target and also did not exceed the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR at any location.

Table 1A: Noise Standards
Location Development Permit Target
(Adjusted)
Concert Level Predicted
in EIR (Adjusted)
Cheeney & Lenox 56 dBA Leq 62 dBA Leq
2340 Esperanca 55 dBA Leq 61 dBA Leq
2382 Ave. de Guadalupe 60 dBA Leq 66 dBA Leq
4305 Watson Circle N/A N/A

Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

8 Table 1B: Noise Measurement Summary
Measurement Location Coldplay
5/15/2022
The Weeknd
8/27/2022
Elton John
10/9/2022
Cheeney and Lenox
(Unattended Noise Monitor) 58-64 dBA Leq 55-59 dBA Leq 55-56 dBA Leq Cheeney and Lenox
Including Fireworks
(Manual Analysis of Unattended Data)
58-65 dBA Leq N/A N/A
Cheeney and Lenox
Excluding Fireworks
(Manual Analysis of Unattended Data)
58-62 dBA Leq N/A N/A
Cheeney and Lenox
(Attended Monitor) N/A 56-57 dBA Leq 51-54 dBA Leq
2340 Esperanca
(Attended Monitor) N/A 55 dBA Leq N/A
2382 Ave. De Guadalupe
(Attended Monitor) N/A 61 dBA Leq 58 dBA Leq
4305 Watson Circle
(Attended Monitor) N/A 47 dBA Leq 42 dBA Leq
Does Range Exceed Development Permit
Target? Yes Yes No
Does Range Exceed EIR-Predicted
Levels? Yes* No No
*If assessed concert noise level includes fireworks noise.

Bold values indicate exceedance of Development Permit target.

Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

9 Figure 1 Area Map with Unattended Noise Monitoring Station Locations (Distances are measured from the center of the Stadium) #4
Ave de Lago &
Ave de los Arboles

Stadium: 2,700 ft

#3
Hughes Elementary

Stadium: 1,800 ft

#1
Cheeney & Lenox

Stadium: 1,850 ft

#2
4624 Cheeney

Stadium: 2,460 ft

Stadium
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

10 Figure 2 8-27-2022 (The Weeknd) and 10-9-2022 (Elton John) – Attended Noise Measurement Locations
#3
2382 Avenida De Guadalupe
#2
2340 Esperanca Ave
#1
Cheeney and Lenox
Monitoring Station
#4
4305 Watson Circle
Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

11 Figure 3 5-15-2022 (Coldplay) – Hourly-Average Leq The following regards measured noise levels with jet noise and, inadvertently, fireworks noise filtered out by the Seti-Media system: Over the 4-hour period centered on the concert time, noise levels exceeded 56 dBA between 7:00 and 11:00 pm. They were 7 to 15 dB higher than average non-game-day levels. They were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm, but above the predicted level between 9:00 and 11:00 pm.

Because the jet noise filter inadvertently also filtered out fireworks noise, it was subsequently improved by adding information about jet flyover times to the automated filtering process. This new filter will be fully operational for future concerts after 10/21/2022. See discussion at Figure 5 for noise levels with jet noise removed and fireworks noise remaining.8

8 The Cheeney & Lenox sound monitoring station is more deeply embedded in the community than the residences closest to the Stadium, about 50% farther away. To account for the extra attenuation with distance, 4 dB have been subtracted from the 60 dBA Leq target, meaning that the target at the Cheeney and Lenox monitoring location is 56 dBA Leq.
8 Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

12 Figure 4 8-27-22 (The Weeknd) – Hourly-Average Leq

The following regards measured noise levels with jet noise filtered out: Over the 4-hour period centered on the concert time, noise levels exceeded 56 dBA between 9:00 and 11:00 pm. They were 3 to 11 dB higher than average non-game-day levels, but were generally below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR.
8 Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

13 Figure 5 10-9-22 (Elton John) – Hourly-Average Leq

The following regards measured noise levels with jet noise filtered out: Over the 3-hour period centered on the concert time, noise levels did reach but did not exceed 56 dBA. They were 5 to 7 dB higher than average non-game-day levels, but were below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR.

8 Levi’s Stadium Noise Level Monitoring
2022 Concert Noise Levels

14 Figure 6 5-15-2022 (Coldplay) – Hourly-Average Leq, Including Additional Analysis The following regards measured noise levels with jet noise filtered out manually: Between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 p.m., the concert-only noise remained below the 62 dBA predicted noise level, but was still 3 to 4 dB above the Development Permit target level. During the 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. hour, the concert noise equalled the 62 dBA predicted level, 6 dBA above the target. During the 10:00 to 11:00 p.m. hour, the concert noise level – including fireworks – was 65 dBA Leq. This is 3 dB above the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR, 9 dB above the Development Permit target level, and about 15 dB above the non-game (non-event) level for that hour. Without the fireworks (yellow line), the concert noise level was 61 dBA Leq, below the concert-noise level predicted for the EIR, but still 5 dB above the adjusted target and 11 dB above the level for that hour when there is no stadium event.
8 To: Executive Director Deanna Santana
From: The Lew Edwards Group with EMC Research and Public Dialogue Consortium Date: June 19, 2018
Re: Summary of the Stadium Authority Board Community Outreach and Engagement Project

Introduction:

In December 2017, the City of Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board authorized the Lew Edwards Group (LEG) to direct community research and collaborate on engagement pertaining to Levi’s Stadium. LEG, utilizing respected subcontractor EMC Research and in working collab oration with Public Dialog ue Consortium (PDC), coordinated a multi-disciplinary quantitative and qualitative community engagement program designed to identify resident and near-neighbor views on a variety of issues. The consulting team worked diligently in a variety of research formats to identify the community’s concerns, and desired potential action, through scientific and community-centered engagement and research.

The project utilize d four strategies to determine resident opinions on the Stadium. EMC conducted an initial issues identification survey in January of both citywide residents and “near-neighbor” residents and businesses in close proximity to the Stadium. Following this initial research, EMC and PDC engaged in scientific and non -scientific co mmunity engagement focus groups to add further nuance to constituent attitudes identified in the January survey. Finally, EMC engaged in a May “solutions” survey for citywide residents to evaluate interest in potential city actions. An online platform was also created by PDC to inform and engage residents and stakeholders. The significant data collected in a variety of formats (telephone interviews, one-on-on conversations, online input, and group meetings) informs LEG’s overall policy recommendations for Board consideration and further deliberation which will be reviewed at the Special Stadium Board meeting on June 21st.

Community Attitudes & Key Issues:

Both city -wide and near -neighbor residents in Santa Clara expressed satisfaction with the City and lev el of services provided. Residents are dissatisfied with the level of traffic, parking, and “disruptive behavior” following stadium events.

However, in general stadium-related issues are not “top-of-mind” concerns in relation to other issues, such as generalized traffic concerns and the high cost -of-living. Stadium-related issues do become more salient and higher intensity among the near neighbor population.

The May solutions survey found support for specific solutions to community concerns, particularly related to parking, neighborhood security, and stadium -related issues. In general, residents strongly support services that would mitigate event-related issues following stadium events. Specifically, residents seek solutions to: 1. Stadium-related traffic, 2.

Stadium-related parking, 3. Disruptive behavior pre/post Stadium events (particularly loitering, security/enforcement and noise control), and 4. Improving city-constituent communication. Residents are satisfied with the existing curfew system but are open to changes and additional community engagement on that issue.

Community Solutions & Further Consideration:

Solutions to Stadium-related issues can be siloed into two distinct categories. First, the Board should consider engaging in partnerships with d ifferent agencies, including ManCo and Santa Clara VTA, specifically to alleviate traffic and parking problems. Second, the Board should consider engaging in proactive, in -house solutions to specific Stadium -related concerns. In particular, the City of San ta Clara should consider targeted policy changes designed to mitigate disruptive behavior before/after stadium events. Both the near -neighbors and citywide residents support key policy changes to improve these services. Specific details for policy considerations will be discussed in the consultants’ final report.

Finally, residents expressed a strong desire for additional ongoing community engagement with the City and ManCo on Stadium-related issues. The consulting team views this project as merely the fir st step in an ongoing , long-term need to forge a more effective partnership between the Board, ManCo, and the community at large.

Consultant's Final Report
on Levi's Stadium
Community Engagement
ity
ant
The Center of
SCSA

SANTA CIARA STADIUM AUTHORIIY
: EMC: ■ PDC@ ~~~gR/i~gue
research
June 21, 2018
Stadium Authorit S ecial Meetin
(~,·~"·~~\-, City of
0 ,~ , , Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
SCSA
POST MEmNG MATERIAL
I. 1
Our team prides itself on our professionalism , objectivity, and commitment to report ing on the community s views. We have no pos ition on any of the issues that are the subject of our research and engagement . No members of the team are lobbyists, and none have represented the 49 'ers. • Catherine Lew of the Lew Edwards Group is the Project Lead. LEG specializes in providing award-winning communications services to local governments, which constitutes more than 2/3rds of LEG's practice • Ruth Bernstein from EMC Research directed statistical survey research and scientific focus groups for the project. EMC is a national firm that has conducted thousands of such stuaies.
• Dr. Shawn Spano from Public Dialogue Consortium is directing qualitative focus groups, community dialogue, and collaboration. PDC is a non-i;>rofit organization that has provided a wide spectrum of services to the City in tfie past.

PDC®PubllcDJalogue [[:M::£ ■ 3 8 Consortium research
• lmpl~m~nt an impartial, rr:iulti-pisciplinary engagement process to assess public views on City-Stadium issues
• Utilize multi-disciplinary approaches that include:
• Quantitative methods that provide random, representative samples • Qualitative methods allowing stakeholders a facilitated forum to express views • Engagement of local residents, registered voters and stakeholders, including businesses • Approach that embraces all types of engagemenUcommunications methods • Provide highlights of results and recommendations to the Stadium Authority Board and public
• Appendices of EMC and PDC work products are also posted online Consultants will be responding to questions at the end of the meeting. 2 Benefits of Utilizing Cross/Disciplines
• Public Opinion Surveys are Quantitative
o Random, representative sample allows for generalizability o Choice format measured on a scale for statistical/numerical analysis o More precision, less depth
• Facilitated engagements are Qualitative
o Self-selected sample limits generalizability
o Format enabling participants to express their views and experiences in their own words
o More depth, less precision
Mu lti-Disci pl i nary Cross-Pol Ii nation
• PDC utilized the results of the first citywide and near neighbor scientific surveys to inform the design of its engagement meetings and interviews, and qualitative focus groups
• EMC used PDC1s qualitative research to inform the development of its May Policy Survey which is the basis of the consulting team1s recommendations this evening
3 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
SCSA
Initial Issue Identification Surveys
• A scientific citywide survey of voters was conducted of 600 respondents in January to identify initial issues
pertinent to our team study.
• Two near-neighbor studies were also conducted of:
• Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and North San Jose Residents
(174 respondents) living in close proximity to Levi's Stadium and· ' • Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and North San Jose Businesses in close proximity to Levi's Stadium (82 respondents) [[:M~ 8 research 4 Methodology: Citywide Voter Survey
Live telephone survey - including landlines and cells - of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara, a universe selected as voters are one of several constituencies on these policy issues
Conducted January 8-19, 2018
600 total interviews; Margin of Error ±4.0 points
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese
~M~
research 9
Methodology: Near Neighbor Surveys
Residents
Live teleP.hone survey - including landlines and cells - of residents within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose
Conducted February 8 - March 3, 2018*
174 total interviews; Margin of Error ±7.4 points
lf'\terviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese
Businesses
Live telephone survey of businesses in selected regions of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and San Jose Businesses were randomly selected from a list of businesses with addresses in Santa Clara and within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose that experience event-related impacts .

Conducted February 2- 23, 2018*
82 total interviews; Margin of Error ±11.0 points
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers 'Data collection was paused in mid-February during Stadium-related media coverage ~t19 resear ch IO
5 Methodology: Near Neighbor Surveys
Businesses: n=82; Margin of
J Error ±11.0 points
: ::~·~ .. ~ l l
c;
a Sunnyvale
26 Resident
r f' \ f,:\.,e,rv~eWS :'IA•l"l~ H,
,!?.) :H1ine.Ss
hitervte>lis t
'
D - -- @) -
"·, .. ~T'N'orth San
~J,1Sh \°tl\1f10
Jose
32Resldent
Interviews
17 Busln~ss
Interviews
r
0AMCM«c.ldol0 ~ '"':" o...•1.:1 •• "- J
lnlel MLI H tJmG)
t10R1tl S.
~t19
resemch 11
The City gets strong marks for the Job It is doing overall and for keeping citizens informed. About half give the City o positive roting for responding to concerns/complaints and using tax dollars responsibly. Strong negative opinion (''poorN rating) Is very low.

The job the City Neighbor s
Government is
doing overall Voters
The job the City Neighbors
does keeping
citizens informed Voters
■ Total Positive
(Excellent+ Good)
(Don't Know) ■ Total Negative Excellent Poor
(Fair+ Poor)
70% • . 26% , .•
64% • 32% , .•
64% · 34% , .• MMJGE]
60% 35% ,. MMJGE)
The job the City -does responding Neighbors ' ' 14% ' · MMJGE] to citizen concerns
andcomplaints Voters ~ MMJGE]
Please tell me how you think the City of Santa Clara Is doing in each of the following areas. Use a scale of excellent, go~d. only fair, or poor. ·
~M~
research 12
6 Both voters ond stadium near-neighbors hove o positive view of Santo Claro as a place to live.

Positive
88%
Citywide Voters
Negative
[Cl],lj,W,N
Near-Neighbor Residents *
Positive
90%
Negative
[CWOWIN
Overall, how would you rate Santa Clara as a place to live? Would you say It Is an excellent, good, only fa ir, or poor place to live? •Asked only of those residing In Santa Clara, n=116 ~M]J research 13
Top Positives of
Living in Santa Clara
Citywide voters and near neighbors mention the convenient location, small-town feel, friendliness, and the low crime rate as things they like most about living in Santa Clora.

What do you like best about living in Santa Clara? Voters Near Neighbors• Convenient location 21% 34%
Calm/quiet atmos phere/small-town fee l 14% 16%
The community itself/fri endly town/the people 11% 14%
Security/ safety/low crime rate 11% 14%
Climate 9% 9%
Clean/bea utiful city 9% 5%
Amenities : parks/library/swim center 9% 9%
Shopping/bu sinesses 7% 9%
Utilities: lowe r cost/city-o wned/w ell-run 6% 7%
Employment opportunities 5% 6%
Diversity 5% 3%
Have lived here many years 5%
Good schools 4% 3%
Loca l gove rnance/ci ty cou ncil/good city services 4% Activities/events 3% 7%
Affordab le cost of living/housing 3% 3%
What do you like most about living in Santa Clara? {Open-end) ~M]J •Asked only of those residing In Santa Clara research 14
7 Traffic 26% 33%
High housing costs/cost of living 26% 16%
Growth/new development/housing being built 9% 3%
Overpopulated 8% 3%
City government; the Mayor and City Council 5% 1%
Lack of restaurants/shopping/entertainment 4% 9%
Crime/ security 3% 1%
Road condition s/potholes/signag e 3%
Transportation/getting around/public transportation needs upgrades 3% 1% No downtown area 3% 3%
The Stadium 2" 9"
Schoo ls nee d improvement 2% 7%
People are not nice/no sense of community 2% 1%
Garbage in streets/dirty/run -down look 2% 3%
And what do you like~ about living in Santa Clara? (Open-end) ~Mc1 *Asked only of those restd!ng In Santa Clara l!::!~ 15 research Voters and near neighbors are most concerned about the traffic and parking Impacts of the Stadium. Littering, drinking/drugs, and loitering ore also concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors {36%) and voters {31%) are concerned about noise from events ot night.

Citywide Voters
■ Very ■ Somewhat
Traffic
Parking In neighborhoods dose to the stadium
Littering
Public drinking or drug use
The number of weekday events t
loit ering
Noise from flyovers & hellcopters
Noise from eve nt s at night I
How late weekday events go
How late weekend events go I
Artificial IJgh t from the stadium at night ' ,
Noise from events dur ing the day
Fireworks - 22%
Concerned
... please tell me if you personally are concerned or not about each of the following Near Neighbors
■ Very ■ Somewhat ~
44% ,, 78%
32% 11;
18% II ' •
25%
17%
16% I .,.
13% I ,, ..
13% 11111 I o
[mllllll 23%
~ 20%
mll 17%
~t-19
research 16
8 Voters and near neighbors are most concerned about the traffic and parking Impacts of the Stadium. Littering, drinking/drugs , and loitering are also concerns. Roughly a third of near neigh bars {36%} and voters /3! %/ are concerned about noise from events at night.

Citywide Voters
■ Very ■ Somewhat Concerned
Traffic
Parking in neighbo rhood s close to the stad ium
Utte ring
Public drinking or drug use
Loitering
Noise from flyovers & heUcopters
Noise from eve nts at nlght I
How late weekday events go
How late wee kend events go
The number of weeke nd events
Art!fk ial light from the stadium at night
Noise from events during th e day
Firewor ks
==------
... please tell me If you personally are concerned or not about each of th e following Near Neighbors
■ Very ■ Somewhat ~
mEall 23%
i.9111 20%
mllll 17%
78%
~M]]
resec,rch 17
Voters and near neighbors are mast concerned about the traffic and parking Impacts of the Stadium . Littering, drinking/drugs, and loitering are also concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors {36%) and voters {31%) are concerned about noise from events at night. <;:itywide Voters
■ Very ■ Somewhat Concerned
Traffic
Parking In neighbo rhoods close to the stadiu m
Utte ring
Pub lie drinking or drug use
The number of weekday events I
loitering
Artificial llght from the sta dium at night
Noise from event s during th e day
==.---- --
... please tell me if you personally are concerned or not about each of the following Near Neighbors
■ Very ■ Somewhat Concern ed
78%
62%
~ 23%
mat zo%
mlll 17%
~M]]
research 18
9 Traffic is the only issue rated as a
problem by a majority of businesses
As with voters ond near neighbors, traffic and parking are tap concerns.

Traffi c
Parking
Maint enance of sidewalks or streets
Littering and trash
Noise
Public drinking or drug use
Illegal dumping
Public urin ation
Graffiti
Crime
Loitering
■ 7 Extremely serious
21%
16%
11 5-6
55%
I'm going to read you a Hst of potential nelghbo(hood Issues that could Impact yourbustness. For each one, please tell me If that Issue is a pl'oblem for your business or not. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that issue ls not at all a problem for your business, and 7 means that Issue Is an extremely serious problem for your business. You can use any number from 1 to 7.

Cityof
Santa Clara
([:M]J
research 19
PDC® PublicDJalogue 20 ~ Consortium
. Community Interviews at two events (159 participants) . Six Focus Groups (41 participants)
. Three Community Meetings (23 participants)
. Online Questionnaire (223 participants)
•. Over 400 people total participated
PDClli:'\ publicDJalogue 21 e Consortium
• Near Stadium participants (95054) = 143 (32%)
• Other Santa Clara participants= 182 (41%)
• Non-Santa Clara participants = 117 (27%)
PDC~ Public Djalogue 22 e Consortium
11 . The energy and passion is with those who have concerns about the Stadium
. The "near neighbors" who participated expressed more concerns; others were more likely to voice appreciations
. Participants who don't live near the Stadium expressed support for those who do
• Trust, Transparency and Communication
• Parking and Traffic
• Safety, Security and Noise
• Economic and Entertainment Benefits
PDC®.. PublicDJalogue 23 S, Consortium
Poe~ Public Djalogue 24 S, Consortium
12 Trust, Transparency & Communication
. Many participants say that a lack of trust has developed between the community and Manco, and to a lesser extent, the City . This is due, mostly, to a perceived lack of financial transparency and follow through on initial agreements made when the Stadium was being considered
PDC® PublicDJalogue 25 e, Consortium
. Parking and traffic issues are another major concern
. Both are prominent for near neighbors
. Traffic impacts were identified by other participants as well, regardless of where they live
PDC~PublicDJalogue 26 e, Consortium
13 . Many participants cited security concerns: Littering, vandalism, loud and raucous behavior and public urination
. Near neighbors, especially, voiced concerns about noise generated by Stadium events, including post-event noise from people and traffic
PDC~ PublicD_ialogue 27 e Consortium
. Almost all of those who expressed support for the Stadium appreciate the entertainment and economic benefits for the City . A concern among these participants is that the Stadium is not being utilized to its fullest extent, and not maximizing the potential range of benefits available
PDC~ PublicD_ialogue 28 e Consortium
14 I
City of
Santa Clara
Scientific Focus Groups
Four focus groups held in Sunnyvale on April 25th and 26th, 2018 [[:~
research 29
Focus group participants were Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale residents -
'
Group 1
Group 2
Santa Clara Non-Neighbors, 15+ years In SC (1+ mlles from stadium) Santa Cla~ Non-Neighbors, <15 years In SC (1+ mlles from stadium) -
Group 3
Group 4
Santa Clara Near Neighbors (<l mile from stadi um)
Sunnyvale & San Jo.se Near Neighbors
Each group had 8-1 O participants
Groups were moderated by Andrew Thibault from EMC Research Note: Due to the nature of qualitative research, the following findings reflect only the attitudes and opinions of the participants In the focus groups, and cannot be reliably projected across the larger population [[:M]J
research 3o
15 For the most part, participants had positive feelings about living in Santa Clara/the region
Santa Clara residents had largely positive views of City government and the job it is doing
Top Positives Expressed:

Small town feel
Locationleasy access to many
attractions and other communities
Weather
Diversity
City serviceslamenities
Top Negatives Expressed:

Traffic
Development of housing faster than
services
Cost of living
Lack of a downtown area
Newer Santa Clara residents and those in Sunnyvale and North San Jose tended to have positive views of the stadium
Santa Clara near-neighbors and long-time residents were more critical and more concerned with perceived negative impacts, but still saw positives The stadium is seen as an attraction that brings benefits and people to the City, including generating business for local hotels, shops, and restaurants Some more concerned residents acknowledged that, as problematic as stadium events may be for them, events aren't that frequent
"It's putting Santa Clara on the map, in
terms of 'Oh! This is a place to go' ...

But at the same time , it does bring
more people in, and it does raise the
cost of living . So, it's good and bad."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor Resident
"It's a horror, but only for a
very small amount of the
time . The other time, it's just
dead." - Santa Clara Non­
Neighbor Resident
31 ~M::9
research 32
16 Scientific Focus Group Issues
. As with the PDC engagement sessions, the EMC focus group participants identified parking as the central issue caused by the stadium, also leading to other issues including litter, noise, public urination and disturbances from foot traffic
. Traffic and traffic jams were viewed as problems as well, but the stadium is not seen as a primary cause of traffic
. Most knew of the curfew but did not know the specifics . While noise was not seen to be as large an issue as parking, there was opposition to eliminating the curfew outright, particularly among Santa Clara near-neighbors
Methodology: May Policy Survey
Live telephone survey of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara Conducted May 10 -17, 2018
400 total interviews; Margin of Error± 4.9%
Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese and included both landlines and cell phones
[fil-1~
research 34
17 Levi's Stadium: Top Positives
The Stadium's impact on the local economy is seen os its biggest positive.

What is the biggest positive? %
Boosts local economy/generates revenue/jobs 39
Draws people/attention to Santa Clara 20
Nearby/local entertainment/events 19
What do you think is the biggest positive about having Levi's Stadium In Santa Clara? (Open-end) ~t19 research 35
Levi's Stadium: Top Negatives
Traffic congestion and parking are by far the most frequently mentioned negative.

What is the biggest negative? %
Traffic congestion and parking 48
Noise from the stadium 14
Crime and security 9
And what do you think Is the biggest negative about having Levi's Stadium In Santa Clara? (Open-end) ~M]l research 36
18 Stadium Importance
Roughly one-In-four respondents soy they hove seen "o lot" about Levi's Stadium recently. A majority say working on Issues related to Stadium events should be a priority for the Mayor and Council, but only 17% say It should be o very high priority.

Attention to Stadium Issues Priority for Mayor and City Council 57%
40%
(Don't
know)
3%
Prior ity
54%
Neta
Priority
22%
How much, if anything, have you heard or seen about Levi's Stadium recently• a lot, some, not too much, or nothing at all?
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 11s a uery low priority and 7 ls a very high priority, how high of a priority do you think working on Issues related to stadium events should be for the Mayor and City Council? Stadium Event Issues
(Don't
know)
24%
[[:M]]
resec,rch 37
Traffic and parking are seen as the most important stadium event Issues to address, with 4-ln-10 saying it Is ''eKtremely important" ta address these issues. Disruptive behavior in neighborhoods around the Stadium Is also a top Issue. Six-In-ten say It is Important to address noise from events, but only a quarter rote It as "extremely Important." ■ 7 Extremely Important ■ 5-6 Total Important
Traffic from stadium events
Parking in neighborhoods close to
the stadium
Disruptive behavior in
neighborhoods around the stadium
on event days
Noise from stadium events
41% _
40% .
37% . ,
26% -,
78%
73%
72%
62%
I'm going to read you a list of Issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium . After eac h one, please rate how Important addressing that Issue is to you, using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all Important, and 7 means extremely important . [[:M]]
resec,rch 38
19 Communicating & Responding
A majority give the City positive marks for communicating about and responding to stadium-related Issues. Stadium management gets lower marks, primarily because fewer respondents are familiar with their performance.

Strongly Strongly
~--■-To_t_a _l A_g_,_•• ___ .,_ (D_o_n_'t_K_n_ow_/_N_o_O_p_ln_l_on_) ___ ■_T_o_t a_l _D_l,_ag_r_•• __ _..,_A=•·--•Olsagr.

The City does a good Job
commun icating with reside nts abo ut
stad ium-relate d Issues
54% 16% Nfi'IIJ;E]
The City does a goo d job responding
to citizen concerns and complalnts
about the sta dium
51% __ 2_1¾_• __ ,~ NVIIJ;E]
Levi's Stad ium manageme nt does a
good Job communicating with
residen ts abo ut stadi um-related
Issues
Levi's Stadium manage ment does a
good Job respo nding to citizen
concerns an d co mplalnts
4 1%
41 %
30%
36%
Please tell me wh ether you strongly agree, some what .agree, som ewh at disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the fol!owlng statement s. If you are not sure please Just say so.

Stadium Problem Frequency
MIIIJ;E]
~M~
research 39
One-In-four respondents soy they hove contacted someone about o stadium-related concern - 6% have contacted someone 3 or more times.

Stadium Event-related Contacts
1-2 nmes
19%
How many times, If a ny, have you or someone in your household cont acted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern? ~M~
research 4o
20 Reactions to Potential Solutions
While oil the solution tested hove majority support, there ore significant differences In intensity of support ("strongly support").

Provide more portable toilets in parking lots to
discourage public urination
Increase neighborhood safety patrols before/after
events
Establish an electronic notification system that
gives residents advance notice of events
Reduce stadium parking prices for people who
carpool
Establish more frequent shuttle service from
parking lots further from the Stadium
Designate drop-off and pickup areas for those
using rideshare service
■ 7-Strongly Support ■ 5-6
48 % I 1;
51% I,
Total Support
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
[CELLRANGE]
Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose that proposal and 7 means you strongly support that feMc:1 proposal. If you have no opinion one way or the othe r please say so. ~~ 41 Reactions to Potential Solutions
While oil the solution tested hove majority support, there ore significant differences In intensity of support ("strongly support").

Offer incentives for taking public transit to/from
events such as free or reduced fares
Have a live call-in number during events to
respond to concerns or complaints
Lower the price of parking in stadium lots
Increase the fine for violating the curfew and
noise thresholds
City-issued $20 parking permits for residents in
neighborhoods near the stadium
A 10PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like
concerts at Levi's Stadium
■ 7-Strongly Support ■ 5-6 Total Support
49% I• [CELLRANGE]
[CELL RANGE]
4 1% L, [CELLRANGE]
34% ,, [CELLRANGE]
25% _ '_' [CELLRANGE]
I
27% _'
I -
[CELLRANGE]
Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose that proposal and 7 means you strongly support that proposal. If you have no opinion one way or the other please say so. ~~ research 42
21 Curfew Issue
Just over 4-in-10 ore aware of the curfew and half support it. Only 1-in-4 are opposed to the curfew while the remaining 25% aren't sure. Similarly, about half think the 10 PM curfew is "about right" while one third feel it Is "too restrictive" and 1-in-10 feel it is "not restrictive enough."
Awareness of
Curfew
No
56% Support
50%
Initial Support
for Curfew
Neutral
25%
Curfew is ...

Too Restrictive
About Right 50%
Not Restrictive
i ll% Enough
Don't Know
l·
Were you aware or not that the City has a 10 PM weekdav curfew for nighttime e\lents like concerts at Levi's Stadium? Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose the curfew and 7 means you strongly support the curfew?
[[:M]J In general, do you feel this curfew on weeknights Is too restrlcth,e, not restrictive enough, or about right? research 43
Support for Curfew Modifications
A majority support the general Idea af limited exceptions to the curfew and when asked about specific options, 56% support 3-4 exceptions per year and_ 60% support 2-3 exceptions per summer. Opposition Is consistently about o quarter.

Initial Limited 3-4 Exceptions 2-3 Exceptions
Support Exceptions Per Year Per Summer
Support
Support Support 60%
Support 54% 56%
50%
[[:M]J
research 44
22 Support for Parking Permits
Initially a majority support city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium. Support increases ofter arguments for and against parking permits.

Initial Support
In general, do you support or oppose city-Issued $20 parking permits for residents fn neighborhoods near the .stadium, Including guest parking passes ,, to prevent stadium-goers from using street parking on event days?
Support
52%
Neutral
24%
Informed Support
Some peop le soy parking permits would reduce event traffic In their neighborhoods and help make sure they can find parking on event days . They say it would also reduce rowdy behavior, trash, and disturbances In their neighborhoods .

Other people soya parking permit program will cost the Qty and local residents too much money and resources to Issue, admfnister, and enforce . They soy ft wlll make parking In those neighborhoods too complicated for guests and non -event visitors to the area.

Support
60%
Neutral
20%
l[:M~
research 45
City of
Santa Clara
23 Consultant Observations
. Santa Clarans recognize both the benefits and the impacts of the relationship with Levi's Stadium
. While curfew issues receive significant media coverage, stadium-related noise and the curfew are NOT primary issues for your residents-the following are:
. TRAFFIC
. PARKING
. LOITERING
. Clearly, near-neighbors are more greatly impacted by these issues-the closer one lives to the Stadium, the more intense the reactions and perspectives are . Consultants recommend these top issues of concern be addressed effectively first, prior to addressing any potential curfew review or adjustments . 47
Recommendations: Traffic/Parking
. Establish more frequent shuttle service
. Clarify & enforce drop-off and pickup for rideshare services . Reduce parking prices for carpoolers
. Offer reduced fare incentives for using public transit to/from events . An inexpensive or free permit parking system is overwhelmingly supported by near-neighbors, with far less enthusiasm for a $20 paid­ permit system
. Enhance an electronic notification system for events
. Avoid closure of the San Tomas Trail to enable more bicycle and pedestrian access
24 Recommendations: Enforcement
Residents want neighborhood security, and enforcement against disruptive post-event behavior .
. Provide more portable toilets
. Increase neighborhood safety patrols to address loitering/public disturbance
. Expand security and proper enforcement
Recommendations: Noise Control
Near-neighbor residents want some measures to mitigate noise from stadium events .
. Levy larger fines for noise and curfew violations
. . Place new controls on the decibel levels allowed, instituting and enforcing a permanent noise monitoring system
. Institute noise control measures, such as a sound wall and directional speakers to redirect and dampen the noise for near neighbors . 50
25 Recommendations: Communications
Most residents approve of the City's communications efforts. But near­ neighbors in particular feel the Stadium has broken promises. There is a lack of trust which must be repaired .
. To rebuild this trust, Manco should take the steps necessary to improve transparency and communications
. A Community Advisory Committee structure to liaison with Manco was of interest to stakeholders and near-neighbors
. Neighborhood improvement projects and benefits such as free or reduced cost tickets or other overtures would assist in rebuilding and improving the relationship
. Set up an effective hotline to call with safety and other concerns during events ■
Cityof -
Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
SCSA
51 ~]] PDC ~ PubllcDlalogue ■ research ~ Consortium 52
26 City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
SCSA
~M::£] PDC 'ii"PublicDJa logue ■ 53 research ~ Consortium • All studies listed in the Comprehensive Appendix of Studies are available on the Board's website at:
santaclaraca.gov/outreach
• Appendix materials include:
• Public Dialogue Consortium Summary of Community Engagement Input on Levi's Stadium
• EMC Research January Near Neighbor & Santa Clara Voter Issue Identification Survey
• EMC Research Near Neighbor Business Issue Identification Survey • EMC Research Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report • EMC Research May Solutions Survey
~ Public Dialogue ~ M::£] ■ PDC ~ Consortiu m resec,rch 54 27 PDC ®. Public Djalogue
e Consortium
Summary of Community Engagement Input on Levi's Stadium May 2018
Background
In December 2017, the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority launched a transparent, independent and comprehensive engagement process to hear the community's views on a variety of issues related to Levi's Stadium. The primary purpose of this engagement process was to independently identify the most important issues for Santa Clara residents, and offer policy recommendations to the Stadium Authority Board for addressing these issues. The Lew Edwards Group was hired to coordinate overall efforts related to this project, including gathering statistically valid public views through opinion partner EMC Research . The Public Dialogue Consortium was hired to facilitate meaningful, robust, qualitative input from individuals, groups and organizations. This report is a summary of the qualitative input gathered by PDC during its community outreach and engagement process.

Engagement Events and Outreach
A number of engagement events were conducted to elicit input from community members.

Outreach to participate in these events was conducted via personal emails, City website, Facebook, Twitter,0 Nextdoor, print news, and flyers handed out at events and posted in libraries, community centers, coffee shops and shopping centers.

Here are the specific engagement events conducted:
• Community Interviews with all Stadium Authority Board members were conducted in January 2018, and in March 159 people were interviewed at the Santa Clara farmer's market and at Levi's Stadium during a soccer event.
■ Invitations to participate in Focus Groups went out to a wide variety of individuals and stakeholder groups in Santa Clara, resulting in six focus groups with a total of forty-one participants during March and April 2018.
• An Online Questionnaire was initiated to invite broad participation, with the content mitroring the questions asked during interviews and focus groups. Input was gathered from 231 participants between February and May 2018.

POST MEETING MATERIAL
■ Three Community Meetings were held in late April and early May to invite paiticipants to review input gathered in the previous phases of engagement, and to consider recommendations and solutions, resulting in policy recommendations for City Council and the Stadium Authority. Only twenty-three Santa Clara residents paiticipated in the three community meetings, some of whom had participated in previous focus groups, suggesting a "saturation point" in the community on this topic.

Over 400 people paiticipated in one or more of the community engagement events . See Appendix A for a summary of focus groups and community meeting dates, times and locations.

Appendix B provides a demographic summary of the paiticipants.

Questions Asked: Phases 1 & 2
All questions asked were open-ended, enabling paiticipants to express views and perspectives in their own words and from their own perspectives. The following questions from Phase 1 focused on people's concerns and appreciations for Levi's Stadium.

1. When you think of Levi's stadium, what words come to mind?

2. It sounds like you have some concerns. What are your concerns with the Stadium?

3. It sounds like you have some favorable views . What do you like about Levi's Stadium?

4. What is your overall opinion of the Stadium? (concerned, supportive mixed)

5. What do you say to people who have concerns about the stadium? How should their concerns be addressed?

6. What do you say to people who are more supportive of the stadium? How can we acknowledge their supp01t while addressing your concerns? After collecting responses to the questions above, a second phase of questions was posed to participants to elicit recommendations. These questions were:

1. What suggestions, ideas or recommendations do you have to address and resolve the concerns you have identified?

2. What suggestions, ideas or recommendations do you have to build on and extend the positive features you have identified?
Key Issues & Recommendations
Below are the key issues that emerged through the engagement process, along with recommendations for how best to improve upon these issues to increase the overall quality of ) experience as it relates to Levi's Stadium. These issues and recommendations are organized into themes that relate to the most commonly identified concerns and likes.

The issues and recommendations are attributed to three different categories of participants who responded during the community engagement efforts : Santa Clara Residents who live outside of the Levi's Stadium impact area, Santa Clara Residents who live within the Levi's Stadium impact area in the north side (i.e. near neighbors), and those who live outside of Santa Clara. These three groupings of participants have different experiences and views of the Stadium, with the near neighbors clearly expressing more concerns than the other two participant groups. However, there was some overlap between Santa Clara residents who live outside and inside the Stadium impact area in terms of expressing concerns with Trust, Transparency, ·and Communication (and to a lesser extent, Traffic). Moreover, the vast majority of Santa Clara residents, both inside and outside the impact area, agree that the Stadium is here to stay and open communication and productive problem solving is needed in order to maximize its assets while minimizing negative impacts.

Trust, Transparency & Communica tion
The issues of trust, transparency and communication are of concern to many Santa Clara residents who engaged in this process, regardless of where they live, although the level of intensity is most acute for the near neighbors. Regardless, many participants say that a lack of trust has developed between the City, community, and Stadium Management Company, mostly due to the lack of financial transparency and follow through on initial commitments and agreements made when voters approved the Stadium via Measure J. Many residents say financial transparency is imperative so taxpayers understand the financial tradeoffs of Stadium events and can better understand the value of Stadium revenue to the City. Some residents are concerned that the City is increasing cost concessions to the Stadium, without holding the Stadium to their initial agreements. Santa Clara residents are concerned about the toll the lack of trust and transparency is taking on their community, both financially and socially.

Recommendations
Repair Trust by Establishing Financial Transparency

1. Establish financial transparency and share financial data as it relates to income and expenses directly associated with the Stadium, return on investment, and profit sharing with Santa Clara residents.
a. Report on how many jobs have been created by the Stadium, as well as residual revenue generated for Santa Clara businesses.

2. Clarify costs to Santa Clara tax payers of what portion of Stadium costs are paid for by whom, including costs of security, enforcement and infrastructure.

Repair Trust by Improving Communication

3. Establish ongoing, two-way communication forums for residents to communicate with those in charge of making decisions for Levi's Stadium. Establish an open dialogue to allow for ongoing conversation, feedback, and problem solving. a. Institute a Levi's Stadium Advisory Committee that meets regularly with Stadium Authority, the Stadium Management Company, and the 49ers, allowing residents to give input on policies and decisions.
b. Establish a way to update residents of rules, plans, visions and decisions, i.e. a newsletter or email update.

4. Set up a notification system that notifies resident of Stadium events and concerns, traffic and parking flows and alternatives, fireworks, etc. Include periodic updates in a newsletter format.

5. Set up a hotline for people to call with safety concerns and complaints that is available during events with quick response times - run by either the Stadium, Police, or City.

Provide Neighborhood Improvements and Benefits

6. Allocate revenue to enhance the quality of life for near neighbors and tax payers. a. Earmark revenue to improve the quality of life by making neighborhood improvements (e.g. repair sidewalks, improvements to Lick ill park, etc.). b. Increase revenue and awareness of revenue for schools and libraries.

7. Offer lower cost access to the Stadium to Santa Clara community members. a. Offer low price ticket options and presale access to local neighbors and the community .
b. Create an affordable package for local community and non-profit organizations who want to rent meeting and event space.

8. Offer space for community events throughout the year. a. Hold an open house type event to help the community understand more about the venue. Have 49ers players attend to and connect with the community . b. Offer space for science fairs, stem fairs, etc.
c. Allow a Viva Calle where space surrounding the Stadium is set up with vendors and artisans.
d. Open parking lots for flea market, mtisan space, etc. during times when there are no Stadium events.

Parking & Traffic
Parking and traffic issues are another major concern, with both being prominent for near neighbors, and traffic impacts being singled out by other pmticipants as well, regardless of where they live. Many point out that it is not just the Stadium that is contributing to traffic and parking problems, but also Great America, the Convention Center, the airport, and new development projects. Many participants are concerned about City Place and other large retail and residential developments in the area, saying they will contribute to the overall problems of increased traffic, noise, the need for more parking, and the erosion of their overall quality oflife.

Neighbors of the Stadium indicate they are unable to leave and/or return to their homes easily on event days, with significant increases in commute times. At times they are blocked into their driveways, or others have parked in their driyeways.

The closure of the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail during events is a concern for bikers and pedestrians. The trail is cited as a needed alternative to driving, as well as being a public trail that needs to remain accessible to the community at all times. Detours through parking areas are seen as unsafe to all, especially those with accessibility concerns.

Most participants agree that easy to implement, low cost solutions are most desirable as a starting point, and that long term, holistic planning is needed to address long term infrastructure needs related to traffic, parking and planned development.

Recommendations
Address Parking Concerns with Permits and Enforcement

9. Institute permit parking only on Stadium event days for neighboring streets. Issue affordable parking permits to residents, including guest parking passes.

10. Enforce parking restrictions by ticketing and towing all non-resident parking during events.
a. Add Agnew and Lafayette streets to the list of streets closed for Stadium parking .

11. Station guards at roadblocks past event start times as those looking for parking ignore and go around roadblocks when left unguarded.
a. Train parking and security guards to stand outside of their cars to increase enforcement of roadblocks.

12. Employ motorcycle and/or bicycle officers to be able to respond more easily to parking and security concerns, while increasing the security staff at events.

Address Traffic Concerns with Alternatives and Improvements

13. Establish a shuttle service from parking lots further from the Stadium.

14. Designate a rideshare area to easily drop off and pick up passengers. a. Extend Uber partnership to Lyft and other transportation services.

15. Reconfigure traffic flows and build pedestrian ove1passes. The light rail, pedestrian crossings and cars all need to stop for each other at certain intersections, contributing to congestion.
a. Build pedestrian and bicycle overpasses to ease congestion and contribute to safety.
b. Open up the south east corner of Levi's Stadium to alleviate dangers to pedestrian traffic on Tasman.
c. Install a three-way stop at Mercado 20 shopping center entrance.

16. Avoid closure of the San Tomas Trail and encourage its use to decrease traffic. a. Move the magnetometers and portable traffic signs so they do not block the trail.

1. Alternately, put temporary holes in the fencing along the trail and have everyone on the trail go through security .

11. Alternately, detour the trail down to river level during events to avoid closure .

17. Invest in more signage to indicate parking and road closures. a. Install permanent parking signs so temporary signs can be removed from the San Tomas trail.
b. Indicate where there is bike parking and security for events.

18. Devise a clear system and training of law enforcement so residents with red stickers are allowed to easily turn onto blocked neighborhood streets on event days.

19. Consider scheduled events in the area holistically when scheduling Stadium events .

Incentivize and Expand Public Transportation

20. Offer incentives for public transit, such as free VTA light rail on event days. a. Add a tax to parking or event tickets that generate revenue and incentives to encourage people not to drive and to offset public transportation costs.

21. Coordinate with VTA to ensure public transit is running after events as sometimes people have been left stranded after events.

22. Improve VTA light rail to make it faster and more efficient by introducing express routes with no stops and increasing capacity.

23. Add remote parking lots with VTA transit options east of the Stadium.

24. Establish an inter-department, inter-agency task force to address public transportation and other issues and infrastructure needs for long term planning.

Safety, Security & Noise
Many Santa Clara residents and almost all near neighbors expressed the need for better security and police patrol during events, citing unmanaged crowds and safety concerns, as well as noise disturbances. Neighbors close to the Stadium frequently cited security concerns ranging from littering and vandalism to loud and raucous behavior, public consumption of alcohol and drugs, drunk driving, and public urination.

Neighbors living close to the Stadium frequently cite noise concerns, including high decibel levels generated by the Stadium, ongoing air traffic during and after Stadium events, and noise from attendees walking through neighborhoods after events. Air and foot traffic noise last for hours after a Stadium event ends.

Recommendations
Invest in Neighborhood Safety and Security

25. Increase patrol before and after events in neighborhoods near the Stadium. a. Employ motorcycle cops to be able to respond more easily to parking and security concerns.
b. Train security and traffic officers to interact with the neighbors more effectively. c. Increase police presence in Mission Park.
d. Structure event permitting to pay for increased neighborhood security .

26. Add more public bathrooms to decrease public urination. a. Increase portable bathrooms in the parking lots.
b. Construct and maintain a bathroom in Fairway Glen Park.

27. Add more trash cans and pass around trash bags during game to minimize litter.

28. Employ staff to pick-up litter along the creek, trails and in neighborhoods after events.

Recommendations
Take Noise Control Measures

29. Levy heavierfines for noise and curfew violations.

30. Institute stricter noise control measures.
a. Place new controls on the decibel level allowed, instituting and enforcing a permanent noise monitoring system.
b. Legislate stricter air traffic control restrictions to control late"night fly over noise. c. Require the Stadium to institute noise control measures such as a sound wall and directional speakers to redirect and dampen the noise for nearby neighbors. i. Combine a sound wall with a shade structure if possible to protect event- . goers during hot and sunny days.
d. Enforce the current weekday and weekend curfews; do not extend them; revisit the curfew to consider that the noise goes hours past the time the events end. e. Patrol residential streets after events to deter noise from those walking through the neighborhoods.

31. Set up a program for nearby neighbors who are most impacted by the noise to compensate for the installation of thicker windows, insulation and air conditioners.

Economic & Ente1taimnent Benefits to the City
Almost all of those who supported Levi's Stadium said that they appreciated having a top-tier entertainment venue in Santa Clara, as well as a facility that can bring revenue, jobs and economic development to the City. A major concern among these participants is that the Stadium is not being utilized to its fullest extent, and therefore is not maximizing the potential range of benefits possible, particularly in terms ofrevenue generation. They state that the caliber, size and expense of the Stadium justify adding events and extending curfews, including for carefully selected weeknight events.

Recommendations
Expand Events and Extend Curfew

32. Increase the number of events, as reasonable.

33. Schedule weekend events whenever possible.

34. Selectively extend the curfew to 11 pm on weeknights and to midnight on weekends . a. Increase the amount of times the stadium is allowed to host past 1 0pm ( e.g. from four to ten times a year).
b. Charge extra for permitting to mitigate noise concerns for near neighbors. c. Select extended curfew events carefully, with consideration of school and work schedules.

In many ways, these recommendations point to the fundamental tension that the Stadium Board Authority will need to manage as they develop policy options for the Stadium: How to maximize the benefits of the Stadium for Santa Clara, while minimizing (i.e. maintaining, improving) the negative impacts to the near neighbors and the rest of the City.

Strategic Guideline for Policy Options
We offer these concluding observations to suggest a strategic guideline for the Stadium Authority Board to consider as they respond to the issues and recommendations and develop policy options.

J. The energy and passion is primarily with those who have concerns about the Stadium.

It became clear as we talked with participants that the people who expressed mostly concerns about the Stadium have more to say, and are more animated and passionate than those who expressed m,ostly appreciations and support. This observation is not meant as an evaluative statement about the validity of the concerns and appreciations we heard.

However, it does point to the need to address those Santa Clara residents who have strong concerns about the Stadium because the intensity and depth of their views are not likely to dissipate easily or quickly. The energy and passion is with those who have concerns , even though, overall , they are fewer in number than those who do not have concerns.

There is also some energy and passion from those who support the Stadium, but it is muted compared to those who voice concerns. Neve1theless, the passion on the support side comes from wanting to maximize the potential benefits of the Stadium for the City.

From this perspective, the Stadium Authority Board should be working to utilize the Stadium as much as possible to provide economic benefits to the City, which is the basis for the recommendations to increase events and extent the curfew.

2. There is support from most Santa Clara residents for the near neighbors. One of the more heaitening findings from this engagement process is the way in which most of the Santa Clara residents who do not live near the Stadium support those who do. Even participants who strongly support the Stadium recognize that there are negative impacts to the near neighbors, and they would like to see those impacts addressed. Put differently, most of the Stadium supporters we talked with are aware that their recommendations to increase events and extend the curfew will increase the negative impacts to the near neighbors, and they want those impacts to be lessened, reduced, or eliminated.

3. This leads to a strategic guideline for the Stadium Authority Board to consider:

Explore policy options to increase events and extend the curfew, but only while pursuing policy options to resolve, minimize, or mitigate the Trust/Transparency/Communication, Parking/Traffic, and Safety/Security/Noise issues.

Appendix A: Focus Groups & Community Meetings

1. Focus Group with Engaged Community Members, March 19, 2018, 6:00 - 7:30 p.m., Santa Clara City Hall Cafeteria, 1500 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA

2. Focus Group with Engaged Community Members, March 21, 2018, 6:00 - 7:30 p.m., Santa Clara City Hall Cafeteria, 1500 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA

3. Focus Group with Great America, March 28, 2018, 10:00 - 11:00 a.m., Great America Administrative Offices, Santa Clara, CA

4. Focus Group with Northside Neighbors, April 2, 2018, 5:00 - 6:30 p.m., Northside Library, Santa Clara, 695 Moreland Way, CA

5. Focus Group with Northside Neighbors, April 2, 2018, 7:00 - 8:30 p.m., Northside Library, Santa Clara, 695 Moreland Way, CA

6. Focus Group with Chamber of Commerce, April 13, 2018, 11:00 a.m. - 12 p.m., Chamber of Commerce Offices, 1850 Warburton Ave, Santa Clara, CA

7. Community Meeting at Central Park Library Redwood Room, April 26, 2018 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., 2635 Homestead Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95050

8. Community Meeting at Santa Clara Community Recreation Center, April 28, 2018, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., 969 Kiely Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA 95051

9. Community Meeting at Northside Library Community Room, May 9, 2018, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m., 695 Moreland Way, Santa Clara, CA 95054
Appendix B: Demographics of Levi's Stadium Community Engagement Participants Stadium &
Focus Groups Farmers
& Public Market Online
Meetings Interviews Participation Totals(%)
Zip Code Near Stadium 95054 36 5 102 143 = 32%
Santa Clara 15 44 123 182 = 41%
Other 1 110 6 117 = 27%
Totals 52 159 231 442
Gender Male 23 104 113 240 = 54%
Female 28 54 100 182 =41%
Prefer not to say 1 1 18 20 =5%
Totals 52 159 231 442
Age Under 18 0 10 0 10 = 2%
18-30 1 41 11 53 = 12%
31-40 10 55 35 100 =23%
41-55 14 29 90 133 = 30%
Above 55 27 23 85 135 = 31%
Prefer not to say 0 1 10 11 = 2%
Totals 52 159 231 442
Ethnicity White 23 49 116 188 = 42.5%
Hispanic 7 85 7 99 =22%
Indian 4 9 20 33 = 7.5%
Filipino 5 1 10 16 = 3.5%
Chinese 0 2 11 13 =3%
African American 2 2 3 7 =2%
Vietnamese l 0 3 4 =1%
Korean 2 1 1 4 = 1%
Japanese 2 1 1 4 =1%
Native American 1 0 1 2 =.5%
Pacific Islander 2 0 0 2 = .5%
Mixed Ethnicity 3 7 10 20 = 4.5%
Prefer not to say 0 2 48 50 = 11%
Totals 52 159 231 442
1 EMC
1 I I
research
January Issue ldentificatio~ Survey ·
of Santa Clara Voters &
Nea Neighbor Residents
Methodology
Citywide Issue Identification Voter Survey
► Live telephone survey - including landlines and cells - of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara, a universe selected as voters are one of several constituencies on these policy issues ► Conducted January 8-19, 2018
► 600 total interviews; Margin of Error ±4.0 points
► Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish~ Chinese, and Vietnamese Near Neighbor Residents Issue Identification Survey
► Live telephone survey - including landlines and cells - of residents within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose
► Conducted February 8 - March 3, 2018*
► · 174 total interviews; Margin of Error ±7.4 points
► Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese *Data collection was paused February 9-19 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 2 Near Neighbor Survey Areas
' -;
.. •
C'
' ,.. ..!<,:Ju,.,,,, 'r
~
l o, .. u
0 Twin Creeks
Bay/ands P rk
,·,kn 1 •,JJ " ~" ;..

Santa Clara
116 Intervi ews
El
Santa Claru ~
Convention Center .:. \l A
3<,nl Jal
Levi's Stadiun, t!i
u
;;: California's es
:,. Great America ~
CollegeO
0 AMC Mere do 20 !,:

Intel Museum ®
,' I
■
~M~
research
T.irg
North San Jose
32 Interviews
,,.

Ulisrac
Nnl'ura/Ar
Orncl O
lg
-
N R H .
,.. .. .,.
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 3
1EMC 1
I I
research .

City of Santa Clara
Opinions and Job Ratings
Santa Clara Quality of Life ■ ~M~ research
Both voters and stadium near-neighbors have a positive view of Santa Clara as a place to live.

Positive
88%
Citywide Voters
Negative
11%
Only Fsir 10%
(Don't
know)
1%
Positive
90%
Near-Neighbor Residents*
Negative
10%
Q2. Overall, how would you rate Santa Clara as a place to live? Would you say it is an excellent, good, only fair, or poor place to live? (Don't
know)
0%
*Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=116 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 5 Top Positives of Living in Santa Clara ■ ~M~ resea rch
Voters and near neighbors mention the convenient location, small-town feel, friendliness, and the low crime rate as things they like most about living in Santa Clara.

Near
What do you like best about living in Santa Clara? Voters Neighbors* Convenient location 21% 34%
Calm/quiet atmosphere/small-town feel 14% 16%
The community itself/friendly town/the people 11% 14%
Security/safety/low crime rate 11% 14%
Climate 9% 9%
Clean/beautiful city 9% 5%
Amenities: parks/library/swim center 9% 9%
Shopping/businesses 7% 9%
Utilities: lower cost/city-owned/well-run 6% 7%
Employment opportunities 5% 6%
Diversity 5% 3%
Have lived here manyyears 5% -
Good schools 4% 3%
Local governance/city council/good city services 4% -
Activities/ events 3% 7%
Affordable cost of living/housing 3% 3%
Q3. What do you like most about living in Santa Clara? (Open-end} *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=116 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 6 Top Negatives of Living in Santa Clara ■ ~M~ research
Traffic and housing costs/cost of living are the things people like least about living in Santa Clara. One-in-ten near neighbors specifically mention the stadium as the thing they like least about living in Santa Clara.

What do you like least about living in Santa Clara?
Traffic
High housing costs/cost of living
Growth/new development/housing being built
Overpopulated
City government; the Mayor and City Council
Lack of restaurants/shopping/entertainment
Crime/security
Road conditions/potholes/signage
Transportation/getting around/public transportation needs upgrades No downtown area
The Stadium
Schools need improvement
People are not nice/no sense of community
Garbage in streets/dirty/run-down look
Q4. And what do you like least about living in Santa Clara'? (Open-end} * Asked only of those residing in Sant a Clara, n=116
Near
Voters Neighbors *
26% 33%
26% 16%
9% 3%
8% 3%
5% 1%
4% 9%
3% 1%
3% -
3% 1%
3% 3%
2% 9%
2% 7%
2% 1%
2% 3%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 7
Favorability of Local Organizations ■ ~M-c7 t=.!.~
_ resea rch
Overall, near neighbors give higher ratings than voters to all organizations tested. A strong majority of near neighbors and voters have a favorable view of Levi's Stadium, although roughly 1-in-4 have a negative opinion. The City Council is viewed favorably by two -thirds of near neighbors and a majority of voters, with low negative opinion. Opinion of 49ers management is divided, while the Stadium Authority is less well known . .._ ______________ _ Santa Clara Fire Department
Santa Clara Police Department
Neighbors*
Voters
■ Total Favorable (Don't Know/No Opinion) ■ Total Unfavorabl e 95°0 l~V/.111
90% · ·~ 1
. ' .

Strong!~
Fav.
70%
67%
51% Neighbors *
Voters . ' . ' 8% llfil"AII 51%
Great America Amusement Park
Levi's Stadium
Santa Clara City Council
San Francisco
49ers Management
Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Clara Stadium Author ity
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors*
Voters ~=========~~========== ~=== -~-===
68%
57°0 ~
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors
Voters
, .
' . '
34°0
30°0
0 0
43%
39%
27%
25%
18%
16%
29°0 12%
13%
10%
12%
11%
25°0 10%
Strong!~
Unfav.
0%
0%
2%
1%
2%
1%
11%
15%
2%
6%
11%
16%
1%
4%
6%
10%
QS-12. I'm going to read you a list of people and organizations. Please teil me if you have a strongly favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or strongly unfavorable opinion of each one. *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara, n=116 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 8 Job Ratings for City ■ ~M~ research
The City gets strong marks for the job it is doing overall and for keeping citizens informed. About half give the City a positive rating for responding to concerns/complaints and using tax dollars responsibly. Strong negative opinion ("poor" rating) is very low.

The job the City
Government is doing
overall
The job the City does
keeping citizens
informed
Neighbor s
Voter s
Neighbors
Voters
The job the City does Neighbors
■ Total Positive
51%
{Don't Know) ■ Total Negative Excellent Poor
70% 26% 14% 2%
64% 32% 13% 5%
64% · 34% 17% 9%
60% 35% 18% 9%
14% 35% 12% 9%
responding to citizen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====~~~~~~~~~~~~~------- 50% 16% 34% 12% 10% concerns and complaints Voters
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====~~~~~~~~~~~------
The job the City does
using your tax dollars
responsibly
Neighbor s
Voter s
55%
49%
Q13-16. Please tell me how you think the City of Santa Clara is doing in each of the following areas. Use a scale of excellent, good, only fair, or poor. 9%
10%
35% 10% 10%
41% 9% 10%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 9

I T II F
i l__,E
i EDWARDS
I: C I{ () u I'
:1
1EMC 1
I I
research Neighborhood Issues
General Neighborhood Issues ■ ~M]J resea rch
Traffic and parking are the top neighborhood concerns of both voters and near neighbors . One-in-four near neighbors mention noise as a problem in their neighborhood.

Voters Near Neighbors
■ 7 Extremely serious ■ 5-6 Problem ■ 7 Extremely serious ■ 5-6 Problem Traffic
Loitering
Graffiti
Public urination
22% 55%
Ql 7-27. I'm going to read you a list of poten tial neighborhood issues. For each one, please tell me if that issue is a problem in your neighborhood or not. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that issue is not at all a problem in your neighborhood, and 7 means that issue is an extremely serious problem in your neighborhood. 9" 56%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 11 Causes of Noise Problems ■ ~~ research
Near neighbors are most likely to mention the Stadium and airport as the cause of noise problems in their neighborhood.

What is the main cause of the noise Voters --
problem in your neighborhood? n=47
Noise NOT a serious problem 92%
Stadium 2%
Airport 1%
Traffic 3%
Other 1%
Q28a. What is the main cause of the noise problem in your neighborhood? Neighbors
n=22
87%
5%
5%
3%
1%
Noise
"The stadium and Great America"- · Neighbor
"The stadium on certain days, the airport and the train" - Neighbor
"The car racing and other things like speeding" - Neighbor "Drunken fans at Levi's Stadium" - Neighbor
"The airplane noise" - Neighbor
"Cars and traffic noise" - SC Voter
'7he events at Levi's Stadium" - SC Voter
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 12 Cause of Traffic and Parking Problems ■ ~~~ .

One in ten near neighbors say the Stadium is the main cause of traffic and parking problems in their neighborhood.

What is the main cause of the traffic Neighbors
problem in your neighborhood? n=69
Traffic NOT a serious problem 60%
Too many people/congestion/density 13%
The Stadium 10%
Commuters 9%
Nearby businesses /Infrastructure 6%
Parks/Amusement Parks 2%
Other 1%
What is the main cause of the~ Neighbors
problem in your neighborhood? n=40
Parking NOT a serious problem 77%
Too many people/Infrastructure 11%
The Stadium 9%
Work Commuting 1%
Other 1%
Q28b. What is the main cause of the traffic problem in your neighborhood? * Neighbors only Q28c. What is the main cause of the parking problem in your neighborhood? * Neighbors only Traffic
''Just the layout of the neighborhoods and the streets" - Neighbor "The commute is very heavy during peak hours and amplified during stadium events" - Neighbor
"Most definitely the stadium being there" - Neighbor
"We're building a lot around us, with the economy being good people are back to work, and with lots of new buildings and construction that leads to lots of traffic everywhere" - Neighbor
Parking
"Too many people. Traffic from the high-tech companies" - Neighbor "The stadium and Great America" - Neighbor
"Overpopulation and events, lack of civil engineering." - Neighbor "There are too many people and game visitors" - Neighbor "It's always been a problem. Too many people crammed into one city." - Neighbor
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 13 1EMC1
I · I
research
Levi's Stadium
. Awareness and Issues
Heard/Seen About Levi's Stadium Recently ■ ~M~ research About half of voters and near neighbors say they have heard or seen "a lot" or "some" about Levi's Stadium recently. - J
Near
Neighbo rs
Voters
Q30. How much, if anything, have you heard or seen about Levi's Stadium recently? 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 15 Potential Stadium Issues ■ feMic1 ~~
research
, Voters and near neighbors are most concerned about the traffic and parking impacts of the Stadium. Littering, drinking/drugs, and loitering are also concerns. Roughly a third of near neighbors {36%} and voters {31%} are concerned about noise from events at night.

Voters Near Neighbors
Traffic
Parking in neighborhoods close ..
■ Very ■ Somewhat Concerned
69%
-===---'---====== ==-------------
Littering 47% __,__ _ ______ ____________ _ _
Public drinking or drug use 49%
The number of weekday events
Loitering
-===== = ====='---------- --
34%
39% 13% - ,, -......_ ____________________ _
Noise from flyovers and .. 8% '. -,~ -f 9%
Noise from events at night 10% I, :, 31%
How late weekday events go 12% _ ,,_ 35%
■ Very ■ Somewhat
44% ,
32% ',
18% 46%
25% , ,, 43%
17% , I 43%
16% _ 40%
13% I .'--/ 40%
36%
17% ,, 35%
10% - ';,_ How late weekend events go 27% 27%
Concerned
78%
62%
....__------------- - ---------'-'---'-----''-'----'------------------- The number of weekend events 22% 27%
Artificial light from the stadium.. 26% 23%
f----,-,,,,---,-cc-=----------- ------- ------ --------- ------- Noise from events during the day 19% - 20% --!--- - ----------------- --=- - - ---,-------------- - ---- - Fireworks 22% - 17% 6% ,
Q31-44. Thinking about different issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium, please tell me if you personally are concerned or not about each of the following potential issues. -=====-- - ---- - ----- ------
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 16 Positive Stadium Impacts ■ ~M]J research
Strong majorities of near neighbors and voters think all five of the positive stadium impacts tested in the survey are important. The tax revenue and economic impacts are seen as the most important benefits.

The stadium contributes to the city's General Fund, which funds vital services including police, fire, library, senior and youth programs.

The stadium generates millions in economic activity each year, benefitting local businesses, workers, and residents .

The stadium supports local jobs at the stadium and at hotels, restaurants, and other businesses that benefit from stadium events.

The stadium helps showcase our City/area and along with the Convention Center, Great America, and other attractions makes this a place visitors and conventions want to come to. ■ Very important ■ Somewhat important Total Important
Neighbors * 88%
-t=================== ======- - - - ---
V o t er s 83%
Neighbors 83%
-t======= ======= ==========-- - ------
V o t er s 81%
Neighbors
Voters
Neighbors 75%
84%
84%
~========== ========== ~----'-- --- --
Voters 73%
The stadium creates great new entertainment options for Neighbors individuals and families to go to fun/exciting events which makes Santa Clara/our area an even better place to live, work, and play. 39% _ 78%
Voters 37% :~ 71%
Q45-49. Next, I'd like to ask you about some of the positive impacts of Levi's Stadium. After you hear each, please tell me if that item is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all importan t to you. *Asked only of those residing in Santa Clara 18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 17 1EMC 1
I I
research
Stadium-Related
Contacts
Contacts About Stadium Problems ■ ~M~ resea rch
One-in-five {19%} near neighbor households and 13% of voters say they have contacted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern at least once. One-in-ten {11%} near neighbor households has made at least three contacts.

Near
Neighbors
Voters
QSl. How many times, if any, have you or someone in your household contacted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern?
19% at least 1 contact
1-2
7%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 19 Contacts About Stadium Problems ■ ~M~ research
Voters and near neighbors contact a variety of institutions - the police, the City, and the Stadium - about stadium-rela~ed problems. No one issue dominates the list of problems residents reach out about.

Who did you contact? Voters Neighbors
n=77 n=33
And what was the specific issue or Voters Neighbors
concern you had? n=77 n=33
Never contacted anyone for a stadium 87% 83% related problem or concern Never contacted anyone for a stadium 87% 83% related problem or concern City government/City Council 3% 3% Traffic 3% 3%
Noise 2% 2%
Police 2% 5%
Parking 2% 4%
The Stadium 1% 3% Security issue/crime 1% 1%
Neighbors/family/other citizens 1% 2% Drugs/alcohol 1% 2% Closure of the trail nearby 1% -
Other 2% 2%
Other 3% 2%
Don't Know 4% 2% Don't Know 1% 2%
QS2. Who did you contact?
Q53. And what was the specific issue or concern you had? 18-6629/30 .Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 20 Satisfaction with Problem Resolution ■ ~M~ research
Only a third of near neighbors and a quarter of voters who have contacted someone about a stadium-related problem say they are satisfied with the response they received. Roughly half are dissatisfied.

Near
Neighbors
(n=33; 19%}
Voters
(n=77; 13%}
■ 1-3 Not satisfied ■ 4/(Don't Know)
17%
QS4. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 7 is extremely satisfied, how satisfied were you with the response you received? You can use any number from 1 to 7. 24%
1 - Not at 7 - Ext.
■ 5-7 Satisfied all sat. sat.
31% 21%
26% 12%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 21 1EMC1
I I
research
Awareness
of Curfew
Awareness of 10 PM Weekday Curfew ~M~
research
A majority of voters and near neighbors are aware of the curfew. Awareness is higher among near neighbors.

Yes
56%
Voters
No
41%
{Don't
know)
3%
QSS. Were you aware or not that the City has a 10 PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium?
Yes
63%
Near Neighbors
No
36%
{Don't
know)
1%
-------
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 23 1EMC 1
I I
research Demographics
Stadium Visits ■ ~M~ research
Roughly 6-in-10 voters and near neighbors have been to the Stadium at least once, with 3-in-10 having been 3 or more times.

Near
Neighbors
Voters
QSO. How many times, if ever, have you been to an event at Levi's Stadium? 1-2 Times
27%
1-2 Times
31%
57% at least once
61% at least once
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 25 Media Habits ■ ~M]] research
Newspapers (print and online), social media, and television are the top sources for local news and events in Santa Clara.

Roughly half of voters and near neighbors say they learn about local news through social media at least occasionally.

Local News Sources Voters Neighbors
Newspapers in print or online 49% 32%
Social media like Facebook or Twitter 41% 38% Frequently Television 37% 45%
Radio 20% 23% Occasionally
Local neighborhood biogs 14% 9%
Internet (general) 6% 5% Rarely
Word of mouth 5% 5%
Somewhere else 9% 8%
Not at all
Don't know 3% 2%
Q56. Where do you generally get information about local news and events in Santa Clara? (Multiple Response) Q57. And how frequently do you follow discussions or learn about local news or politics using social media like Facebook and Twitter?
Learn About Local News Using
Social Media
23%
25%
■ Voters
· ■ Neighbors
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 26 Demographics
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65 or over
Age
Gender
Male
Female
■
~~
research
■ Voters ■ Neighbors
Hispanic or Latino
White
Black
Asian/Pacific Islander
Something else
(Refused)
Ethnicity
Own/buying
Rent/lease
(Refused)
Years in Neighborhood/Santa Clara
<11 years ·
11-20 years
21 + years
(Refused)
Home Ownership
~~·~-=~- ---- -~ ----- - ~
•- • - .• • ••. ..,;:::.j
4%
2%
58%
53%
18-6629/30 Baseline Voter and Near Neighbor Report I 27 1EMC1
I · I
research
Telephone Survey
Near Neighbor Businesses
City of Santa Clara
Methodology ■ ~M~ research
► Live telephone survey of businesses in selected regions of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and San Jose
• Businesses were randomly selected from a list of businesses with addresses in Santa Clara and within a mile of Levi's Stadium and in selected areas of Sunnyvale and San Jose that experience event-related impacts
► Conducted February 2 - 23, 2018*
► 82 total interviews; Margin of Error +11.0 points
► Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers * Interviewing paused February 9-15 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 2 Surveyed Regions ■
~~
research
MORSE P ,\I'~
Seven
Seas Park
0 Twin Creeks
Bay/ands Park D
OTa rget
r.

RENAI SSANCE
,?
yo><" lie< , .
m @
WestwmdsO
Cisco Systems
North Sao)ose Building 12 0 n t: r,,,
'?,17 lnteliviews ~
~ (5J ''7<,;
,11 I.. Santa Clam Santa Clara ~(>
Sunnyvale Convention Cente\~n1 •" 50 Interviews
15 Interviews,.., Atlub, v• .. 11s .. Levi's Stadium ~
P l ...,, A 1lf I ► - ' §'
Lakewo od
Parh
le
California 's®
Great America "
Ullstac
Natural Area
r:,.<;f''~"'R<Y
SafewayO
Oracle O 0 Orncle Building 18 u
1l

SAN MI GUEL
Mission
College
Q Q Santa Claro Marrioll
@II t;
anlte Sunnyvale 0
Lowe's Horne 0 Improvement ·
E Ou,111 c Ave
Fry's Electronics
0 AMC Mc;eado 20 Q
0 \i:.IH l" J <.1 11,\~
0 Sports Basement
Intel Museum ®
CD
[jfil
0 Whole Foods Market
,i ...,":1
NOfl TH SAN JOSI
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 3
Locations of Businesses Surveyed ■
~ M]J
research
0 Twin Creeks
" f
Seven
Seas Park
/\N M l , U
t f,, ,11 1 .;)., ,
unite Sunnyvule 0 fry 's El~ctro11I ~
Lowe's Horne O 0
Impr ovem ent
Mission
College
0 AMC Me : ,do 20 0
• ,',' , 1
0 Sport s Basement
"'1.,,,
99 .., Son to Claru Marriolt
Intel Museum •
@)
0 Whole Foods Market
9 .
',' I
9 0 1 19 1!
9 U/1·
N(IIUI
9 .9
ft9 9 9 · o Systems ,
• 9 9 tullchng 12 0 · ,.,,
99~
RIVI
NORl H AN J O
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 4
1EMC 1
I I
research Neighborhood Issues
Issue Importance ■ ~M~ resea rch
Traffic is the only neighborhood issue that is rated as a problem by a majority of businesses.

Traffic
Parking
Maintenance of sidewalks or streets
Public urination
Graffiti
Crime
15%
■ 7 Extremely serious 5-6
29%
21% 35%
21%
21%
10%
QS-15. I'm going to read you a list of potential neighborhood issues that could impact your business. For each one, please tell me if that issue is a problem for your business or not. Use a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means that issue is not at all a problem for your business, and 7 means that issue is an extremely serious problem for your business. You can use any number from 1 to 7.

Problem
55%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 6
Causes of Traffic Problems ■ ~M~ ~ resea rch
Among the 36 businesses who say traffic is a serious problem/ the Stadium is the most commonly cited cause. "On game day there are
road closures and an
influx of people going
the games."
What is the main cause of the traffic problem
in the neighborhood your business is in?
Traffic NOT a serious problem
The stadium
Flow of traffic/congestion
Infrastructure
Other
Ql 7. What is the main cause of the traffic problem in the neighborhood your business is in? n
46 22
8 4
2 %of
all
56%
27%
10%
5%
2%
"Levi's Stadium. Cross
streets and minor streets are
flooded with traffic
according to what route
they're given for parking."
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 7
Causes of Parking Problems ~M~
resea rch
Among the 19 businesses who say parking is a serious problem, the Stadium and the overall number of people are seen as the main causes of parking problems.
"During events at Levi's
Stadium , they use our
office parking to park
and that creates a lot of
problems ."
What is the main cause of the parking problem
in the neighborhood your business is in?
Parking NOT a serious problem
The stadium
The general population
Other
Q18. What is the main cause of the parking problem in the neighborhood your business is in? n
63 10
7 2
%of
all
77%
12%
9%
2%
"There's too many
cars on game day."
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 8
Causes of Noise Problems ■ ~M~ research
Among the 5 businesses who say noise is a serious problem, four attributed the noise problem to the Stadium. "The drag racing events
at the stadium and
concerts."
What is the main cause of the noise problem in
the neighborhood your business is in?
Noise NOT a serious problem
Stadium
Traffic
Q16. What is the main cause of the noise problem in the neighborhood your business is in? n %of
all
77 94%
4 5%
1 1%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 9
1 EMC
1 I I
research
Levi's Stadium
Awareness and Issues
Levi's Stadium as a Neighbor ■ ~M]J research
Most businesses rate Levi's Stadium as a good neighbor. One-in-three give the Stadium a negative rating as a neighbor.

Positive
65%
Negative
34%
Only Fair 22%
- _,
Very Poor 6%
Q19. How would you rate Levi's Stadium as a neighbor? In general, would you say Levi's Stadium is an e><cellent, good, only fai r, poor, or very poor neighbor? (DK/Ref)
1%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 11
Positive Impacts of Stadium ■ ~M~ research
A strong majority of businesses value the positive impacts of Levi's Stadium on the local community. ■ Very important ■ Somewhat important Total Important
The stadium contributes to Santa Clara's General Fund, which funds vital services including police, fire, library, senior and youth programs. * 48% ~ 78% The stadium supports local jobs at the stadium and at hotels, restaurants, and other businesses that benefit from stadium events.

The stadium creates great new entertainment options for individuals and families to go to fun and exciting events which makes Santa Clara/our area an even better place to live, work, and play.

The stadium generates millions in economic activity each year, benefitting local businesses, workers, and residents.

The stadium helps showcase our City/area and along with the Convention Center, Great America, and other attractions makes this a place visitors and conventions want to come to.

Q34-38. Next, I'd like to ask you about some of the positive impacts of Levi's Stadium. After you hear each, please tell me if that item is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important to your business.
*Asked of businesses in Santa Clara only, n=SO
66%
65%
63%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 12
Levi's Stadium Issues ■ ~M~ research
Eight-in-ten businesses are concerned about the traffic impacts during events at Levi's Stadium and 6-in-10 are concerned about the parking impacts. There is also significant concern about drinking/drug use and littering, and the number and lateness of weekday events.

Traffic
Parking in neighborhoods close to the stadium
■ Very ■ Somewhat
41% 1 ~•jl.
24% ';, 57%
Concerned
82%
+---- ----------------------------------
Pub Ii c drinking or drug use 49%
The number of weekday events 48%
+--------------------------------------
Littering 46%
+--------------------------------------
How late weekday events go 41%
Loitering 35% -E::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::====------------------------- N o is e from flyovers and helicopters at stadium ..
-+-----------'-----------------------------
Noise from events during the day 27%
+--------------------------------------
How late weekend events go 24%
The number of weekend events 23%
Noise from events at night 18%
+--------------------------------------
Fireworks 16%
Artificial light from the stadium at night 11%
Q20-33. Thinking about different issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium, please tell me if your business is concerned or not about each of the following potential issues. 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 13 Stadium Problem Frequency ■ ~M~ research
Most businesses have never contacted anyone about a stadium-related concern.

Never
84% 16% at least
once
n = 13
--------''--------{ \
1-2 Times
6%
Q39. As far as you know, how many times, if any, have you or someone at your business contacted someone about a stadium-related problem or concern?
3 Times or More
10%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 14
Most Contacted Agency · ■ ~M-c1 I=.!.~
resea rch
Of the 13 businesses who have contacted someone about a stadium-related concern; the agencies contacted vary.

Who did your business contact? n % of all
Have NOT contacted anyone 69 84%
Police 3 4%
The Stadium 3 4%
City of Santa Clara/City Council 2 2%
Landlord/Building owner 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Don't Know 1 1%
Q40. Who did your business contact? 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 15 .Specific Issues ~M~
research
Of the 13 businesses who have contacted someone, noise and parking/traffic account for about half of reported contacts . ''Access or denial of
access to my business
due to traffic, road
closures and the closure
of the bike trail"
And what was the specific issue or concern
your business had?
Have NOT contacted anyone
Traffic
Parking
Closure of the trail nearby
Noise
Drugs/alcohol
Other
Q41. And what was the specific issue or concern your business ha~? n
69 3
3 2
2 1
2 %
of all
84%
4%
4%
2%
2%
1%
2%
"The noise,
parking and the
littering"
"The intoxicated
Ninersfans
harassing the
employees"
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 16
Satisfaction with Problem Resolution ■ ~M~ resea rch
Ten of the 13 businesses who contacted someone about a stadium-related problem were not satisfied with the response they received.
n = 13; 16%
How satisfied was
your business with
the response you
received?
Q42. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is not at all satisfied and 7 is extremely sat isfied, how satisfied was your business with the response you received? You can use any number from 1 to 7. 1- Not at all 7 - Extremely
satisfied satisfied
54% 0%
18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 17
1 EMC
1 I I
research Demographics
Business Demographics ■ re-Mc1 , '-=!.~
research
Business Size
1-4 employees 32%
Type of Business %
Technology 30%
5-9 employees 22% Professional
,
13%
10-19 employees 15% Manufacturing 12%
Food Service 6%
20+ employees 32%
Retail 6%
Time at Current Location Service 5%
Hospitality 4%
<5 years 39%
Health 4%
5-10 years 28%
Re-seller 2%
Distribution Center 1%
11+ years 33% Other 15%
Don't Know /Refused 1%
Q43. How many years has your business been at yoµr current location? Q44. Approximately how many employees does the company you work for employ at this location? 18-6630 Near Neighbor Business Report I 19 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Ne·ar Neighbor and
S.anta Clara Resident
Focus Groups
Methodology ~M~
research
► Four focus groups held in Sunnyvale on April 25th and 26th, 2018 ► Focus group participants were Santa Clara, San Jose and Sunnyvale residents Wednesday,
April 25th
Thursday,
April 26th
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Santa Clara Non-Neighbors, 15+ years in SC {l+ miles from stadium) Santa Clara Non-Neighbors, <15 years in SC {1+ miles from stadium) Santa Clara Near Neighbors {<1 mile from stadium)
Sunnyvale & San Jose Near Neighbors
► Each group had 8-10 participants
► Groups were moderated by Andrew Thibault from EMC Research Note: Due to the nature of qualitative research, the following findings reflect only the attitudes and opinions of the participants in the focus groups, and cannot be reliably projected across the larger p Op U I at i On 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 2 Near-Neighbor Regions
r,.
'
•r,• t-• ..,., "l ,
.:,
'
O Twln Creek
Bay/ands P rk
Sunnyvale
Near Neighbors
E &.. If I hy
.., ....
..u
..
.. ::,
" Santa Clara ,:, ,
~ Near Neighbors . . ,
Santa Clara I';\
Convention Center _~.. "'O' a
Levi's Stadiun1 t!) ,_rJol.J1 • '! 11S .:.. .,
1 .... u
California 's
i Great America
eJ
,, ,.
~
-< ;
r-
~
.•
V}
d·;,,,_
0 AMC Mere do 20 !
4 :,., I t~ :It ' fl h
, .... ~::,, ...
~ ....
~
'·· r~ ; .
~ ~ 'll
. "=''
'
Intel Museum €)
(i,-,
We· 1w111d·,
North San Jose
Near Neighbors
Ulisla
Narural Ar
\
u'<e
' I
Oracle O
.
,.
■
~~
research
-

N R H '
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 3 1EMC 1
I I
research
General Attitudes
About Santa Clara
General Attitudes ~@
research
► For the most part, participants had positive feelings about living in Santa Clara/the region
► Santa Clara residents had largely positive views of City government and the job it is doing _
Top Positives Expressed:
• Small town feel
• Location/easy access to many
attractions and other communities
• Weather
• Diversity
• City services/amenities
Top Negatives Expressed:
• Traffic
• Development of housing faster than
services
• Cost of I ivi ng
• Lack of a downtown area
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 5 1EMC1
I I
research
Levi's-Stadium Awareness
and Overall Attitudes
Awareness ■ ~M~ research
► Awareness of current stadium issues is low-most did not recall seeing or hearing anything recently regarding the stadium
► Among those who remembered hearing something, details were spotty ► A handful recalled hearing something about youth soccer field issues, .revenue disputes, the cancelled Ed Sheeran concert, or the college football championship
"I heard something about someone owes
some money. I don't know what, I can't
remember it was so long ago."
- Santa Clara Non-Neighbor Resident
"There's some kind of issue
with soccer fields." - Santa
Clara Non-Neighbor Resident
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 7 Overall Attitudes ■ ~M~ research
► Newer Santa Clara residents and those in Sunnyvale and North San Jose tended to have positive views of the stadium
► · Santa Clara near-neighbors and long-time residents were more critical and more concerned with perceived negative impacts, but still saw positives ► The stadium is seen as an attraction that brings benefits and people to the City, including generating business for local hotels, shops, and restaurants ► Some more concerned residents acknowledged that, as problematic as stadium events may be for them, events aren't that frequent "It's putting Santa Clara on the map, in terms of
'Oh! This is a place to go' ... But at the same time,
it does bring more people in, and it does raise the
cost of living. So, it's good and bad."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor Resident
"It's a horror, but only for a
very small amount of the time.

The other time, it's just dead."
- Santa Clara Non-Neighbor
Resident
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 8 The Stadium as a Neighbor ■ ~M~ research
► Because San Jose Airport and Great America cause more constant disturbances, some consider the stadium to be a better neighbor in terms of neighborhood disruptions and impacts
► However, the stadium is seen as unresponsive to concerns and complaints and many do not feel residents' grievances are listened to ► While few are clear on the distinction between Manco and the Stadium Authority, those who live close to the stadium tend to have lower trust in the private side
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 9 Perceived Relationship with the City ■ ~M~ research
► While most did not know specifics, participants shared a general perception that the relationship between the City and the stadium is tense ► There is a great deal of uncertainty about the specific revenue situation between the stadium and City of Santa Clara, but many felt the City was getting less revenue than had been originally promised
► Many had heard the stadium was supposed to give money to local schools but were unsure if they were following through
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 10 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Levi's Stadium
Issues & Solutions
Parking ■ ~M~ research
► Participants identified parking as the central issue caused by the stadium; other issues (e.g. traffic) are made worse by the stadium but have other . primary sources ► Stadium-goers parking in neighborhoods also lead to other problems, including litter, noise, public urination and other disturbances from foot traffic
"The parking [is an issue]. The
walking of the people around me.

My kids play outside, and on game
days, I don't feel safe because of the
people that were walking around."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor
Resident
"People are parking in your
apartment building's parking spots,
you don't have a place to park ... and
the people that are walking to and
from the events ... just with
everything in life, there's some not­
so-nice people." - Santa Clara Near­
Neighbor Resident
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 12 Parking Solutions ■ ~M~ research
► Reactions to the permit proposal were mixed, though many supported enforcement if limited to event days
• Some felt the program wasn't needed or worried it would push the problem into other neighborhoods
► Other ideas expressed by participants:
• More stadium parking for lower cost
• Use more corporate lots and have more frequent shuttles to/from lots • Better-scheduled public transportation
11 lnstead of trying to force people out of
their cars first and onto public transit,
it's like, make it convenient enough and
timely enough that people will want to
or realize it's much easier."
- Santa Clara Near-Neighbor
18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 13 Curfew and Noise ■ ~M~ research
► Most knew of the curfew but did not know the specifics ► While noise is not seen to be as large an issue as parking, there was opposition to eliminating the curfew outright, particularly among near-neighbors in Santa Clara • Reactions to allowing limited exceptions were mixed
• Although some lived within earshot of the stadium, Sunnyvale and San Jose near­ neighbors were more supportive of easing the curfew than Santa Clara near-neighbors ► Some respondents pointed out that noise is generated not just within the stadium during events, but also by eventgoers passing through neighborhoods before and after
Ideas Suggested by Participants for Noise Issues:
• Rebates for double-paned windows and air conditioning for .impacted neighbors • Begin events earlier or turn down the volume after a certain time 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 14 Traffic ■ ~M~ research
► Traffic is viewed as a general problem in the area that is exacerbated by the stadium
► Although there was near unanimous recognition that stadium events cause worse traffic jams, most are habituated to planning around traffic on event days and don't see it as a problem badly in need of solving Ideas Expressed by Participants for Event Traffic Issues:
• lncentivize using public transit to get to and from events • Offer discounted parking fees for carpooling
• Parking further from stadium with frequent shuttle service • Better access points through street closures to neighborhoods for residents 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 15 Other Solutions Suggested by Groups ■ ~M~ research
► More obvious stadium outreach to near-neighbors
► Free or discounted tickets for near-neighbors
► More portable toilets outside stadium to limit public urination 18-6629 Near Neighbor and Santa Clara Resident Focus Group Report I 16 1 EMC
1 I I
research
Solutions Telephone Survey
All Registered Voters
City of Santa Clara
Methodology ■ ~M~ research
► Live telephone survey of registered voters in the City of Santa Clara ► Conducted May 10 - 17, 2018
► 400 total interviews; Margin of Error+ 4.9%
► Interviews conducted by trained, professional interviewers ► Interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese and included both landlines and cell phones
18-6845 Solutions Report I 2
1 EMC
1 I I
research
Levi's Stadium
Awareness and Issues
Stadium Awareness ■ ~M~ resea rch
Awareness levels remain quite similar to earlier in the year. '--------~-~-------- ------------------
January May
Heard Heard
56% 57%
Not heard Not heard
41% 40%
(DK/Ref) (DK/Ref)
3% 3%
Q3. How much, if anything, have you heard or seen about Levi's Stadium recently - a lot, some, not too much, or nothing at all? ' 18-6845 Solut ions Report I 4 Levi's Stadium: Top Positives ■ ~M~ research
The Stadium's impact on the local economy is seen as its biggest positive. -~--- -~--~~ What is the biggest positive? %
Boosts local economy/generates revenue 26
Draws people/attention to Santa Clara 20
Nearby/local entertainment/events 19
Creates local jobs 12
There are no positives (distaste towards the stadium) 9 Sporting events 0
Other 4
Don't know/NA 9
Refused 1
Q4. What do you think is the biggest positive about having Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara? (Open-end) 18-6845 Solutions Report I 5 Levi's Stadium: Top Negatives ■ ~M~ research
Traffic congestion and parking are by far the most frequently mentioned negative and most respondents did not differentiate between the two.

What is the biggest negative? %
Traffic congestion and parking 48
Noise or from the stadium 15
Crime and security 9
Financial impact on the city 4
Economic/infrastructural impact 4
Littering 4
Nothing negative 4
City/Stadium Officials and management 3
Other 2
Don't know/NA 6
Refused 2
. QS. And what do you think is the biggest negative about having Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara? (Open-end) 18-6845 Solutions Report I 6 Stadium Importance ~M~
research
A majority say working on issues related to Stadium events should be a priority for the Mayor and Council, but only 17% say it should be a very high priority.
■ 1-3 Low Priority 4/(Don't Know)
24%
QlO. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is a very low priority and 7 is a very high priority, how high of a priority do you think working on issues related to stadium events should be for the Mayor and City Council? ■ 5-7 High Priority
1 - Very 7 - Very
Low High
4% 17%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 7
·stadium Event Issues ■ ~M]J research
Traffic and parking are seen as the most important stadium event issues to address, with 4-in-10 saying it is "extremely important" to address these issues. Disruptive behavior in neighborhoods around the Stadium is also a top issue. Six-in-ten say it is important to address noise from events, but only a quarter rate it as "extremely important." ~-~------ -------· ■ 7 Extremely important ■ 5-6
Traffic from stadium events 41% ,,
Parking in neighborhoods close to
the stadium
Disruptive behavior in
neighborhoods around the stadium
on event days
Noise from stadium events
'
40% ,
37%
26%
Qll-14. I'm going to read you a list of issues that may arise during events at Levi's Stadium. After each one, please rate how important addressing that issue is to you, using a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all important, and 7 means extremely important.

Total Important
78%
73%
72%
62%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 8
Communicating and Responding ~M~
research
A majority give the City positive marks for communicating about and responding to stadium-related issues. Stadium management gets lower marks, primarily because fewer respondents are familiar with their performance. ■ Total Agree ■ (Don't Know/No Opinion)
The City does a good job communicating
with residents about stadium-rela ted issues
The City does a good job responding to
citizen concerns and complaints about the
stadium
Levi's Stadium management does a good
job communicating with resident s about
stadium-related issues
Levi's Stadium management does a good
job responding to citizen concerns and
complaints
54%
51%
41%
41%
QG-9. Please tell me whether you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statemen ts. If you are not sure please just say so. 16%
27%
30%
36%
■ Total Disagree
30%
23%
29%
23%
I
Strongly Strongly
Agr. Disagr.
16% 14%
12% 8%
7% 12%
6% 10%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 9
Stadium Visitor Frequency ■ ~M~ resea rch
Most have been to at least one event.
61% at least
once
I 1 \
Never
39% 1-2 Times
28% 3-4 Times 5 Times or more
16% 17%
Q36. How many times, if ever, have you been to an event at Levi's Stadium? 18-6845 Solutions Report I 10 Stadium Problem Frequency ~M~
research
One-in-four respondents say they have contacted someone about a stadium-related concern - 6% have contacted someone 3 or more times.

Never
75% 25% at least
once
_________ l ________ _
I \
1-2 Times
19%
3-4 Times
4%
Q37. How many times, if any, have you or someone in your household contacted someone about a stadium­ related problem or concern?
5 Times or more
2%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 11
1EMC 1
I I
research
Interest in
Proposed Solutions
Potential Solutions ■ ~M~ research
While all the solution tested have majority support, there are significant differences in intensity of support ("strongly support").
■ 7-Strongly Support ■ 5-6 Total Support
82%
80%
79%
79%
78% .
77%
49% _. -. '
I , _., --
75%
Provide more portable toilets in parking lots to discourage public urination Increase neighborhood safety patrols before/after events Establish an electronic notification system that gives resident s advance notice of events Reduce stadium parking prices for people who carpool
Establish more frequent shuttle service from parking lots further from the Stadium Designate drop-off and pickup areas for those using rideshare service Offer incentives for taking public transit to/from events such as free or reduced fares Have a live call-in number during events to respond to concerns or complaints Lower the price of parking in stadium lots
Increase the fine for violating the curfew and noise thresholds City-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium A 10PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium 72%
Q25-34. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose that proposal and 7 means you strongly support that proposal. If you have no opinion one way or the other please say so. 18-6845 Solutions Report I 13 1EMC 1
I I
research
Stadium Curfew
Detailed Attitudes
Curfew ■ ~M]J resea rch
Just under half are aware of the curfew. A third feel the curfew is too restrictive while half say it's about right. Only one-in-ten feel it isn't restrictive enough.

Yes
44%
Aware of Curfew
No
54%
{Don't
know)
2%
Too Restrictive
About Right
Not Restrictive
Enough
Don't Know
Q15. Were you aware or not that the City has a 10 PM weekday curfew for nighttime events like concerts at Levi's Stadium?
Q18. In general, do you feel this curfew on weeknights is too restrictive, not restrictive enough; or about right? Feel Curfew is ...
50%
5%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 15
Curfew Support ■ ~M~ research
Half support the curfew. Only 1-in-4 are opposed to the curfew while the remaining 25% aren't sure. '--~------ In general, do you support or oppose this weeknight curfew? ■ 1-3 Oppose 4/(Don't Know)
25%
Q16. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, ·where 1 means you strongly oppose the curfew and 7 means you strongly support the curfew?
■ 5-7 Support
1- Strongly 7- Strongly
Oppose Support
11% 27%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 16
Curfew Reactions ■ ~M~ research
Of those who support the curfew/ most say it is due to the stadium/s proximity to a residential neighborhood and concern for those residents. Of those who oppose the curfew/ the most common reason is because they feel it is too restrictive.

Support Curfew (n=199) % Oppose Curfew (n=l00) %
Residential neighborhood/ residents should be 20 respected Curfew is unnecessary/too restrictive 36 Not fair to residents who work/go to school 13
Disturbs sleep 10
Curfew should be for shorter period/10 PM is too 15 early Security/keep area safe 9
Noise 8 Does not affect me 9
Good/preventative action (generally support) 8
Does not affect me 5 Once in a while 1s okay to go past curfew/depends 6 Once in a while is okay to go past curfew/depends 5
on event
on event
Traffic/foot traffic 4 Losing out on revenue 6
Q17. Why do you say that? 18-6845 Solutions Report! 17
Support Limited Exceptions to Curfew ■ ~~~
After hearing brief arguments from both sides, just over half say they would support allowing limited curfew exceptions. --- Some people say the Stadium's current curfew policy causes the City to lose out on revenue from concerts that choose not to play in Santa Clara because of it. They argue the policy should be changed to allow a limited number of exceptions for profit­ making events, allowing evening events to go until 11 PM rather than 10 PM.

Other people say the curfew policy should remain as is. The noise generated by events and eventgoers leaving the stadium and passing through nearby neighborhoods is too much of a disturbance to residents during the week before work and school. ■ 1-3 Oppose 4/(Don't Know)
20%
Q19 . Given what you've heard, do you support or oppose allowing limited exceptions to the weeknight curfew? Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1- Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose Support
14% 24%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 18
Support 3-4 Exceptions Per Year ~~
research
A majority also support allowing 3-4 exceptions per year.

Would you support or oppose allowing 3 to 4 exceptions per year to the weeknight curfew? ■ 1-3 Oppose ■ 4/(Don't Know)
19%
Q20. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
· Oppose Support
18% 27%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 19
Support 2-3 Exceptions Per Summer ■ ~~ research
A majority also support allowing 2-3 exceptions specifically during the summer months. ,._ ___________ _ Would you support or oppose allowing 2 to 3 exceptions per year to the weeknight curfew during the summer months only when kids are out of school?
■ 1-3 Oppose 4/(Don't Know)
16%
Q21. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1- Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose . Support
17% 29%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 20
Support for Curfew Modifications ~M~
research
A majority support the general idea of limited exceptions to the curfew and when asked about specific options, 56% support 3-4 exceptions per year and 60% support 2-3 exceptions per summer. Opposition is consistently about a quarter.

Support
50%
Initial
Support
Oppose Neutral
Limited
Exceptions
Support
54%
Neutral
20%
3-4 Exceptions
Per Year
Support
56%
Neutral
19%
2-3 Exceptions
Per Summer
Support
60%
Neutral
16%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 21
1( T H F
ii: LE

EDWARDS
. 1EMC 1
I I Parking.

C R O U P research Issues and Solutions
Support for Permit Program ■ ~M]J research
Initially a majority support city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium.

In general/ do you support or oppose city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium/ including guest parking passes/ to prevent stadium-goers from using street parking on event days? ■ 1-3 Oppose ■ 4/(Don't Know)
24%
Q22. Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose Support
14% 25%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 23
Permit Program Reactions ■ ~~ research
Supporters of the program feel it will help solve the problem. Those who are opposed are largely concerned with the cost to residents, though some do feel it is unnecessary or won't be effective.

Support Program (n=210) % Oppose Program (n=96) %
Will help with lack of parking and traffic 21
It's a good/affordable/necessary measure 14 (generally supportive) Will prevent outside people from parking in 11 neighborhood Residents will have guaranteed parking/ park in 11 front of home More organization/ more control 6
Residents should not have to pay to park/not 39 fair
Its unnecessary/A waste/ will not be effective 14 (generally oppose) The cost is too high 10
It's a good/affordable/necessary measure 7 (generally supportive) Will prevent outside people from parking in
5 neighborhood
Generates revenue for the City 6
Will help the neighbors/residents 6
Residents will have guaranteed parking/ park in - 4
front of home
Parking should be the Stadium's responsibility 5 Parking should be the Stadium's responsibility 3 Q23. Why do you say that? 18-6845 Solutions Report I 24 Support for Permits After More Info ■ ~~ research
After brief arguments on both sides, support for the permit program remains strong.

Some people say parking permits would reduce event traffic in their neighborhoods and help make sure they can find parking on event days. They say it would also reduce rowdy behavior, trash, and disturbances in their neighborhoods.

Other people say a parking permit program will cost the City and local residents too much money and resources to issue, administer, and enforce. They say it will make parking in those neighborhoods too complicated for guests and non-event visitors to the area.
■ 1-3 Oppose ■ 4/(Don't Know)
20%
Q24 . Given what you've heard, do you support or oppose allowing limited exceptions to the weeknight curfew? Please use a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means you strongly oppose this proposal and 7 means you strongly support it.
■ 5-7 Support
1 - Strongly 7 - Strongly
Oppose Support
12% 21%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 25
Support for Parking Permits ■ ~M]J research
Initially a majority support city-issued $20 parking permits for residents in neighborhoods near the stadium. Support increases after arguments for and against parking permits. ________________ , Support
52%
Initial Support
Oppose
24%
Neutral
24%
Support
60%
Informed Support
Oppose
20%
'I
12%
Neutral
20%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 26
Demographics ■
~~
research
Age Ethnicity Years in Neighborhood/Santa Clara
18-29 - 18%
Hispanic or Latino - 28%
- 17%
Whit e - 38% 30-39
- 18%
Black I 4%
40-49
Asian/Pacific Islander - 14%
50-64 - 26% I 4% Something else
<11 years
11+ years/(Ref)
50%
50%
65 or over - 21% (Refused) ■ 11%
Gender Home Ownership
Male 49% Own/buying 61%
Female 51% Rent/L ease/(DK) 39%
18-6845 Solutions Report I 27
1EMC 1
I I
research
Andrew Thibault
[email protected]
206.204.8031
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-88 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Report on Noise from New Construction that was Approved by the City as Requested Through a Written Petition (Council Policy 030), Submitted by Joseph P. Goschy

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
The City Clerk’s Office received a Written Petition on November 2, 2022 from Joseph P. Goschy, requesting to place an item on a future Council meeting agenda for the City Council to address noise violations from new construction that was approved by the City and results in ongoing sleep disruption at the neighboring property (Attachment 1). The petition was discussed at the December 9, 2022 City Council meeting and the City Council voted to place this item on a future agenda.

The petitioner is referencing the new construction located at 212 Tyler Avenue. A Building Permit was issued in February 2021 for a remodel of the primary residence at 210 Tyler Avenue and for the demolition of a non-conforming Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and the construction of a new ADU (212 Tyler Avenue). The permitted work was found to be complete in compliance with the Building Permit and the permit was closed in December 2021.

On March 21, 2022, Community Development Code Enforcement received a complaint referencing the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) unit that was installed with the new construction at 212 Tyler Avenue. The complaint stated that the air conditioning unit was creating excessive noise during operation, particularly upon startup. The air conditioning unit had been reviewed as part of building permit that was issued for the aforementioned project.

Noise is regulated by Santa Clara City Code, Chapter 9 Regulation of Noise and Vibration, Section

9.10.040 noise or sound regulation. This code section states that it shall be unlawful for any person to operate or cause to allow to be operated, any fixed source of disturbing, excessive or offensive sound or noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, such that the sound or noise originating from that source causes the sound or noise level on any other property to exceed the maximum noise or sound levels which are set forth in Schedule A, as follows:

City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-88 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
Schedule A - Exterior Sound or Noise Limits
Receiving Zone - Zoning
Category
Time Period Noise Level (dBA)
Single-Family and Duplex
Residential (R1, R2)
Commencing at 7:00 am
and ending at 10:00 pm that
evening
55 Commencing at 10:00 pm
and ending at 7:00 am the
following morning
50 An air conditioning unit is a fixed source of potential noise and thus subject to this code section.

DISCUSSION
In his Written Petition, Joseph Goschy requested that the “City Council address noise violations from new construction that was approved by the City and results in ongoing sleep disruption at the neighboring property. City staff approved of the construction and now requires a civil lawsuit against the property owners for resolution.”
Code Enforcement staff have conducted several site inspections since receiving the complaint. The air conditioning unit was only in operation during one of these inspections, on June 21, 2022. During the inspection, Code Enforcement staff took several noise measurements from the public right-of-way adjacent to the property line.

The measurements taken during the City’s inspection were done using a noise meter that measures the A-weighted decibel (dBA), which is an expression of the relative loudness of sounds as perceived by the human ear, and is the noise level regulated in the City Code. The City does not measure the decibel (dB), which is the sound pressure level, the absolute amount of pressure change exerted in the air by a sound.

The measurement readings taken by Code Enforcement staff were 45, 47 and 48 dBA, which is well below the Santa Clara City Code’s maximum noise level of 55 dBA for single-family residential zones.

The Air Conditioning unit was found not to be in violation of the Noise Level per the City Code and this was communicated to Mr. Goschy.

Staff is prepared to take additional readings at the site once warmer temperatures return and the air conditioning unit is again in use. Staff will attempt to coordinate with Mr. Goschy at that time to arrange access to the portion of his property nearest to the neighboring property air conditioning unit so that measurements can be taken at the most sensitive location on site. However, given the logarithmic character of noise levels, an increase of 7 dBA or greater is unlikely. Staff will continue to monitor the situation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is an administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
23-88 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Manager’s Office and City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> or at the
public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file the report.

Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director, Community Development Approved by: City Manager’s Office

ATTACHMENTS

1. Joseph Goschy - City Council Written Petition

2. March 21, 2022 - Code Enforcement Complaint
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
The Center of What's Possible

CITY COUNCIL WRITTEN PETITION
Please provide the information requested below. When complete, please submit to the City Clerk's Office, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050.

Date: Noi1e"" h, c J, ;JO?.'J,
I, J::~ep ~ p. Goe, c,,i" , am hereby requesting to be placed on the Santa Clara City Council Agenda for the following purpose: n 'I &\ ,.._ ~i_y e. ':.?+- Co "-C..• ~of.. 'o VI. -to ~J&. l'e ss C\o,'1-e ~~olc.et~o\1:<o f~M.t oetU C@s+rucf.1o" :thl)tt- wA~ ~/JL>tove! b~ the C.+'1 , r ·· I ah~ fec,J lb , " 0030 Jvi~ 6 leep l!"i rvpf o"' q-J: +be ne 1Jhbor/7 pl'o~rly.

C,·{~ Elk~ appc:ove,\ of ±k~ lQhSttvc:b OP\ AnJ t1ow /'et,,()/f'e? a C; v: I la.ws v if DJ a,'" 5 ± :tl,-e. p rvpecty Dwn ~e> fo, tecPlJf '1 h · I understand that it is important that I attend the meeting in the event there are any questions the Council wishes to ask me.

Signed:

NAME ~~ ~j dJ~1t,
ADDRESS: J.;) D T~ k C A ~ e.,
Street
Sa~t-tt cltAra. . c14 qgs:-o
Cfy ~pC~e
TELEPHONE:* -------------0 pt ion a I
DATE: No~e"""b~c ?-., ~Ve}-')
*NOTE: This is a public document. If your telephone number is unlisted or if you do not want it to be public, please provide an alternate number where you can be reached.

S:\CityClerk\FORMS AND INFORMATION FOR STAFF USE\Written Petition Form - 2016.doc >
HVAC Noise at 212 Tyler Disrupts Sleep and Appears to Exceed dBA Noise Limits Joe Goschy Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 7:00 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Bcc: Michael Goschy < >, Joe Goschy < >
Hello,
Please forward this memo to the appropriate department or city representa�ve.

The Hea�ng, Ven�la�on, and Air Condi�oning (HVAC) unit that was installed with the new construc�on at 212 Tyler Avenue is crea�ng excessive noise during opera�on, par�cularly upon startup, and is affec�ng the sleep quality at the neighboring home (220 Tyler Ave).

The HVAC unit operates day and night. The most prominent noise is when the HVAC unit starts up. Please see the following a�ached audio file for an example: HVAC Startup 1.mp3.

The HVAC unit also creates a loud, pulsing sound when running, rather than the typical, smooth hum. Please see:

HVAC Running.mp3. Note: It has sounded worse than this example on other occasions.

The decibel limits for noise are outlined in the city code chapter 9. Since the HVAC starts and stops both day and night, the Noise Level of 50 dBA may be considered the limit.

Chapter 9.10

REGULATION OF NOISE AND VIBRATION
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaClara/html/SantaClara09/SantaClara0910.html#9.10.040

9.10.040 Noise or sound regula�on, Schedule A - Exterior Sound or Noise Limits:

Gmail - HV AC Noise at 212 Tyler Disrupts Sleep and Appears to Exce... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=273431ba49&view=pt&search=a... 1 of 5 1/13/2023, 10:28 AM

Audio measurement samples were taken near the HVAC unit, but on 220 Tyler property.

The readings during opera�on are above 50 dB when the unit was in opera�on, but significantly higher when the HVAC unit starts up with measurements between 70 to 80 dB.

Gmail - HV AC Noise at 212 Tyler Disrupts Sleep and Appears to Exce... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=273431ba49&view=pt&search=a... 2 of 5 1/13/2023, 10:28 AM
Category 1
Single-family Commenc ing at 55
and duplex 7:00 A M_ and
residential ending at 0:00 P.M_
(R1, R2} that evening
Commenc ing at 50
10:00 P_M_ and
ending at 7:00 AJvL
the following morning
Category 2
Multiple-family Commencing at 55
residential, 7:00 A M_ and
public space ending at 0:00 P.M_
(R3, B} that evening
Commenc ing at 50
10:00 P.M_ and
ending at 7:00 AJvL
the following morning
The audio samples were taken in the early morning, so there was li�le ambient sound.

The city noise limits are defined by dBA levels, which are weighted according to the approximate the way the human ear hears. Assuming the peak levels of the HVAC unit are in the 70dB range upon startup, the unit noise would be beyond the 50 dBA limit.

Earplugs are used during the night because the HVAC startup can be heard with the windows closed. The HVAC unit noise will be more of a concern during the warmer weather when the windows and screen door are open because there is no air condi�oning at 220 Tyler Ave.

Gmail - HV AC Noise at 212 Tyler Disrupts Sleep and Appears to Exce... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=273431ba49&view=pt&search=a... 3 of 5 1/13/2023, 10:28 AM
,, ,, ~ g + .
-- 20
-
00 (dB)
--- I
-
-
~ft
-
20 0
ONC 15MC
--
7 .9 B
- A
80: 55.5 B
Mi

21.7 B
:10
1 00
80 leo
1,0
20 0
JUMC
0 @®® @
Since the HVAC unit is new, it may be under warranty and easily repaired.

I would reach out to the property owners, but they have been unresponsive in the past and have failed to take ac�on in other ma�ers.

Please let me know if I can provide any addi�onal informa�on or if I can make myself available for someone to take audio samples or observe the noise at the source.

Thank you,
Joe Goschy
220 Tyler Avenue
2 attachments
Gmail - HV AC Noise at 212 Tyler Disrupts Sleep and Appears to Exce... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=273431ba49&view=pt&search=a... 4 of 5 1/13/2023, 10:28 AM

HVAC Startup 1.mp3
267K
HVAC Running.mp3
650K
Gmail - HV AC Noise at 212 Tyler Disrupts Sleep and Appears to Exce... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=273431ba49&view=pt&search=a... 5 of 5 1/13/2023, 10:28 AM
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
23-213 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on a Resolution to Approve an Employment Agreement between the City of Santa Clara and Jovan D. Grogan for City Manager Appointment, Annual Salary of Four Hundred and Five Thousand and Fifty-Six Dollars, and Forty Cents ($405,056.40) and Resolution to Amend Salary Survey for the City Manager Position to Reflect the Same

COUNCIL PILLAR
Enhance Community Engagement and Transparency

BACKGROUND
The City Council retained Bob Murray and Associates to conduct a nation-wide search for the position of City Manager. The City Council has completed the recruitment process and selected Jovan Grogan for the position of City Manager. Outside legal counsel has worked with the City Council to negotiate the attached agreement.

Section 9 of the Personnel and Salary Resolution requires City Council approval of compensation plans for both classified and unclassified positions. California Code Regulations Section 570.5 governs and requires the adoption of updated publicly available salary schedules by the governing body. The proposed Council action satisfies these applicable requirements. The updated salary plan reflects the negotiated salary for the City Manager position.

The City of Santa Clara contracts with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) to provide retirement benefits for employees in both classified and unclassified positions.

When the City makes modifications to the salary schedules for its classified or unclassified positions, the City Council must approve and adopt the publicly available salary schedules to comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 570.5. If the City Council does not approve these resolutions, the City will be non-compliant with CalPERS record keeping and reporting requirements.

The City of Santa Clara is a contracting agency with CalPERS and is required to comply with its requirements.

The Unclassified Salary Plan has been modified to reflect the annual salary of $405,056.40 for the position of City Manager, as outlined in the employment agreement between the City of Santa Clara and Mr. Grogan, that the City Council approved on February 7, 2023, with an effective date of May 1, 2023.

DISCUSSION
The City Council has negotiated an employment agreement between the City of Santa Clara and City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
23-213 Agenda Date: 2/7/2023
Jovan Grogan. Mr. Grogan’s employment with the City would begin on May 1, 2023, with an annual base salary of $405,056.40.

The Unclassified Salary Plan has been modified to reflect the salary of the incoming incumbent for the position of City Manager, which is set at $405,056.40. Approval of the updated salary plan, as required by Calpers regulation, constitutes the final action on approval of the compensation set forth in the Agreement in accordance with the Brown Act. The effective date of the salary plan update aligns with the effective date of the employment agreement above-referenced.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
The annual base salary for Mr. Grogan will be $405,056.40. Staff will present the total compensation verbally at the meeting.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Finance Department and City Attorney’s Office.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] <
<mailto:[email protected]>>, or at the public
information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Action on Appointment of City Manager and Approval of the Employment Agreement between City of Santa Clara and Jovan Grogan effective May 1, 2023, which sets the annual salary at $405,056.40 and terms and conditions of employment; and

2. Adopt a Resolution to approve the revised unclassified salary plan for the position of City Manager to satisfy the requirements of California Code of Regulations Section 570.5 effective May 1, 2023
Reviewed by: Aracely Azevedo, Director of Human Resources

ATTACHMENTS

1. Employment Agreement between the City of Santa Clara and Jovan Grogan

2. Unclassified Salary Plan (effective 05-01-23) approved 02-07-23

3. Resolution Updated Salary Plan
City of Santa Clara Printed on 2/3/2023Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™

301447.14

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN THE

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
AND
JOVAN D. GROGAN

This EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation ("City") and Jovan D. Grogan ("Employee") as of February 7, 2023.

RECITALS
This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts:

A. City, acting with the approval of its duly elected City Council, desires to appoint and employ Jovan D. Grogan as its City Manager subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Government Code of the State of California, the Santa Clara City Code and the Charter of the City of Santa Clara (the "Charter").

B. The Charter provides that the City Manager shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Council.

C. Employee desires to be employed by the City as its City Manager, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Government Code of the State of California, the Santa Clara City Code and the Charter.

D. City and Employee desire to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation, including salary and benefits, performance evaluations and related matters.

AGREEMENT PROVISIONS
BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, CITY AND EMPLOYEE AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Employment. City Council appoints and employs Employee as City Manager with the City of Santa Clara and Employee accepts the appointment and employment. Employee acknowledges and agrees that as City Manager, Employee serves in an at-will capacity, serving at the pleasure of the City Council, with no expectation of continued employment, and with no right to pre-or-post-separation due process or appeal as provided in Santa Clara City Charter Section 800, et seq., Government Code Section 36506 as applicable, and Santa Clara City Code 2.15.010. Such appointment and employment shall be effective on May 1, 2023 (“Effective Date”) and shall continue until such time as this Agreement is terminated by either party.

2. Duties of the City Manager. Employee shall perform the duties established for the City Manager by the Charter, the Santa Clara City Code, governing documents for City- related entities, and the City Council, and by any applicable law, ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation including, without limitation, as reflected in the description of duties for

301447.14
the City Manager position, attached hereto as Exhibit E and hereby incorporated by reference.

2.1. Full Energy and Skill. Employee shall devote their full energy, skill, ability, and productive time to the performance of the "Duties of the City Manager" referenced herein.

2.2. Council-Employee Relations. City and Employee acknowledge that an excellent City Council-Employee relationship is in the best interest of the City and accordingly each agrees to use best efforts to foster City Council-Employee communications.

2.3. Conflict. Employee shall not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conflict with, inimical to, or which interferes with the performance of the "Duties of the City Manager" described herein. Employee acknowledges that they are subject to and will abide by the various conflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and other applicable state and local policies and regulations concerning conflicts of interest.

2.4. Code of Ethics and Values. Employee shall adhere to the City of Santa Clara's Code of Ethics and Values, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

2.5. Permission Required For Outside Activities. Employee shall not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, without the express, written consent of the Mayor or other Council member designated by City Council. Charitable or religious engagements that do not conflict with the duties of the City Manager are not a violation of Section 2.5.

2.6. Professional Activities.
(a) During Employee's appointment as City Manager, Employee is expressly authorized to participate in professional activities, including but not limited to meetings, conferences, and other events conducted or sponsored by any professional organizations related to their work responsibilities as City Manager, including responsibilities identified in the Section, provided that their ability to perform the "Duties of the City Manager" described herein is not compromised.
(b) Employee shall be paid regular salary and benefits while traveling to, attending, or participating in professional activities, and shall be entitled to expense advances in accordance with City policy applicable to other Council-appointed officers. Subject to annual appropriation and any limitations in the City travel policy attached hereto as Exhibit D (City Manager’s Directive 028 Travel Policy, hereinafter “Policy”), Employee is

301447.14
entitled to reimbursement for the actual costs of the following expense categories that they incur as a result of the Professional Activities authorized in this Section: membership fees, airfare, rental car (if necessary), conference fees and lodging, in accordance with the City's policy.
(c) To the extent the Policy vests authority in an employee’s supervisor, the City Manager or designee, such authority shall be vested in the Mayor or other council member designated by City Council. Employee shall inform and receive advance written permission by e-mail from the Mayor or other council member designated by the City Council in advance of absences of more than one day related to such Professional Activities. (d) The City Manager may not change any terms of the Policy that are applicable to them without the express, advance approval of the City Council. The City Manager maintains discretion to approve modifications of this Policy as applicable to other City employees.

2.7. Other Roles. Employee shall also serve as Contract Administrator for the Sports & Open Space Authority, Executive Director for the Housing Authority, Chief Executive Officer of the Stadium Authority, Staff Chair for the Economic Development Team, Executive Director for the Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority, and Executive Director for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency.

3. Compensation. While performing the duties of City Manager, Employee shall be compensated as provided in this Section.

3.1. Salary. Employee shall receive an annual salary of Four Hundred and Five Thousand and Fifty-Six Dollars, and Forty Cents ($405,056.40), less all authorized and appropriate deductions and withholdings, payable in pro-rata increments on regular City paydays, commencing on the first day of employment.

3.2. Adjustments.
(a) Employee shall receive a two percent (2.0%) Cost of Living Adjustment (“COLA”) to their Base Salary, effective the first regular pay period in 2024.
(b) Prior to the first regular pay period in 2024, and in conjunction with Employee’s annual performance appraisal (see Section 4 below), the City Council will meet with the Employee for the express purpose of determining, in its sole discretion, whether to grant Employee a merit- based salary adjustment, in an amount deemed appropriate by the City Council and otherwise permitted by law. This merit-based salary adjustment would be in addition to the COLA identified in Section 3.2, subsection (a) above.
(c) Following January 30, 2024, Council will, in its sole discretion, determine whether to provide Employee with any additional base salary or other compensation adjustments. Council will make such determinations in

301447.14
conjunction with Employee’s annual performance appraisal (see Section 4 below) or at any other time that Council, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate. Any adjustments made pursuant to this subsection shall be memorialized in writing as an amendment to this Agreement and shall be approved by the City Council in open session.

3.3. Benefits and Allowances.
(a) Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, Employee will be eligible for, and shall receive, the benefits provided in the following identified sections of the Miscellaneous Unclassified Employees Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) for Unit 9 as of May 1, 2023. To the extent these sections vest authority in a Unit 9 member’s supervisor, Department Head, City Manager or designee, such authority shall vest to the Mayor or other Council member designated by City Council.
i. Section 2 – California Public Employees’ Retirement
System
ii. Section 4 – Holidays
iii. Section 6 – Vacation Accrual and Usage
iv. Section 7 – Health Insurance
v. Section 8 – Dental Insurance
vi. Section 9 – Vision Insurance
vii. Section 10 – Long Term Disability
viii. Section 11 – Life Insurance
ix. Section 12 – Automobile Allowance
x. Section 13 – Mobile Communication Device Allowance
xi. Section 16 – Sick Leave/Family Sick Leave/Personal
Leave
xii. Section 17 – Bereavement Leave
xiii. Section 19 – Retiree Medical Reimbursement Benefit xiv. Section 24 – Industrial Injury/Continuation of Insurance Benefits While on Workers’ Compensation
xv. Section 25 – Management Leave Program
xvi. Section 26 – Flexible Spending Plan
(b) In the event a successor MOU includes a change to any of the sections enumerated above, the City Council shall, in its discretion, determine the extent to which such changes are applicable to Employee.

301447.14
(c) Entitlement to any and all benefits provided under this Section 3.3 shall cease immediately upon termination of employment, excluding health benefits provided as Severance pursuant to Section 6.1. (d) A copy of the MOU is attached as Exhibit B and the provisions enumerated in Section 3.3 subsection (a) are incorporated herein. No side letters to the MOU (including but not limited to the Side Letters executed between the City and Unit 9 regarding Amendment to the December 15, 2019 – December 30, 2024 Memorandum of
Understanding (“MOU”) dated September 8, 2022 and Use of Compensatory Time Off (“CTO”) dated November 4, 2020) shall be applicable to Employee.

3.4. Deferred Compensation. Employee may participate in ICMA-RC for deferred compensation programs. The City shall contribute Eight Thousand, Six Hundred Dollars and Zero Cents ($8,600.00) annually, prorated and contributed on the City’s normal paydays, to a 457 or a 401(a) retirement plan account established for Employee. Employee will make any additional contributions required under the plan, if any, and may make additional voluntary contributions, if permitted.

3.5. Vacation. MOU Section 6 shall govern the terms and conditions related to Employee’s use of vacation during their tenure with the City, unless expressly stated otherwise in this Agreement. Section 6, subsection (A) of the MOU [vacation within the first 6 months of employment] and subsection (E) of the MOU [Maximum Vacation Accrual Limit] are not applicable to Employee. (a) Effective the first day of employment, Employee will have a vacation bank of 120 hours.
(b) Employee shall accrue vacation at the rate and be subject to a maximum accrual as specified in Section 6 of the Unit 9 MOU as of May 1, 2023 as though Employee has completed ten (10) years of service with the City.

In the event a successor MOU includes a change to the specified accrual rate or maximum accrual, the City Council shall, in its discretion, determine the extent to which such change applies to Employee. (c) Employee shall seek and obtain advance approval from the Mayor or other Council member designated by City Council to use vacation time.

3.6. Sick Leave. MOU Section 16 [Sick Leave/Family Sick Leave/Personal Leave] shall govern the terms and conditions related to Employee’s use of such leaves during their tenure with the City, unless expressly stated otherwise in this Agreement. Effective the first day of employment, Employee will have a sick leave bank of 120 hours.

3.7. Management Leave. MOU Section 25 [Management Leave] shall govern the terms and conditions related to Employee’s use of management leave during their tenure with the City, unless expressly stated otherwise in this Agreement.

Employee shall not be entitled to management leave until their one-year anniversary date of employment, at which time they will be credited 120 hours in

301447.14
their management leave bank. This term expressly supersedes subsections (A) and (B) of Section 25 of the MOU.

3.8. Automobile Allowance. MOU Section 12 [Automobile Allowance] shall govern the terms and conditions related to Employee’s use of the automobile allowance program, unless expressly stated otherwise in this Agreement. Employee shall be entitled to a monthly automobile allowance of Five Hundred and Twenty Dollars and Zero Cents ($520.00).

3.9. Past Practices. No past practices or benefits previously provided to the City Manager position or past practices or benefits provided to any other City position shall be applicable unless specifically incorporated and approved in this agreement.

4. Performance Appraisal. The City Council shall make best efforts to undertake a performance appraisal of the Employee at least every twelve (12) months following the Employee’s original date of hire. The City Council may conduct performance appraisals more frequently in its sole discretion.

5. Additional Expenses of Employment. The City shall pay the costs of any fidelity or other bonds required by law for Employee.

6. Termination, Resignation and Severance Pay. Removal of Employee shall conform to the requirements of Charter section 806. Employee understands and agrees that they have no constitutionally protected property or other interest in continued employment as City Manager. Employee understands that notwithstanding any other applicable laws, resolutions, and policies, they have no right to pre-or-post-disciplinary due process.

Employee further understands and agrees that they work at the will and pleasure of the City Council and that they may be terminated at any time, with or without Cause (as defined below).

6.1. No Cause Termination. In the event that Employee’s employment as City Manager is Terminated (as defined below) for no reason or for any reason other than as set forth in Sections 6.2 and 6.6 below and Employee signs, does not revoke, and delivers to the City Council a general and full release of all claims substantially in the form attached as Exhibit C (Severance and Release Agreement), which may be amended as required by law to effectuate a full and complete release, on or after Employee’s termination date but no later than the date set by the City Council at the time of termination in accordance with applicable law, City shall provide the following severance benefits (“Severance”):
(a) If Employee is Terminated before November 1, 2023, City shall pay Employee a severance amount equal to six (6) months’ base salary and shall pay for continued health benefits (medical, dental, and vision) for Employee and any dependents enrolled during employment for six (6) months or until Employee secures health benefits through another source, whichever comes first.
(b) If Employee is Terminated between November 2, 2023 and January 1, 2024, City shall pay Employee a severance amount equal to eight (8)

301447.14
months’ base salary and shall pay for continued health benefits (medical, dental, and vision) for Employee and any dependents enrolled during employment for eight (8) months or until Employee secures health benefits through another source, whichever comes first. (c) If Employee is Terminated January 2, 2024, or after, City shall pay Employee a severance amount equal to ten (10) months’ base salary and shall pay for continued health benefits (medical, dental, and vision) for Employee and any dependents enrolled during employment for ten (10) months or until Employee secures health benefits through another source, whichever comes first.
(d) The parties understand and agree that any severance-related payments through the City’s payroll system and/or on its payroll schedule shall not constitute continued employment for any purpose nor shall they entitle Employee to any benefits beyond those set forth in this Section 6.1. (e) Severance shall include only the cash payments and health benefits described in this Section.
(f) For purposes of this Section, “Terminated” shall mean any of the following:
i. The City Council ends the employment relationship; or ii. Employee resigns after the City Council requests
Employee’s resignation.
(g) The City shall, in its discretion, decide whether to issue the severance amount and the continued health benefits as either a lump-sum cash payment and direct payment of Employee’s COBRA costs for the continued health benefits period, or to issue severance-related payments through the City’s payroll system and/or its payroll schedule and maintain the Employee and eligible dependents on the City’s health insurance plan during the continued health benefits period. For purposes of this subsection, “continued health benefits period” refers to the duration for which the Employee and eligible dependents shall receive health insurance benefits pursuant to either subsection (a), (b), or (c) of Section

6.1. If the City decides to issue severance-related payments through the City’s payroll system, the City shall convert remaining non-health related payments to a lump-sum cash payment if requested by the Employee and necessary for the Employee to obtain employment elsewhere.

6.2. For Cause Termination. Notwithstanding Section 6.1 above, City shall not be obligated to pay, and shall not pay, any amounts or continue any benefits under the provisions of Section 6.1 if Employee is terminated for Cause. Cause shall be defined as any of the following:
(a) Conviction of or a plea of nolo contendere to a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, breach of trust, abuse of position, or unethical conduct;

301447.14
(b) Material willful misconduct, material or willful gross neglect, fraud, misappropriation, embezzlement, theft, or dishonesty;
(c) Willful or repeated failure, for reasons other than disability, to devote substantially all of Employee’s business time and effort to the City; or (d) Violation of the City’s Code of Ethics and Values (Exhibit A).

6.3. Abuse of Office or Position. If Employee is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of their office or position, or moral turpitude, all of the following shall apply:
(a) If Employee is provided with paid administrative leave pending an investigation, Employee shall be required to fully reimburse City such amounts paid;
(b) If City pays for the criminal legal defense of Employee (which would be in its sole discretion, as it is generally not obligated to pay for criminal defense), Employee shall be required to fully reimburse City such amounts paid; and
(c) Any severance benefits not yet paid to Employee shall be forfeited.

For purposes of this Section, abuse of office or position means either an abuse of public authority, including waste, fraud, misappropriation of funds, or other illegal fiscal practices, violation of the law under color of authority, or a crime against public justice.

6.4. Resignation. Employee shall provide at least sixty (60) days’ written notice to City in the event Employee voluntarily resigns or retires. This notice requirement may be waived by the City in its sole discretion. Except as provided in Section

6.1 subsection (f), in the event Employee voluntarily retires or resigns their position, Employee shall be entitled only to earned but unpaid base salary, accrued but unpaid expenses required to be reimbursed, and any vacation accrued through the date of separation from employment.

6.5. Death of Employee. If, during the Term or any extended Term, Employee dies, Employee’s estate shall receive outstanding wages and accrued vacation, but shall not be entitled to any additional compensation or payment, including Severance.

6.6. Medical Separation. Subject to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, in the event Employee is unable to perform the duties of City Manager, because of sickness, accident, injury, or mental or physical incapacity for a period exceeding any provided sick leave pursuant to this Agreement or other legally mandated leave, City may terminate Employee's employment and this Agreement without penalty or Severance.

6.7. Elections. City Council shall take no action to terminate Employee without Cause within ninety (90) days before and after the seating of a new member following any election in which one or more new members are elected to the City Council.

This Section does not apply if Employee is terminated for a reason set forth in

301447.14
Sections 6.2 and 6.6. There is no express or implied promise made to Employee for any form of continued employment. Employee shall have no right to a termination hearing other than as provided in the Charter.

6.8. State Law. This Agreement is subject to California Government Code section 53260 et seq. Government Code section 53260 subdivision (a) provides:

All contracts of employment between an employee and a
local agency employer shall include a provision that
provides that regardless of the term of the contract, if the contract is terminated, the maximum cash settlement that an employee may receive shall be an amount equal to the monthly salary of the employee multiplied by the number of months left on the unexpired term of the contract, with the following exceptions:
(1) If the unexpired term of the contract is greater than 18 months, the maximum cash settlement shall be an amount
equal to the monthly salary of the employee multiplied by

18. (2) In the case of a district superintendent of schools, for contracts of employment executed on or after January 1, 2016, the maximum cash settlement shall be an amount
equal to the monthly salary of the employee multiplied by

12. This Agreement has no set term. This Section 6.8 in no way modifies the term of this Agreement.

7. Miscellaneous.

7.1. Indemnity. In accordance with and to the extent provided by the California Tort Claims Act (Government Code sections 825, et seq.) and Government Code sections 995-996.5, the City shall defend and indemnify Employee against and for all losses sustained by the Employee in direct consequence of the discharge of the Employee's duties on the City's behalf for the period of the Employee's employment. This Section shall be equally applicable to each City related entity as though set forth in an indemnity agreement between the Employee and that legal entity. The City hereby guarantees the performance of this indemnity obligation by the City related entity and shall indemnify and hold the Employee harmless against any failure or refusal by the City related entity to perform its obligations under this Section. Further, if the City provides funds for legal criminal defense pursuant to this Section and the terms of the Government Code, Employee shall reimburse the City for such legal criminal defense funds if Employee is convicted of a crime involving an abuse of office or position, as provided by Government Code Sections 53243-53243.4. This Section shall survive termination of the Agreement.

301447.14

7.2. Notices. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either:
(a) served personally; or
(b) delivered by first class United States mail, certified, with postage prepaid and a return receipt requested; or
(c) sent by Federal Express, or some equivalent private mail delivery service.

Notices shall be deemed received at the earlier of actual receipt or three (3) days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be directed to the addresses shown below, provided that a party may change such party's address for notice by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with this Section.

For City: Attention: Mayor
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050

For Employee: Jovan D. Grogan
Address on file with the City

7.3. Entire Agreement/Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to those matters contained in it, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations, and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in writing, dated and signed by the parties, approved by the City Council, and attached hereto.

7.4. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

7.5. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared void, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in effect, unless the result of such severance would be to substantially alter this Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agreement shall be immediately terminated.

7.6. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict compliance with any term, undertaking or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, undertaking or condition. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties.

7.7. Representation by Counsel. Employee and City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their

301447.14
respective choices with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement prior to executing it.

7.8. Section Headings. The headings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for the convenience of the parties only and do not limit or expand the contents or any such section or subsection.

The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Employment Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives . It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date first set forth above.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
a chartered California municipal corporation

___________________________
LISA M. GILLMOR
Mayor

______________________
JOVAN D. GROGAN
Employee

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________

JENICA MALDONADO
Renne Public Law Group

ATTEST:

___________________________

NORA PIMENTEL
City Clerk

Attachments:

Exhibit A - City of Santa Clara's Code of Ethics and Values Exhibit B - Miscellaneous Unclassified Employees Unit 9 Memorandum of Understanding Exhibit C - Severance and Release Agreement
Exhibit D - City Manager’s Directive 028 Travel Policy
Exhibit E - Description of Duties

301447.15

EXHIBIT A
City of Santa Clara’s Code of Ethics and Values

Attachment A
Santa Clara
hOd
r~iP
2001

PREAMBLE
City of Santa Clara, CA
Code of Ethics and Values
CMD NUMBER 67
The proper operation of democratic government requires that decision-makers be independent, impartial , and accountable to the people they serve. The City of Santa Clara has adopted this Code of Ethics and Values to promote and maintain the highest standards of personal and professional conduct in the City's government. All elected and appointed officials, City employees, volunteers, and others who participate in the city's government are required to subscribe to this Code, understand how it applies to their specific responsibilities, and practice its eight core values in their work. Because we seek public confidence in the City's services and public trust of its decision-makers, our decisions and our work must meet the most demanding ethical standards and demonstrate the highest levels of achievement in following this code.

1. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be ethical.

In practice, this value looks like:
a.) I am trustworthy, acting with the utmost integrity and moral courage. b.) I am truthful, do what I say I will do, and am dependable. c.) I make impartial decisions , free of bribes, unlawful gifts , narrow political interests , and financial and other personal interests that impair my independence of judgment or action. d .) I am fair, distributing benefits and burdens according to consistent and equitable criteria. e.) I extend equal opportunities and due process to all parties in matters under considerat ion. If I engage in unilateral meetings and discussions, I do so without making voting decisions. f.) I show respect for persons, confidences , and information designated as "confidential. " g .) I use my title(s) only when conducting official City business , for information purposes, or as an indication of background and expertise, carefully considering whether I am exceeding or appearing to exceed my authority.

2. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be professional.

In practice, this value looks like:
a.) I apply my knowledge and expertise to my assigned activities and to the interpersonal relationships that are part of my job in a consistent, confident, competent , and productive manner .
b.) I approach my job and work-related relationships with a positive attitude. c.) I keep my professional knowledge and skills current and growing.

3. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be service-oriented.

In practice, this value looks like:
a.) I provide friendly, receptive, courteous service to everyone. b.) I am attuned to, and care about, the needs and issues of citizens, public officials, and city workers .

Attachment A CMD NUMBER 67
c.) In my interactions with constituents , I am interested , engaged , and responsive .

4. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be fiscally responsible In practice, this value looks like:
a.) I make decisions after prudent consideration of their financial impact , taking into account the long-term financial needs of the City, especially its financial stability. b.) I demonstrate concern for the proper use of City assets (e.g., personnel, time, property , equipment , funds) and follow established procedures.
c.) I make good financial decisions that seek to preserve programs and services for City residents.

5. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be organized.

In practice, this value looks like:
a.) I act in an efficient manner , making decisions and recommendations based upon research and facts, taking into consideration short and long term goals. b.) I follow through in a responsible way, keeping others informed, and responding in a timely fashion .
c.) I am respectful of established City processes and guidelines.

6. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be communicative .

In practice, this value looks like:
a.) I convey the City's care for and commitment to its citizens. b.) I communicate in various ways that I am approachable, open-minded and willing to participate in dialog.
c.) I engage in effective two-way communication , by listening carefully, asking questions , and determining an appropriate response which adds value to conversations .

7. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be collaborative.

In practice, this value looks like:
a.) I act in a cooperative manner with groups and other individuals , working together in a spirit of tolerance and understanding.
b.) I work towards consensus building and gain value from diverse opinions. c.) I accomplish the goals and responsibilities of my individual position, while respecting my role as a member of a team .
d.) I consider the broader regional and State-wide implications of the City's decisions and issues.

8. As a Representative of the City of Santa Clara, I will be progressive .

In practice, this value looks like:
a.) I exhibit a proactive , innovative approach to setting goals and conducting the City's business. b.) I display a style that maintains consistent standards, but is also sensitive to the need for compromise , "thinking outside the box," and improving existing paradigms when necessary . c.) I promote intelligent and thoughtful innovation in order to forward the City's policy agenda and City services .

Attachment A CMD NUMBER 67
Approved by City Council on April 4, 2000; modified by Council on August 21, 200 I

301447.15

EXHIBIT B
Miscellaneous Unclassified Employees Unit 9
Memorandum of Understanding

MEMORANDUM OF

UNDERSTANDING
between

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
and

MISCELLANEOUS UNCLASSIFIED

MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES
UNIT 9

DECEMBER 15, 2019 - DECEMBER 31, 2024

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
between

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
and
MISCELLANEOUS UNCLASSIFIED MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES, UNIT #9 DECEMBER 15, 2019 - DECEMBER 31, 2024
Table of Contents

1. WAGE ADJUSTMENTS .......................................................................................... 4

2. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREME NT SYSTEM .............................. 5

3. APPLICATION OF MOU TO REIMBURSED SERVICES ........................................ 5

4. HOLIDAYS .............................................................................................................. 5

5. JOB SECURITY ...................................................................................................... 6

6. VACATION ACCRUAL AND USAGE ....................................................................... 6

7. HEALTH INSURANCE ............................................................................................ 7

8. DENTAL INSURANCE .......................................................................................... 11

9. VISION INSURANCE ............................................................................................ 11

10. LONG TERM DISABILITY ..................................................................................... 12

11. LIFE INSURANCE ................................................................................................. 12

12. AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE ................................................................................ 12

13. MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE ALLOWANCE ............................................ 13

14. MERIT PAY/SALARY ADJUSTMENT SYSTEM .................................................... 13

15. EMERGENCY PAID LEAVE PROGRAM ............................................................... 15

16. SICK LEAVE/FAMILY SICK LEAVE/PERSONAL LEAVE ...................................... 16

17. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE ....................................................................................... 17

18. VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION (VEBA) ...................... 18

19. RETIREE MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT BENEFIT .............................................. 18

20. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ................................................................ 18

21. CHANGES TO JOB DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................... 19

22. LIMITED/ALTERNATIVE DUTY ............................................................................ 19

23. REDUCED WORK WEEK VOLUNTAR Y TIME OFF (VTO) PROGRAM ............... 20

24. INDUSTRIAL INJURY/CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE BENEFITS WHILE ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION ............................................................................. 21

25. MANAGEMENT L EAVE PROGRAM ..................................................................... 21

26. FLEXIBLE SPENDING PLAN (INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 125) ...... 22

27. DOMESTIC PARTNERS ....................................................................................... 22

28. PAY PERIOD S ...................................................................................................... 23

30. DECLARATION ..................................................................................................... 23

31. NEXT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING .................................................... 23 APPENDIX A: MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE PROGRAM ................................ 25

SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT - USE OF COMPENSATORY TIME OFF (CTO)

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING — UNIT #9 (2019-2024)
Alphabetical Table of Contents
APPENDIX A: MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE PROGRAM ................................ 25 APPLICATION OF MOU TO REIMBURSED SERVICES ................................................ 5 AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE ....................................................................................... 12 BEREAVEMENT LEAVE .............................................................................................. 17 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ...................................... 5 CHANGES TO JOB DESCRIPTIONS ........................................................................... 19 DENTAL INSURANCE .................................................................................................. 11 DECLARATION ............................................................................................................ 23 DOMESTIC PARTNERS ............................................................................................... 22 EMERGENCY PAID LEAVE PROGRAM ...................................................................... 15 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ........................................................................ 18 FLEXIBLE SPENDING PLAN (INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 125) .............. 22 HEALTH INSURANCE .................................................................................................... 7 HOLIDAYS ...................................................................................................................... 5

INDUSTRIAL INJURY/CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE BENEFITS WHILE ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION ..................................................................................... 21 JOB SECURITY .............................................................................................................. 6 LIFE INSURANCE ........................................................................................................ 12 LIMITED/ALTERNATIVE DUTY .................................................................................... 19 LONG TERM DISABILITY ............................................................................................. 12 MANAGEMENT LEAVE PROGRAM ............................................................................. 21 MERIT PAY/SALARY ADJUSTMENT SYSTEM ........................................................... 13 MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE ALLOWANCE ................................................... 13 NEXT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ........................................................... 23 PAY PERIODS .............................................................................................................. 23 REDUCED WORK WEEK/VOLUNTARY TIME OFF (VTO) PROGRAM ....................... 20 RETIREE MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT BENEFIT ...................................................... 18 SICK LEAVE/FAMILY SICK LEAVE/PERSONAL LEAVE ................................ ............. 16 VACATION ACCRUAL AND USAGE .............................................................................. 6 VISION INSURANCE .................................................................................................... 11 VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEE BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION (VEBA) ............................. 18 WAGE ADJUSTMENTS .................................................................................................. 4

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
between

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
and
MISCELLANEOUS UNCLASSIFIED MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES, UNIT #9 DECEMBER 15, 2019 - DECEMBER 31, 2024

In accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the City of Santa Clara Resolution #2979, entitled "Employer-Employee Relations", this Memorandum of Understanding constitutes the results of discussions between designated representatives of the City Management Staff (City) and the Miscellaneous Unclassified Management Employees of the City of Santa Clara (Unit 9) on all matters within the scope of representation. The term of this Agreement shall be from December 15, 2019 through December 31, 2024.

1. WAGE ADJUSTMENTS

A. Effective December 15, 2019, all salary ranges for employees holding positions in classifications assigned to Unit 9 shall remain status quo.

B. Effective the first pay period of calendar year 2021, all salary ranges for employees holding positions in classifications assigned to Unit 9 shall remain status quo.

C. Effective the first pay period of calendar year 2022, all salary ranges for employees holding positions in classifications assigned to Unit 9 shall be increased by approximately 4.5%.

D. Effective the first pay period of calendar year 2023, all salary ranges for employees holding positions in classifications assigned to Unit 9 shall be increased by approximately 3.25%.

E. Effective the first pay period of calendar year 2024, all salary ranges for employees holding positions in classifications assigned to Unit 9 shall be increased by approximately 3.25%.

F. During the term of this Agreement, the parties agree that the MOU will reopen on the issue of wages if either of the following occurs:

1) The total annual calendar year General Fund Transient Occupancy Tax (or “TOT”) revenues remitted to the City and allocated to any of the calendar years covered by this Agreement Equal or surpass the City’s actual total TOT revenues from March 1, 2018 to February 28, 2019. After calendar year 2022, the TOT revenues remitted to the City shall be adjusted to normalize for any potential change in the TOT rate if passed by voters on the ballot for purposes of this section; OR

2) Forecasted General Fund deficits remain above $20 million ongoing, as reflected in updated or revised Ten-Year General Fund Forecasts released after July 1, 2021.

The City agrees to provide an update on the City’s TOT revenues to the Association upon the Association’s request. In the event either of the foregoing occur, either party may request to meet to discuss the subject of wages. Any changes will be by mutual agreement. The parties understand and agree that this will not be a meet and confer within the meaning of section 3505 of the MMBA and that neither party will have access to any impasse resolution procedure except as mutually agreed.

G. The parties agree to meet and confer over wages in the event the City reaches agreement on a new general wage increase to be effective during Calendar Year 2021 or 2022 with any other miscellaneous bargaining unit as part of an agreement on a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). For purposes of this section, “general wage increase” means a wage increase applicable to all members of the bargaining unit (not a subset), but only if that agreement does not also include an agreement for an alternative cost saving measure (including but not limited to unpaid furlough days). Additionally, the parties agree that this section shall not apply to any general wage increases applicable to sworn public safety bargaining units or to miscellaneous bargaining units that are exclusively funded through sources other than the General Fund.

2. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
The City has contracted with CalPERS to provide employees with the 2.7% at age 55 formula with "highest single year" effective December 17, 2006 for "Classic" or "Legacy" employees as defined by CalPERS and the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) and the 2.0% at 62 with "highest three year average" for "New Members" as defined by CalPERS and PEPRA. Classic/Legacy employees shall continue to pay the employee contribution rate and New Members shall contribute 50% of the "normal cost" of their pension formula as required and defined by CalPERS and PEPRA. The employee's CalPERS retirement contribution will continue to be treated as tax deferred.

3. APPLICATION OF MOU TO REIMBURSED SERVICES
The terms of this Memorandum of Understanding shall not apply to Unclassified Management Employees when such employees are providing their services to another agency that is reimbursing the City of Santa Clara for salary and fringe benefits of such employees. Such arrangements shall be mutually agreed upon between the employee and the City.

4. HOLIDAYS
A. Employees shall be provided 13 annual paid holidays (computed on the eight hour per day pay rate). Any additional permanent holidays designated by the City Council will be afforded represented employees of Unit 9. Additional permanent holidays under this section shall be defined as a holiday on which City offices are closed.

B. Additionally, effective December 2020, the City shall provide 32 hours for four additional paid holidays between December 25
th and January 1st of
the following calendar year. If there are more than four working days between December 25
th and January 1st of the following calendar year,

the City shall designate which four working days shall be paid holidays under this paragraph. Employees whose jobs require them to work on these days would receive banked paid hours off instead (up to 8 hours per holiday), which hours may and must be used during the applicable MOU year with the approval of the applicable supervisor/manager.

5. JOB SECURITY
Represented members will be compensated at the rate of forty (40) hours salary per year of service to a maximum of six hundred and forty (640) hours should they be terminated from employment for reasons other than cause as defined under Section 6.4 of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

6. VACATION ACCRUAL AND USAGE

Represented employees will be entitled to use vacation as it is earned under the following conditions:

A. Vacation may not be taken during the first 6 months of regular employment.

B. Vacation will be earned on a bi-weekly basis (1/26 of the yearly accrual) provided that the employee is in a paid
status for at least 2/3 of the hours (53.4
hours) of that pay period.

C. Accrued vacation time will be paid off regardless of term of employment.

D. Annual and maximum vacation accrual rates, calculated to four decimal points for accuracy, are as follows:

COMPLETED

YEARS OF SERVICE
ANNUAL

ACCRUAL

MAXIMUM VACATION

ACCRUAL LIMIT
1 through 4 80 hours 480 hours
5 through 9 120 hours 480 hours
10 through 15 168 hours 480 hours
16 through 20 176 hours 480 hours
21 years + 192 hours 480 hours
E. Maximum Vacation Accrual Limit – Employees are limited to the maximum accrual of vacation as defined. The current vacation balance, the annual accrual and the current pay period usage are all shown on the employees' pay check stub and are the responsibility of the employee to track for compliance with this provision.

1) Effective December 27, 2020 (the first pay period of calendar year 2021), the Maximum Vacation Accrual Limit as described in Section

6.D above shall be temporarily suspended for two (2) years until the end of the last pay period of calendar year 2022. Employees may continue to accrue vacation above the Maximum Vacation Accrual

Limit until December 24, 2022 (the end of the last pay period of calendar year 2022).

2) Effective December 25, 2022 (the first pay period of calendar year 2023), employees shall not be allowed to accrue vacation above the Maximum Vacation Accrual Limit.

3) Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual – Effective December 25, 2022 (the first pay period of calendar year 2023), employees holding positions in classifications assigned to Unit 9 shall be eligible for the Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual. The Temporary
Supplemental Vacation Accrual is a separate vacation balance subject to the following:

(a) Effective December 25, 2022, all unused accrued vacation hours above 400 hours as of December 24, 2022 (the last pay period of calendar year 2022) shall be placed in the
Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual balance.

(i) The following is only an example of the Temporary
Supplemental Vacation Accrual described above, and
any figures are for illustration purposes only and
assumes the employee does not use vacation.

Issue Hours
Vacation Balance as of December 24, 2022
(the last pay period of calendar year 2022)
500
Hours to be placed in
Temporar
y Supplemental Vacation Accrual
100
Vacation Balance as of December 25, 2022
(the first pay period of calendar year 2023)
400
Hours that can be accrued in
calendar year 2023
80 Hours that can be accrued above the
Maximum Vacation Accrual Limit of 480 hours
0 (b) The Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual balance may not be increased.

(c) Subject to supervisory approval, any Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual shall be available for use to the employee until the Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual balance has been exhausted.

(d) If an employee leaves or retires from City service, any unused Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual hours shall not be subject to the terms of Section 6.I below. Any accrued but unused Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual hours will be cashed out upon the employee’s retirement or other separation from City service. If permitted by the City’s deferred compensation plan and applicable law, the separating employee may elect to contribute all or a portion of their accrued but unused Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual hours to their deferred compensation account by

submitting a written request no later than 30 days prior to their separation from City service.

(e) An employee must first use their Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual for any vacation leave taken until the Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual balance has been exhausted, subject to supervisory approval.

(f) An employee must use their Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual for any leave of absence until the Temporary
Supplemental Vacation Accrual balance has been exhausted subject to any requirement that sick leave be utilized first.

(g) An employee may not be on unpaid status until the Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual balance has been exhausted and must use their Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual until the Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual balance has been exhausted, with the exception of any formal disciplinary action pursuant to the City’s Civil Service Rules.

F. Vacation may be used in one-tenth (1/10th) hour increments.

G. Employees who begin work prior to July 1st or continue to be employed after the first calendar year of employment are required to use at least one-half of the vacation accrued during the prior calendar year during the current calendar year.

H. Subject to having a sufficient balance of accrued vacation available, an employee may, on a twice per year basis, request to be paid at his/her current hourly pay rate for a total combined maximum of 80 hours of accrued vacation.

I. In lieu of receiving a vacation-leave cash payout at retirement, the Miscellaneous Unclassified Management Employees may vote to roll accrued vacation leave hours (except for any hours in the Temporary Supplemental Vacation Accrual balance) into the employee's VEBA account, subject to Association compliance with Federal rules associated with employee contributions of vacation leave to their VEBA accounts.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE
A. For employees who enroll in a City offered health plan and whose benefits exceed the total of the City’s Health Flex Contribution, Additional Health Flex Contribution, and/or Regular Flex Contribution applicable to the employee and as described below, the balance of the benefits shall be paid by a salary deduction from the pay of the individual employee.

B. Health Flex Contribution
1) The City offers full-time employees a Health Flex Contribution to put toward the payment of a City offered health plan. The City shall modify the Health Flex Contribution each calendar year using the Rate of Pay Safe Harbor (based on the lowest base pay of any full- time position covered by this MOU) to ensure the City’s offered

coverage is “affordable.” The City contributes the statutorily required minimum contribution under the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) as determined by CalPERS in each calendar year. It is understood and agreed that the Health Flex Contribution described in this paragraph shall be equal to or exceed the City’s statutorily required minimum PEMHCA contribution.1 2) Employees may not receive all or any portion of the Health Flex Contribution as cash or any other taxable benefit, and must apply the Health Flex Contribution to City-offered health benefits. Employees who do not enroll in City-offered health benefits will not receive any of the Health Flex Contributions.

C. Additional Health Flex Contribution
1) Full-time employees who enroll in a City health plan for which the premium amount is more than $946.86/month shall receive an Additional Health Flex Contribution in the amounts described in this section.
2) Employees may not receive all or any portion of the Additional Health Flex Contribution as cash or any other taxable benefit, and must apply the Additional Health Flex Contribution to City-offered health benefits.

Employees who do not enroll in City-offered health benefits will not receive any of the Additional Health Flex Contributions. 3) Effective January 1, 2020, full-time employees who enroll in a City health plan for which the premium amount is more than
$946.86/month shall receive an Additional Health Flex
Contribution. The Additional Health Flex Contribution, when added to the Health Flex Contribution described in the prior section and the Regular Flex Contribution described herein, shall not exceed $200 per month over the Kaiser employee only premium amount for the applicable year.
2 4) Effective January 1, 2023, full-time employees:

(a) Who enroll in a City health plan for Employee Only coverage for which the premium amount is more than $946.86/month shall receive an Additional Health Flex Contribution to be put towards the premium amount. The City will provide an Additional Health Flex Contribution amount that, when added to the Health Flex Contribution described above and the Regular Flex Contribution described herein, shall not exceed $200 per month over the Kaiser employee only premium amount for the applicable year.

(b) Who enroll in a City health plan for Employee Plus One coverage or Employee Plus Family coverage for which the premium amount

1 As an example, for 2020, the PEMHCA minimum is approximately $139/month and the Health Flex Contribution is $139.00/month, which includes the PEMHCA minimum of $139/month.
2 As an example, for 2020, the Additional Health Flex Contribution is approximately $23.70/month to these individuals since $200 over the Kaiser employee only premium amount in 2020 is approximately $970.56/month.

is more than $946.86/month shall receive an Additional Health Flex Contribution to be put towards the premium amount. The Additional Health Flex Contribution, when added to the Health Flex Contribution described above and the Regular Flex
Contribution described herein, shall not exceed an amount equal to 100% of the Kaiser Employee Plus One rate for the applicable year.

D. Regular Flex Contribution
1) The City will provide full-time employees a Regular Flex Contribution equal to $946.86 less the Health Flex Contribution.
3 Employees may
use the Regular Flex Contribution to pay for health benefits offered under the City’s Section 125 plan or may opt to receive any or all of the Regular Flex Contribution as taxable cash. An employee will receive a Regular Flex Contribution whether or not he/she enrolls in City-offered health benefits and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7.E. below.
2) Employees hired or rehired on or after January 1, 2023, who choose not to enroll in a City health plan are not eligible for a Regular Flex Contribution.

E. Cash In Lieu
1) Full-time employees hired before January 1, 2023, who choose not to enroll in a City health plan for a plan year, and meet the requirements set forth below shall receive a Cash in Lieu amount per month for that plan year equal to $946.86 minus the Regular Flex Contribution as calculated each calendar year.
4 A full-time employee hired before
January 1, 2023, who enrolls in coverage for a plan year, shall be treated in accordance with Sections 7.A-D and will not receive Cash in Lieu for that plan year.
2) Full-time employees hired or rehired on or after January 1, 2023, who choose not to enroll in a City health plan for a plan year, and meet the requirements set forth below, shall receive a Cash in Lieu amount for that plan year equal to $250/month. A full-time employee hired on or after January 1, 2023, who enrolls in coverage for a plan year, shall be treated in accordance with Sections 7.A-D and will not receive Cash in Lieu for that plan year.
3) In order to receive Cash in Lieu of health coverage, an employee must sign a form attesting that the employee and the employee’s Tax Family have the Alternative Required Coverage for the Opt Out Period.
(a) Tax Family means all individuals for whom the employee intends to claim a personal exemption deduction for the taxable year or

3 As an example, for 2020, the Regular Flex Contribution for employees who are regularly scheduled to work 40 hours per week is approximately $807.86/month. 4 As an example, for 2020, the Cash in Lieu amount is approximately $139.00/month for employees who are regularly scheduled to work 40 hours per week.

years that begin or end in or with the City’s plan year to which the opt out applies.
(b) Alternative Required Coverage required means minimum essential coverage through another source (other than coverage in the individual market, whether or not obtained through Covered California).
(c) Opt Out Period means the plan year to which the opt out arrangement applies.
(d) An employee must provide the attestation every plan year at open enrollment or within 30 days after the start of the plan year for each plan year the employee would like to receive Cash in Lieu. (e) The Cash in Lieu payment cannot be made and the City will not in fact make payment if the City knows or has reason to know that the employee or a Tax Family member does not have such
alternative coverage, or if the conditions in this paragraph are not otherwise satisfied.
(f) An employee who opts out of City-offered health benefits, but cannot provide the attestation, will not receive the Cash in Lieu contribution described in this subsection.

F. Flexible Spending Account (IRS Section 125 Plan)
The City has established a Flexible Spending Account benefit (IRS Section 125 Plan) for employees, which provides accounts in which employees may contribute pre-tax dollars for dependent care and un-reimbursed medical expenses. This Plan will follow the regulations outlined by the Internal Revenue Service. Detailed information will be available in the Summary Plan Document.

This Plan is voluntary and participating employees will make pre-tax salary reduction elections to fund the plan.

G. Proration of Benefits:

For employees who may be eligible for benefits but work less than 40 hours per week, benefits shall be prorated based on the employee’s full-time equivalent (FTE) level.

8. DENTAL INSURANCE
The City will pay toward dental insurance premiums an amount equal to the lowest cost employee only premium amount among the dental plans offered by the City. All employees are required to enroll in a dental plan.

9. VISION INSURANCE
For persons enrolled in the City's VSP vision plan, the City will pay toward vision insurance premiums an amount equal to the lowest cost employee only vision premium. Participation is voluntary. Employees that do not choose to enroll in a vision plan are not entitled to the benefit of City contributions to vision premiums

described in this paragraph.

10. LONG TERM DISABILITY
The City will continue to pay the cost of a long term disability insurance program. The LTD plan will have a maximum 60 day waiting period and the maximum monthly benefit will include those offsets required by law such as, but not limited to, SDI, retirement, reduced work schedule, worker's compensation, social security, and Railroad retirement.

11. LIFE INSURANCE
The City will pay the required premium for life insurance for represented employees in the amount of $50,000.

12. AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE
As an alternative to IRS mileage reimbursement or use of a City vehicle, an automobile allowance program will be available to represented employees as follows:

A. Department Heads including Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager and Deputy Director Redevelopment Agency/Sports & Open Space Authority (Executive Management) shall be entitled to a base monthly automobile allowance of $320 for use of their personal vehicles to conduct City business. Executive Management employees may be eligible to receive an additional amount up to a maximum of $200 per month based on required driving while conducting City business, at the discretion of the City Manager or his/her designee.

B. Assistant Department Heads and Division Managers shall be entitled to a base monthly automobile allowance of $200 for use of their personal vehicles to conduct City business. Assistant Department Heads and Division Managers may be eligible to receive an additional amount up to a maximum of $300 per month based on required driving while conducting City business, at the discretion of the City Manager or his/her designee.

C. Effective December 27, 2020 (the first pay period of calendar year 2021), the base monthly automobile allowance shall be paid on the first 2 pay periods of every month.

D. Upon request of the employee, prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, the City Manager or his/her designee will determine whether or not it is appropriate for a manager to receive an amount above the base monthly allowance. The determination will be made based on the requirements for use of the personal vehicles for City business and may require detailed driving information in order to grant an amount above the base monthly amount. This rate adjustment will become effective at the beginning of each fiscal year and will remain in effect for the full year unless there are unique circumstances requiring a modification.

E. Prior to the granting of this allowance, all insurance, driver's license, and vehicle registration as required under the State of California Vehicle Code, will be provided by the represented employee, and must be valid and in force at all times employees are operating their personal vehicles on City

business.

F. Employees receiving the automobile allowance are responsible for all gasoline and maintenance costs. Employees shall also maintain their personal vehicles in a clean and presentable condition while conducting City business.

G. A represented employee, who is currently assigned a City vehicle, may choose to continue using that assigned City vehicle in lieu of the automobile allowance.

H. The City reserves the right to substitute an assigned City vehicle in lieu of this automobile allowance for a represented employee if it is deemed to be in the City's best interest to provide a City vehicle to conduct City business.

I. A represented employee who is currently reimbursed for use of a personal vehicle in accordance with the IRS mileage reimbursement rate, may continue to utilize direct mileage reimbursement, in lieu of participation in this automobile allowance program.

13. MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE ALLOWANCE
Mobile communication device allowance of $80.00 per month for eligible classifications.

14. MERIT PAY/SALARY ADJUSTMENT SYSTEM
Merit pay adjustments, or merit increases, as provided for in the Personnel and Salary Resolution are, and will continue to be available during the term of this MOU when and if approved by the applicable Department Head and the City Manager, subject to Section 14.G below. The Merit Pay Adjustment system shall include the following elements:

A. Each Unit 9 employee shall receive an annual evaluation.

B. Annual consideration of merit pay adjustments, subject to Section 14.G below, with an affirmative decision by the applicable Department Head shall be required each year following the annual evaluation.

C. Merit pay adjustments shall range from 0 to 5%. However, in 2016 and 2017 only, employee is guaranteed at least 2% and, with Department Head approval, up to 5%, subject to Section 14.G below.

D. In 2016, employees are eligible for a merit pay adjustment based on an evaluation prepared by February 2, 2016, which date will be their merit pay anniversary each year going forward.
1) Notwithstanding D. above, for employees that have been employed a full year as of February 2, 2016, they will be eligible on their actual anniversary date, which shall also be their merit pay anniversary date thereafter.
2) Notwithstanding D. above, for employees that receive a merit increase between January 1, 2015 and February 2, 2016, the date of their last merit increase shall be their new merit pay anniversary date.