City Council and Authorities Concurrent
August 25, 2026

Exhibit B – Restoration
Schedule
10-YEAR REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
Property: 1261 Jackson Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Owner: Lili Jiang & Xi Yang I. PROPERTY CONDITION SUMMARY
The property at 1261 Jackson Street is a contributing historical resource to the Santa Clara community. The owners have recently completed an extensive interior remodel and a comprehensive restoration of all windows to ensure structural integrity and energy efficiency while preserving historical aesthetics. Currently, the primary preservation need is the remediation of the exterior building envelope to prevent wood rot and weather-related deterioration, alongside the phased return of windows to traditional wood double-hung configurations to fully align with the property's original Queen Anne style architectural fabric.

II. PROPOSED MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE (2026-2035)
Year Maintenance / Restoration Activity Estimated
Cost
Year
1 Exterior Envelope Restoration (Priority):

Professional scraping and "in-kind" repair of
wood siding; application of historical-grade
primer and paint to address peeling.
$22,000
Year
2-3
Front-Facing Window Historical Restoration:

Prioritize and replace the highly visible frontfacing windows, restoring them back to traditional wood double-hung configurations with
wide board trim to honor the original Queen
Anne style features.
$2,500
Year
4-5
Ornamental Preservation: Specialized repair
and preservation of original gingerbread trim
and ornate moldings on the front facade.

Detailed inspection of the gabled roof.
$45,000
Year
6-7
Window & Seal Maintenance: Inspection and
re-sealing of recently restored windows to
maintain energy efficiency and historical fabric.
$12,500
Year
8-10
Structural Monitoring: Professional
assessment of the foundation and infrastructure
to ensure the longevity of the historical asset.
$3,000
DI ICJ
DI I
DI I
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-516 Agenda Date: 6/4/2026

REPORT TO HISTORICAL AND LANDMARKS COMMISSION

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Consideration of a Historical Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) (File No.

PLN26-00042) for 1261 Jackson Street

BACKGROUND
Property owners Lili Jiang and Xi Yang filed a Historical Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) (File No. PLN26-00042) request for the property located at 1261 Jackson Street. Enacted in 1972, the California Mills Act legislation grants participating local governments the authority to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of their historic properties while receiving property tax relief. Santa Clara participates in the Mills Act Program. A requirement of the Mills Act Contract is that the building must be a qualified structure, listed on either a local, State, or National register. The subject site is not currently listed on the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). Upon the approval of the Mills Act contract the property will be added to the City’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI).

The subject property is an approximately 5,500 square-foot lot located on the east side of Jackson Street. Constructed in 1898, the existing residence on the property is designed in the Queen Anne architectural style. There have been only minor alterations to the home's exterior since it was constructed in 1898. The windows were replaced, and the porch on the left (north) side of the house was altered to add a new set of stairs and a landing. The majority of the visual and character defining materials and features of the historic building have been preserved and retained. Its Queen Anne style reflects Santa Clara’s early architectural era.

The property owners submitted the requisite application, including an updated historic survey (Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523A Form) of the property (Attachment 2), a Statement of Justification for the request (Attachment 4), and a 10-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan outlining the proposed workplan to restore, rehabilitate, and maintain the property (Attachment 5).

The Historical and Landmarks Commission (HLC) provides Mills Act Contract recommendations to the City Council for their final determination. Approved contracts are executed between the City and the property owner and recorded with the County for a minimum ten-year term. Contracts are automatically renewed each year and are transferred to new owners when the property is sold.

If approved, this would be the first Mills Act Contract for this calendar year, where 10 are permitted.

DISCUSSION
In March 2026, Lorie Garcia, consultant historian evaluator from Beyond Buildings prepared a DPR 523A Form assessing the property's historical significance under National, State, and local criteria.

The evaluator found that the structure at 1261 Jackson Street is well maintained and that the design City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 2 Printed on 5/28/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-516 Agenda Date: 6/4/2026
elements that comprise the architectural integrity of the structure have not been diminished. In conclusion, the evaluator found that the property continues to retain enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as a historic resource on the City’s HRI.

The property owners submitted a Statement of Justification and a 10-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan. The plan includes exterior restoration, restoration of traditional wood double-hung windows, roof maintenance and repairs, preservation of original moldings and trim, and foundation repairs. All work will be evaluated through Significant Property Alteration permits, as required by the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Staff finds that the work proposed in the 10-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan adheres to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Attachment 3). The proposed improvements, and the owner’s statement of justification, support the preservation, protection, and maintenance of a locally designated significant structure.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mills Act Contract is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 31 - Historical Resource Restoration / Rehabilitation).

This exemption consists of projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Entering into the contract will result in the restoration and rehabilitation of the 1899 structure consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

PUBLIC CONTACT
No public notice is required for a Mills Act Contract and no public inquiries have been made regarding the project.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Historical and Landmarks Commission determine the project to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 31 - Historical Resource Restoration / Rehabilitation) and find that the Mills Act Application and associated 10-Year Plan for restoration and maintenance accomplishes the intent of preserving and maintaining the historical significance of the property; and therefore, recommends City Council approval of a Mills Act Contract, and the adoption of a 10-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan associated with the Historical Preservation Agreement for the property located at 1261 Jackson Street.

Prepared by: Summer Foss, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department Reviewed by: Rebecca Bustos, Principal Planner, Community Development Department Approved by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager, Community Development Department

ATTACHMENTS

1. Legal Property Description

2. Historic Survey (DPR 523A Form)

3. Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation

4. Statement of Justification

5. 10-Year Restoration and Maintenance Plan

6. Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 2 Printed on 5/28/2026
powered by Legistar™
**This document was electronically submitted
to Santa Clara County for recording**
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

Old Republic Title Company
Escrow No.: 0613039817
APN: 269-15-012
When Recorded Mail Document and Tax Statements to:

Lili Jiang & Xi Yang
1261 Jackson Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Grant Deed
25629421
Regina Alcomendras
Santa Clara County - Clerk-Recorder
04/29/2024 02: 16 PM
Titles: 1 Pages: 3
Fees: $31.00
Tax: $1760.00
Total: $1791.00

SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE IS FOR RECORDER'S USE
The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s):

Documentary Transfer Tax is $1,760.00
Exempt from fees per GC27388.l(a)(2)
and GC27388.2(b); document is subject
to the imposition of documentary
transfer tax.
(X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or
( ) computed on full value less of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. ( ) Unincorporated area: (X) City of Santa Clara
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Susan Elaine Niemi, Trustee of the Susan Elaine Niemi Trust Dated April 5, 2017 hereby GRANT(S) to
Xi Yang and Lili Jiang, husband and wife, as community property with right of survivorship that property in City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, State of California, described as:
* * * See "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. * * * Grant Deed MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE Page 1 of 2 DOC #25629421 Page 2 of 3
Date: April 24, 2024
the Susatlaine Niemi Trust Dated April 5, 2017
I / U ( <. ._
By: . (/,A,_,,,"'-.---v~_//
Sus~n Elaine Niemi, Trustee
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of ..... C_r fl.--·-,---~---
County of (Canti1 ClC{,ltt_
On uv-~1 :J-l( -....,;-....;;;_,,........__,__ ___________ a Notary Public, personally appeared l /C:.ln1 who
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) !?fare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/~their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/b.fil/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
(Typed or Printed) (Seal)

SARA FEIZI
Notary Public • California I
Santa Clara County _
Commission# 2426174
My Comm. Expires Nov 11, 2026
Grant Deed Order No. 0613039817 Page 2 of 2
DOC #25629421 Page 3 of 3
ORDER NO.: 0613039817

EXHIBIT A
The land referred to is situated in the County of Santa Clara, City of Santa Clara, State of California, and is described as follows:

Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of Jackson Street, distant thereon 100 feet Southerly from the point of intersection of the Easterly line of Jackson Street with the Southerly line of Harrison Street; thence running Southerly and along the Easterly line of Jackson Street 55 feet; thence running easterly and parallel with the Southerly line of Harrison Street 100 feet; thence Northerly and parallel with the Easterly line of Jackson Street 55 feet; thence running Westerly and parallel with the Southerly line of Harrison Street 100 feet to the point of beginning, and being a portion of Lot 2 in Block 3 North Range 2 West of the City of Santa Clara, as shown upon the Official Map of said City of Santa Clara of record in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, in Book "B" of Maps, Page 103.

APN: 269-15-012

State of California 111 The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary# __ _
HRI#
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier: None
* P2. Location: D Not for Publication ~ Unrestricted
*a. County Santa Clara and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Jose West Date 1980 photo revisedT 7S; R 1W; unsectioned □ of_ C of Sec _; Mt. Diab/a B.M. c. Address 1261 Jackson Street City Santa Clara Zip --=-9-=-5-=-05::..;0=-------- d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone _ __ mE/ ____ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel#, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) Assessor's Parcel Number: 269-15-012
East side of Jackson Street between Fremont and Hanison Streets. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
The subject property at 1261 Jackson Street is located in the urban setting of a block of houses with tree lined streets that was primarily developed in the last half of the nineteenth century and, due to the differing periods of development, the lots vary in in size.

However, due to their development at the same time, for the three lots that front on Jackson Street on the block's north-west parcel, where the subject home is located, while the depths vary from 76. 25' to 100,' the widths are almost identical ranging from 50 to 55.' The homes on the block have similar setbacks from the street with urban sized front yards. (Currently on this block, eight homes, the three on Jackson Street (1261, 1277 and 1291 Jackson St.), two on Harrison Street and three on Main Street are listed on the (Continued on page 2, form 523L)
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes
and codes) HP2. Single familvpropertv
*P4. Resources Present:~ Building o
Structure D Object C Site D District D Element of District o Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Front facade. looking ENE. 21612026.

Photo# !MG 1386
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
~ Historic □ Prehistoric
D Both
Constructed ca. 1898/(Assessors and Census Records.

City Directories. Sanborn Maps).
*P7. Owner and Address:

Lili Jiang and Xi Yang
1261 Jackson St
Santa Clara. Califomia 95050
*PS. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address)
Lorie Garcia.

Bevond Buildings P.O. Box 121 Santa Clara.

Califomia 95052
*P9. Date Recorded: March 11. 2026
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and
other sources, or enter "none.")
Historic Resources Inventory Form "1210. 1261. 1277. 1295 Jackson St," dated June 1980 *Attachments: NONE ~ Location Map~ Continuation Sheet ~ Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record D Other (List):

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: . Marilla Gray House
Page _2_ of 26
(Continued from page 1, Form 523A, P3a. Description)
Primary#
HRI #
Trinomial
City's Inventory of Architecturally or Historically Significant properties.) Due to most of the homes on the block being of pre-2CJh century construction, the streetscape is a pleasant one which evokes the sense of a late nineteenth century neighborhood.

Situated on a 50 x 100,' 5,500 sq. ft. lot near the center of the Jackson Street block face, between Fremont and Harrison Sfreefs, the subject house fronts roughly west onto Jackson Street and is set back from the street, allowing for an open area with mature shrubbery in front of the residence. A picket fence separates the Jackson Street sidewalk from the property and very large street trees shade the front.

A straight, patterned brick walkway leads from the Jackson Street sidewalk to the front (main) entry, which also faces Jackson Street.

As the house Is offset on its lot, ample space exists on the south side of the property for a wide, patterned brick driveway, which opens onto Jackson Street. At the front steps, a patterned brick walkway branches off from the main entry walkway and runs to the driveway, and a gravel walkway branches off from the main entry walkway and runs to the north-side fence. With the exception of a lower section of picket fencing, located towards the front portion of the north property line and a section of stepped down wood fencing topped with lattice trim running from to the high wood fence on the south side property line to the sidewalk, a high wood fence found running along the south, east and north property lines, prevents access to the rear of the property from Jackson Street and the neighboring properties. A high wood gate that runs from the front SW corner of the house and connects to an arched, high wood gate that extends across the driveway to a connection with the south property line fence, prevents access to the rear of the property, while allowing access to Jackson Street from the driveway and rear of the property. The north side yard is narrow and a high wood fence, located between the NW corner of the side porch to the fence on the north property line, encloses it from the front yard, preventing access from the front to the rear of the property.

The large rear yard includes an open area covered with brick pavers, paving stones and gravel, trees and two accessory buildings.

Facing Jackson Street, is a detached garage, with a gable roof and with a hipped roof extension both of which are sheathed in wide horizontal siding. The garage's front-facing gable face gable roofed portion has a centered roll-up garage door. Facing the street and set into at the NW corner of the hipped roof portion, a paneled man-door with two narrow, horizontally oriented windows set into its top half, allows access to the structure from the immediately adjacent rear yard. The windows and doors are new. The garage has been converted to an office .
..------------------------------, Close to the house, and adjacent to the north 'T~ri
~
DPR 523L (9/2013
property line fence, is a small structure, said to be
the original garage. Sheathed in wide horizontal
siding, it has a gable roof. A door (new), inset with
a large pane of glass set into the top half (new)
opens into the rear yard. Set evenly spaced into
the top half of its south side-elevation are three
small pairs of windows. A large pair of windows are
centered in the top half of the street-facing front
fa9ade. The windows are not original. This
structure has also been converted into office space.

The primary building on the site is a 1207 sq. ft.,
one-story house, which was constructed circa 1898
as a small one-story "cottage" in the Queen Anne
architectural style. (Note: the small 1 and 1 ½ story
Queen Anne houses were commonly referred to as
cottages.)
(Continued on page 3, Form 523L)
Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #)
Partial front fa<;ade & north side-elevation. View looking NE. Photo No: /MG_ 1392, 212026 ..

State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House
Page_3 _ _ of----1L_
(Continued from page 2, Form 523L)
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
According to McAlester, the Queen Anne (1880-1910), was a transitional style that linked the preceding Stick (1860-1890) with the subsequent Colonial Revival, which supplanted it after about 1910. It was a style that "was not highly favored by architects" but "instead owed its popularity to the public's enthusiastic embrace and the pattern books and mail order house plans that allowed them to build a Queen Anne House." The style started in the east, where it was more restrained, then moving southward and westward it increased in dominance and ebullience, with "California having some of the most fanciful examples." McAllester further states that Queen Anne-style "uses wall surfaces as primary decorative elements." In order to avoid plain flat walls this style used bays, towers, overhangs and wall projections and to avoid flat wait surfaces, differing wall textures were the hallmark of Queen Anne houses.

These include the use of patterned shingles, Spindlework, cutwork and Eastlake decorative detailing.

Designed in an asymmetrical plan with a rectangular footprint, both the shape and form of a Queen Anne-style home, this wooden, single-family residence is set on a concrete foundation over a partial basement, which elevates the living area approximately 3 feet above the ground. Characteristic of the Queen Anne style's Shape subtype identified as "Hipped Roof With Lower Cross Gables", the house is distinguished by a cross-gabled hipped roof As is specifically characteristic of a Queen Anne Cottage, this house has a prominent front-facing gable, the front and sides of which meet in a perfect seam. A similar gable projects from the north side. The Queen Anne roof pitch varies from high to medium and the roof on this residence has a high roof pitch. Composition shingles sheathe the various roof planes. The roof planes are further distinguished by molded cornices; gable returns and moderately projecting boxed eaves (all character defining features of the Queen Anne architectural style).

The house Is sheathed with wide horizontal wood siding. There is no water table. Under the cornice a plain fascia board trimmed with molding wraps around the house. Vertical comer boards finish the wall ends. Both gable faces are sheathed with Octagon shingles. A full-height angled bay projects from the front facade and a full height squared bay from the north side elevation of the house. On each bay, the gable face projects from the sides of the bay. The front bay features a cut-away window with elongated comer brackets, incised with a floral design and pendants set into either angled side of the bay, while the squared box bay has a side-entry door set into that bay's front-facing side. (The Octagon shingles, angled bay and cut-away windows, incised comer brackets and pendants are all characteristic of the Queen Anne style's Decorative Detailing subtype identified as "Spindlework.) (The "Spindlework" details are character-defining features, and all are original.) Projecting over a window set in an angled wall that connects the front and north side-elevation walls of the front-facing bay, is a feature attached under the fascia, which consists of a spindlework frieze, a drop pendant and elongated brackets incised with a floral design.

Offset, a rectangular front porch projects from the front facade. The porch has a low hipped roof, which is supported by delicate turned colonnettes with carved brackets. One full turned colonette is at each open comer of the porch and one at the side of the front entry stairs. A partial turned colonnette is located on either end where the roof projects from the house walls. The porch is ornamented with an Eastlake decorative block fn'eze, located between the colonnettes, above the carved brackets. The porch railing consists of a balustrade with a grooved railing and grooved balusters that connect to the house at the open comer of the porch and to the turned posts. Attached to a turned porch post on one side and a partial turned post on the other and running to a newel post with a ball cap at the base of the bottom step, a similar balustrade edges each side of the entry stairs. The colonnettes, brackets, frieze, balustrades and newel posts are additional elements of the "Spindle work" subtype, which this home exhibits, and all are original.

A rectangular side porch is located at the front of the north side-elevation, between the front angled bay's north side-elevation wall and the front-facing wall of the square bay on the north side-elevation. It has a low hipped roof, punctuated by a brick chimney. The roof is supported by delicate turned colonettes with carved brackets. One full turned colonette is set at each open end of the porch and with partial turned colonettes located where the roof projects from the house walls. The porch is ornamented with an Eastlake decorative block frieze, located between the colonettes, above the carved brackets, with a single Eastlake carved block at the rear.

Originally a porch railing consisting of a balustrade identical to that of the front porch filled the open space between the two full colonettes and a similar balustrade edged entry stairs that led to the front yard. Currently neither railing or stairs exist due to later alterations, one of which (pre-1979) removed the front entry steps and a later one (post-2006) that removed the porch railing in conjunction with the construction of a new deck with stairs that lead to the rear yard. At the open end of the side porch, a portion of the original balustrade, comprised of a grooved railing and grooved balusters, is located between the foremost full turned colonette and the wall. All of the porch's decorative spindlework is original and a character-defining feature of the Queen Anne architectural style.
(Continued on page 4, Form 523L)
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House
Page_4 __ of----2L__
(Continued from page 3, Form 523L)
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
The main entry is on the front (west) fa9ade and is accessed by six (6) wide wood steps (new) that lead from the walkway from Jackson Street to the wood porch. The front door is set slightly off-center on the porch and faces Jackson Street. The wooden door (original) has a design of one large rectangular wood panel, trimmed with molding, set into its top half and a second panel set into its lower half. Each panel is ornamented with small evenly spaced elements that project from it, four at the panel's top and four at its bottom. As is typical in Queen Anne homes, the door surround is comprised of wide trim. All the trim on the entry appears to be original.

Currently accessed from the rear yard, a secondary entry door is located on the north side-elevation. Set at the rear of the side porch and opening into the front-facing wall of the north side-elevation's bay, this door leads into the main living space of the house (i.e., the parlor). (Commonly found in Queen Anne cottages, this side door is frequently referred to as a "coffin" door, due to the Victorian funeral practice of having the service at home rather than a mortuary and then exiting from this side to proceed to the cemetery.) This wooden door is inset with a large single pane clear glass window, which is surrounded with narrow wood molding. The door surround is comprised of wide trim. Both the door and trim appear to be original. Alterations (pre-2006) resulted in the side porch being widened and a set of stairs constructed to allow access from the rear of the property. The porch floor and stairs are constructed of artificial wood. Created of artificial material, a porch balustrade (new) extends from an original porch turned co/onette across the exposed edge of the new porch extension along with a similar railing at the stairs open edge.

Projecting from the rear of the house, a narrow rear porch (original) partially extends across the rear fa9ade from the hipped roof extensiqn at the rear of the house on the driveway side, to a point near its northeast corner. The rear porch is sheltered by a /owpitched, hipped roof, which is supported by square posts that run from the ground to the roofs outer rim. This style of rear porch is common on Queen Anne houses. (Characteristic to this architectural style, they were usually built as separate attachments rather than integrated into the overall design.) Six (6) wide wood steps lead to the porch and to a secondary entry door, which provides access from the rear yard. Similar to that located on the side porch, the wooden door is inset with a large single pane clear glass window, which is surrounded with narrow wood molding and the door surround is comprised of wide trim. Both the door and trim appear to be original. Alterations (pre-2006) have resulted in the original wood of the stairs and the porch floor being replaced with artificial wood that resembles the original construction. The rear porch railing and balustrades that edge each side of the entry stairs are made of artificial material, similar to the railing on the side porch extension and stairs.

Located between the driveway and the porch, a small, offset, /ow-pitched hip-roofed addition (new) with a horizontal door, projects from the rear of the house, providing entry to the basement. This basement entry has replaced the original ground-level entry. The basement is accessed by six (6) concrete steps, which lead down into it.

Characteristic of the Queen Anne style, fenestration of the main story is simple, mainly rectangular in form, consisting of tall vertically oriented, 1-over-1, double-hung windows, trimmed with wide boards. All of the original main story windows appear to have been replaced with vinyl clad windows and the windows' original aprons and projecting sills (as seen in the June 1980 photo of the house) have been removed (between1979-2006). The front-facing angled bay features a cut-away window to either side of its main front window. Fenestration of the front facing bay consists of a large, square, fixed, clear glass main window, trimmed with wide boards, centered on the bay's front face, with a rectangular, vertically orientated, 1-over-l double-hung window set into each of the bay's angled side. As with the rest of the main story windows the original windows have been replaced. An arched window flanked by two louver-vented, rectangular openings (Palladian in design), trimmed with wide boards and with a projecting sill is centered in the front fa9ade gable face. The side gable face features a centered, rectangular, louver-vented opening, with a projecting sill and carved Eastlake trim. Both gable face windows/openings are original and character-defining features. Small horizontally orientated openings with mesh screens, are set into the basement /eve/'s walls to provide air circulation.

The property is in good condition and with the exception of the alterations to the main floor windows and to the side porch, including the removal of the side porch's original entry stairs to the front yard (between 1950-1979) and the construction of an extended landing (deck) and side porch entry stairs from the rear yard (pre-2006), along with railing replacement on rear porch and the construction of a new basement entry, appears to have had little external change since the home's original construction ca. 1898.

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California ffi The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
*Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) .....:.;Mc;.:a:::.ri:.:..: i//.:::. a....:G:;.;r.-=a.,_y-'--H.:..::o:..::u:..::s.:c.e ______ *NRHP Status Code ________ _

81. Historic Name: None 82. Common Name-: - N,..,.o_n_e _________ __________ ________________ _ B3. Original Use: Single-family residential B4. Present Use: Single-family residential *85. Architectural Style: _Q""'u...;.. e..;.. en_ A_n_n.;_e_"C_o_ttc.ca;;.,og"' e_" __________________________ _ *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The residence was constructed ca. 1898. Alterations consist of the removal of the side porch's original entry stairs to the front yard (between 1950-1979), the construction of an extended landing (deck) and side porch entry stairs from the rear yard (pre-2006); original main story windows replaced with vinyl clad windows and the windows' original aprons and projecting sills removed (1979-2006); rear porch railings replaced and a new basement entry constructed (post-2006). *87. Moved? I; No Yes Unknown Date: __________ Original Location: _______ _ *88. Related Features: Small "Original "garage building.

B9a. Architect: --'-'n"-ot'"'k"'"n""o-'-w""'n _________________ _ b. Builder: --'-'n"-o'""t k""n""'o;_w...;..n _______ _ *810. Significance: Theme Architecture and Shelter Area Santa Clara Old Quad Period of Significance 1898-present day Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria none (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The start of the Mexican American War in July 1846 can be said to mark the onset of Santa Clara's transformation from Mission Santa Clara de Asfs to the Town of Santa Clara. Descriptions of Santa Clara and other areas in California, written by visitors, encouraging Americans to come and settle, had appeared in newspapers back east and during 1846 immigrants had been arriving overland in greater numbers. That Fall brought an estimated 175 adults and children to overwinter at the Mission Santa Clara, including William Campbell, who arrived with his family about October 25th, 1846.

In October 1847, Father Jose Marfa de/ Refugio Suarez de/ Real, the mission priest, hired William Campbell to survey lots near the mission complex, on mission land, and draw up a town plat-this would become the Town of Santa Clara. By 1852, a small hamlet of some 200 people living in a cluster of adobes and simple frame houses had grown up around the mission site, which the previous year had become Santa Clara College. On July 5 of that year the Town of Santa Clara was incorporated with the approval of the State Legislature. The township comprised an area of some 2000 acres. (Continued on page 6, Fann 523L)
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2 - Single Family Property *812. References: Calffomia State Census, 1852; Garcia, Lorie, "Santa Clara: From Mission to Municipality," 1997; Map of the Town of Santa Clara, drawn by C. E. Moore, 1892; McAlester, Virginia Savage, "A Field Guide to ~-------- ------------ American Houses," Revised ed., 2013; Polk and Husted City Directories, 1890- 1974; Poll Lists of the Santa Clara County Election Districts, Santa Clara Precinct, 1868; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1887, 1891, 1901, 1915, 1930, 1950; San Jose Mercury Herald 04/0211905, 10/09/1925; Santa Clara News, 07124/1894, 04/04/1905; The Evening News 11101/1897, 12/27/1897, 11/01/1898, 04109/1904, 01/18/1905, 03/30/1905, 10/05/1905, 10/24/1905; United States Census, 1840 to 1950.

B13. Remarks:
*814. Evaluator: ......c.. L.c.. ori-'-ie~ G_a_rcc..i.;_a ____ _ ________ _ *Date of Evaluation: _;_:M.;.:a:.:..rc;;..;h~ 1-'-' 1,....:2;;.;;0..;;; 2c.::. 6 _ ______ _ (This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 5238 (9/2013)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B.3 N. R.2 w. /,JO
HAKKl::SUN J
.L
t:U. 11 0
*Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House
Page_6 __ of__li__
(Continued from page 5, Form 5238)
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
The first official survey of the Town of Santa Clara, which was done July 1866 by J. J. Bowen and recorded on August 21 of that same year, forms the basis for the part of Santa Clara known today as the "Old Quad." The recordation documents that accompanied Bowen's 1866 Survey referenced the 1847 survey made by William Campbell, stating, "Frank Lightston and Henry Bee being duly sworn each for himself deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and over the age of twenty one years: that he has resided in the County of Santa Clara during the last twenty years: that he knows the Town of Santa Clara represented by this Map: that it was established in good faith in the year 1847 being prior to the passage of the Act of Congress approved March 3rd 1865 entitled an Act supplemental to the act approved July 1st 1864, for the disposal of Govt Lands and Town property: and each further deposes and says that to the best of his knowledge this Map correctly represents the blocks streets and squares of the said town as surveyed in the year 184 7 and each further deposes and says that the land embraced with in the said survey of 1847 has been occupied and used for town purposes ever since.

Henry Bee
Frank Lightston
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this the
Twenty first day of August A.O. 1866
J. F. Pomeroy County Clerk
Santa Clara County California"
The 1866 J. J. Bowen survey, which designated Franklin Street as the Base Line and Lafayette Street as the Meridian, divided the Town's land into Town Blocks, east and west of the Meridian and north and south of the Base Line. The Town Blocks and their Lots included the area from Clay to Bellomy and Lincoln to Sherman Streets, with a small extension north of Clay between Jackson and Main Streets that extended to the tracks of the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad (today's existing Ca/train RR line). The land surrounding the Town Lots was divided into multi-acre Sub-Lots numbered 1 through 55.

Framed by Jackson, Harrison, Main and Fremont Streets, on the 1866 survey the subject block was a Town Block and had been designated as Block 3 North, Range 2 West. The block was divided into 2 Lots and today, 1261 Jackson Street is located on a portion of Lot 2. According to the list of property owners and their improvements, which accompanied the 1866 survey, Lot 1, B3N, R2W, was a 46588 sq. ft. tract, owned by Joseph R. Johnson, with the improvements on it shown to be a frame house, barn, orchard and vineyard. Lot 2 was a/so a 46588 sq. ft. tract and was owned by Lemuel Robinson. Similar those on Lot 1, the improvements on his lot were shown as a frame house, barn, orchard and vineyard. However, by the time when the official survey was made, Lemuel Robinson had already owned this tract for several years. And, according to the information entered onto the Poll List for the Santa Clara Election District on October 8, 1868, which lists his residence on Fremont near Jackson Street, it appears that Lemuel Robinson lived in the frame house listed on the 1866 survey as being one of the improvements on Lot 2.

Born June 8, 1810, in Clark County, Ohio, by the time he was 19, Lemuel Robinson had married his first wife, Charlotte, and by 1840 they had moved to LaPorte, Indiana, where she passed away in 1841. At some point after Charlotte's death, Lemuel Robinson left Indiana and came to California, where on March 25, 1852, he married his second wife, 30-year-old Ann [Jones] in San Francisco.

The 1852 California State Census, dated August 30, 1852, shows that as of that date Lemuel Robinson and his second wife, Ann, were living in Santa Clara. Here on September 9, 1853, the Robinsons first child was born, a son they named Walter Ketcham. Two years later, saw the birth of Lemuel and Ann's second child, Lemuel Saxe Robinson, on March 29, 1855. In quick succession, the Robinsons had three more children; William Owen (1857), Charlotte (1859) and Martha Elizabeth (1860).

The 1860 Census shows that by now, Lemuel Robinson, who was a Miller, owned a Flouring Mill and had a Person Estate valued at $1500. By 1865 Lemuel Robinson had also become involved in the political life of the Town of Santa Clara and had been elected to the Town Board of Trustees. He would serve as a Town Trustee from that date to 1870. The 1870 Census lists sixty-year-old Lemuel as still living in the same house with Ann and their children; Walter, now 17, 15-year-old Samuel, 13-year-old William and their daughter, Martha age 9. No mention is made of Charlotte. Lemuel Robinson has done very well and now owns Real Estate valued at $20,000 with a $20,000 Personal Estate.

When The Plat of Santa Clara was drawn in the period between 1873 and 1875, it showed no change in the configuration of the block that had been surveyed nine years earlier. However, by the end of that decade, while its conformation still remained unaltered, ownership of Lot 2 had changed when the Robinson family sold the property to Marilla Gray, left Santa Clara and moved to a place near Santa Ana, in Orange County, California. Records show that on July 4, 1880, Lemuel Robinson passed away in Santa Ana and the 1880 Federal Census (taken June 11 th) lists Mrs. Marilla Gray, age 56, with her daughters, 18-year-old Fannie Bray and (Continued on page 7, Form 523L)
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House
Page _7 __ of 26
(Continued from page 6, Form 523B)
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
35-year-old Mrs. Cornelia J. Walker, now living in the house on Lot 2, B3N, R2W in Santa Clara, which had been the Robinson's home.

Born Marilla Salisbury in 1824, in Jefferson County, New York, in 1842, when she was 18 years old, Marilla married 24-year-old, Pierre Peter Christopher Favre, who'd immigrated from France in 1836. Following their marriage, they continued living in Jefferson County, New York, where in 1843 their first child, a daughter they named Cornelia J., was born. By the following year, 1844, Pierre and Marilla had moved to Ontario, New York, where on December 5th a son, George Edwin was born. 1847 saw the birth of their second son, Francis H. The1850 Census, taken on October 10, shows, 32-year-old Pierre Favre, 26-year-old Marilla and their children, ages 7. 5 and 3, now living in Marion, Wayne County, New York where he was a Miller with a Grain Mill. Less than a year later, on September 18, 1851, 32½ -year-old Pierre Favre passed away and was buried in Theresa, Jefferson County, New York, leaving Marilla a widow with three young children. By four years later, Marilla had moved to Manchester County, New York, where the 1855 New York State Census lists her as "Head of household." In 1860, and now in Minnesota, Marilla [Salisbury] Favre married her second husband, 37-year-old, John Baxter Gray. Here, two years later, and now 38-years-old, Marilla gave birth to their daughter, Francis (Fannie) T. Gray. The same year, on February 4th, her oldest son, 18-year-old George E. Favre, enlisted as a private in the Second Battery Light Artillery and left to fight in the Civil War. The Minnesota State Census shows that by June 1, 1865, Marilla, John B. and Fannie Bray, were living in Little Faffs, Morrison County, Minnesota and had been joined by Mari/la's 20-year-old son, George Favre, who, following the December 1862 battle at Murfreesboro, Tennessee was discharged from the army "for disability," and returned home. Cornelia appears to have married, and left home, while no mention is made of Francis Favre. On November 26, 1868, George Favre married Martha Paul and left, but sadly she died while giving birth to their son on November 24th the following year, and he and the baby moved back with Marilla and John.

While never leaving Morrison County, Minnesota, once again the Bray family had moved, and by 1870 were living in Two Rivers/Pike Rapids, where the Federal Census shows John was a farmer with a total of $600 in real and personal property. Mari/la's son, George Favre and his 6-month-old son, George, were living with them and he was employed as a lumberman and had $100 in personal property. Then, on February 23, 1871, Mari/la's son, George Favre, married his second wife, Harriet Adelade Perry and the newlyweds moved into their own home in Burnsville, Todd County, Minnesota. After George left, Marilla, John and Francis Gray moved, to Swan River, Minnesota. The 1875 Minnesota State Census indicates that, for Marilla, John and their daughter, Francis, Swan River would be their last place of residence in that State before the Gray family left Minnesota and arrived in Santa Clara, California.

Birth records show the George and Harriet Favre had arrived in Santa Clara by 1879 as his daughter, Marilla, was born here that year and the 1880 Federal Census shows that Marilla Gray and her daughters, Fannie Gray and Cornelia Walker, were also now living in Santa Clara. However, no mention is made of John Gray and just when he arrived to join them is unknown. The first time John B. Gray appears on any records in Santa Clara is in the 1892 City Directory, where he's shown living in the house his wife had purchased from Lemuel Robinson, with his occupation shown to be a farmer.

Marilla Gray's son, George Edwin Favre had returned to Minnesota but by 1889 had arrived back in Santa Clara with his wife and children. This is verified by family records, which show the birth of his and Harriet's son, Frank Harold Favre, in Burnsville, Minnesota in 1888 and the birth of their second son, Benjamin Harrison Favre, in Santa Clara, California in 1889. The 1890 City Directory shows that by now, he is living with Marilla and Cornelia in the Lot 2 house his mother had purchased from Lemuel Robinson and he is employed as a Carpenter.

The outline of the original Lot 2 frame house (currently 1159 Fremont Street) and the original barn appear for the first time on the 1887 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, which only covers the southern portion of Block 3N, R2W In December 1887, the Real Estate section of the San Jose Evening News reported that Marilla Gray had given Cornelia J. Walker "pt. L 2 in B 3 N, R 2 W, Santa Clara (Gift)." Four years later, when the 1891 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map was drawn, it shows that by now, Lot 2 had been sub-divided into four (4) parcels, with the original Robinson house that fronted on Fremont Street, in which Marilla, and John Gray, George and Harriet Favre and their children and Cornelia J. Walker were al/ living, located on one parcel, the original barn facing Jackson Street on another parcel and two smaller parcels on the block's Harrison Street portion. On the C. E. Moore Map of the Town of Santa Clara, drawn in December 1892, Mrs. C. J. Walker is indicated as the owner of both 205. 5' deep, B3N,R2W, Lot 2, Fremont/Jackson Street parcels, with Mrs. M Gray shown as the owner of the 100' x 76'3"Jackson Street/Harrison Street parcel and someone named Pinkaro as owner of the immediately adjacent Harrison Street parcel.

In 1894, Charles Copeland Morse purchased a 150' x 100' corner portion, which included the original barn, of the Fremont/Jackson Street parcel from Mrs. C. J. Walker, intending to have a house (currently 1191 Fremont Street) built on it for his good friend, Mrs. (Continued on page 8, Form 523L}
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Gray House
Page_S __ of--1§__
(Continued from page 7, Form 523L)
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
Eliza Jordan. As reported in the Santa Clara Journal of July 28, 1894, " The fine two-story residence that Mr. C. C. Morse is erecting on the corner of Fremont and Jackson streets is also well under way. When completed Mr. Morse will lease the house to Mrs. Jordan and her family." At that time the remainder of theB3N, R2W, Lot 2 parcels were sti/1 undeveloped land.

The 1901 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map illustrates the development, which had occurred during the previous decade, and shows that by then, three (3) almost identical new residences, all of which fronted on Jackson Street, had been constructed on individual parcels of Lot 2. These included two homes on the property shown owned by Mrs. M. Gray on the 1892 Moore Map and one on a new larger parcel, which had been partitioned off of the immediately adjoining property owned her daughter, Mrs. C. J. Walker. The latter is the subject residence, located at 1261 Jackson Street.

On October 31, 1897, 74-year-old, John Baxter Gray had passed away with only a short mortuary notice appearing in the San Jose Evening News that simply stated, "In Santa Clara, October 31, 1897, John B. Gray, a native of New York, aged 74 years.'' Following John's death, Marilla seems to have decided to move out of the Fremont Street home, shared with Cornelia and other family members, into her own home. It appears that Marilla Gray had the home into which she moved constructed circa1898. As had occurred in previous City Directories over the years, the 1897 City Directory for Santa Clara showed Mrs. Maril/a Gray as residing on Fremont near Jackson but no listing for her appears in that for 1898. However, when the 1900 Census was taken on June 8th, 76-year-old Maril/a Gray, a widow, was recorded as Jiving in the house at 1261 Jackson Street, which she owned "Free" (no mortgage).

Except for 1902, when she had a boarder, the Reverend D. W Thurston, Pastor of the Baptist Church, Marilla Gray appears to have lived by herself in her new house. Then on April 19, 1904, the San Jose Evening News reports her gift of the property she owns on the Northwest corner of B3N, R2W to her daughter Cornelia J. Walker, as well as her gift of the parcel, on which her own home at 1261 Jackson Street was located, to her son, George E. Favre. As recorded in the 1905 City Directory, George, who was now employed as a carpenter, his wife Harriet and their daughter, 26-year-old Marilla, a dressmaker, had by then moved into the subject home with his mother and were living there with her when she passed away on March 30, 1905.

On April 1, 1905, The San Jose Evening News carried her mortuary notice: "Died in Santa Clara, March 30, 1905, Marilla Gray. widow of the late John B. Gray, mother of Cornelia J. Walker, George E. Favre, and Francis Gray Dickinson, a native of New York, aged 80 years." An article about her funeral appeared in both the April 2, 1905 San Jose Mercury Herald and the April 4, 1905 Santa Clara News, both of which said that her funeral was well attended and her service conducted by an Episcopal minister and that "her pallbearers were D.L. Moody, F. 0. Roll, James Shoemaker, George Whybark, J, Savey and Captain Morrison." (All of them were longtime, highly prominent Santa Clara citizens.) Also, the Santa Clara News added that, "she died after a long illness in her home on Jackson" and that "she'd been a Santa Clara resident for 25 years." On October 24, 1905, seven months after the death of Marilla, the San Jose Evening News reported that George Favre had sold the property (1261 Jackson Street) to H. F. Carpenter. Shortly after the sale, George and his family moved to Tacoma, Washington, where he would pass away on August 20, 1910.

Now 72-years old and originally from Douglas and Worcester, Massachusetts, Henry F, Carpenter had arrived in Santa Clara in 1878 when he was 45-years old and was considered to be a "highly esteemed and widely known resident of Santa Clara." He was a physician and the Pastor of the Advent Christian Church, to which he was deeply committed. In 1902, when the Advent Christian Congregation was planning the erection of their new church at the intersection of Monroe and Liberty street, (today's corner of Monroe and Homestead where it still exists) Dr. H. F. Carpenter was the prime mover in the work of raising fuds for its construction. He also was known for his investments in land. When, during the last decade of the 19th Century, due to the growing demand for additional housing in Santa Clara the larger pieces of property were being subdivided, H. F. Carpenter had been known to purchase and then re-sell some of the newly formed Jots. Such as following the death of Eliza Spear, when in 1898 he purchased 3 lots from her estate, which had originally an entire block that had been subdivided into 10 lots, with each lot individually. A widower, Dr. Carpenter lived in a home at 806 Jackson Street and did not intend to live at 1261 Jackson Street but bought the house for use as income property.

Almost immediately H. F. Carpenter rented the newly purchased house to Benjamin Fernish. When 38-year-old, Benjamin Fernish, his 30-year-o/d wife, Martha, their son, Charlie, age 9, and 4-year-old daughter, Laura, moved into 1261 Jackson Street, Benjamin was employed as a druggist and the manager of Oberdeeners Drug Store, which was located on Franklin and Madison Streets in Santa Clara. While living here, their third child, a daughter, Katherine was born in 1908. The 1910 Census shows the family is still renting 1261 Jackson Street on the enumeration date of April 28th but by the beginning of 1911, the City Directories show that Benjamin Fernish had by then purchased a house at 945 Madison Street and the family had moved into it. (Continued on page 9, Form 523L)
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House
Page_9 __ of___1§.___
(Continued from page 8, Form 523L)
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
Following its occupancy by Benjamin Fernish and his family, Dr. Henry F. Carpenter rented the home at 1261 Jackson Street to Lester I. Bentley, a driver for the Johnson & Gammell Creamery. Note: According to the Santa Clara City Directories, from 1912- 1917, besides Lester I. Bentley, there also appears to be a set of boarders in house-- a seamstress, Bertha Laddick and her widowed mother, Mary Laddick. By 1919, the subject home had been rented to 37-year-old Antoine Reynaud, a French immigrant. Employed as a butcher in a butcher shop, he moved in with his wife, 27-year-old wife, Marguerite, and their two small sons, 3-year-old Leon and Henry, who was only a few months old. By 1922, the Raynaud family had moved out and Calvin Smith, a salesman, was renting 1261 Jackson Street. He appears to have still been living there when, Dr. Henry F. Carpenter passed away on October 9, 1925, one month shy of turning 92 years old. His obituary in the October,9, 1925, San Jose Mercury Herald, recapped his life in Santa Clara both as a well-respected doctor and as a Pastor, stressing his prominent connection to the Advent Christian Church. He left two daughters, Mrs. I. J. Fisher of San Mateo, and Mrs. Anne Morse of Santa Clara. The family appears to have continued to keep the subject house as an income producing property as there is no record of its sale and the 1926 City Directory shows that it is now being rented by Daniel E. Rose.

Paying $35 a month in rent, 45-year-old Daniel Rose moved into the home at 1261 Jackson Street with Ada, his 42-year-old wife, and their 22-year-old son, Dana. Daniel was a barber and employed in a barber shop, while Dana worked as the manager of a retail tire shop. Then in the early 1930s, the subject house was sold. It was purchased for $950 by John Gomez. An immigrant from Portugal, he was employed as a janitor in a warehouse. The 1940 Census shows that in 1935, 40-year-old John was living there with his 39-year-old wife, Mary, along with their two children, Mary age 12 and 10-year-old John. Note: both children had been born in California. Mary worked in a cannery and like her husband, John, was a Portuguese immigrant.

During the Gomez family's period of occupancy, the block between Jackson, Harrison, Main and Fremont Streets, would be fully developed. Comparison of the 1930 and 1950 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps shows that due to the growth of population, which rose from 6,302 in 1930 to 11,702 by 1950, and the resultant need for housing during this period, three (3) new houses fronting on Harrison Street were constructed on the undeveloped land between the Jackson/Harrison street and Main/Harrison street corner properties.

In the mid-1940s, John Gomez sold 1261 Jackson Street to Arthur J. Pattisson and his wife, Anne E. They moved from Belmont, where they had lived for decades, and into the home along with his nephew, Frederick H. Pattisson. When they moved into their new home, Arthur was 79 and Anne 68. Now retired, prior to moving to Santa Clara for many years Anne and Arthur had owned and run Pattisson's Garage in San Mateo. Fred, who was 60-years old, worked as a carpenter/building contractor. In ,1948, Arthur passed away. As shown on the1950 Census, now a widow, Anne Pattisson continued to live at 1261 Jackon Street, with her nephew Fred who was employed as a building/contractor.

Originally from New Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1953 53-year-old Francis R. Marotte, his 58-year-old wife, Victoria, and their 27- year-old daughter, Edith had arrived in Santa Clara, where they rented a home at 1191 Clay Street. Then in 1956, Francis and Victoria Marotte purchased the home at Jackson Street and moved into it. Francis was a carpenter and upon his arrival in Santa Clara, he went to work for MacKay Homes, who were in the process of constructing new housing tracts being built in the town. Note:

Considered a rival of Eichler, these compact tract homes, built in the 1950s by Mackay Homes in Santa Clara, Palo Alto, and Mountain View, included Sunshine Meadows and Maywood, a Mackay neighborhood of some 200 mid-century modern homes in Santa Clara.

Francis Marotte would continue to work as a building carpenter until his retirement in 1969. During the Marottes' period of ownership, he made some alterations to their home, one of which was the removal of the front-facing side stairs that led to the side porch, where the "coffin" door provided a secondary entry into the house.

By 1980, when the City of Santa Clara was compiling a survey of houses eligible for listing as Historically and/or Architecturally Significant Properties, Francis R. Marotte seems to have passed away as only Victoria Marotte was recorded as the owner of 1261 Jackson Street.

In 2006, the subject home was purchased by Susan Niemi, a photographer, who would live here until 1924. In a 2018 interview for the annual Historic House Tour, she recalled that the people who owned it for a few years before she bought it also did some renovation work, such as the replacement of original windows and stairs with those using new materials.

In 2024, the home at 1261 Jackson Street was purchased by the current owners, Lili Jiang and Xi Yang. (Continued on page 10, Form 523L)
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Gray House

(Continued from page 9, Form 523L)
Historic Evaluation
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
In order to be considered historically or culturally significant, a property must satisfy certain requirements. It must be 50 years old or older (except in cases of exceptional significance); it must retain historic integrity; it must meet one or more of the National Register of Historic Places criteria for significance, and/or the California Register of Historic Resources criteria for significance, and/or the criteria for listing in a local historic resource inventory.

Age Requirement.

Constructed circa 1898, the subject residence at 1261 Jackson Street is over 50 years old and thus meets the age requirement.

Integrity Requirement.

Integrity refers to a property's ability to convey its significance. Significance is conveyed by the retention of a resource's visual and physical characteristics and its surroundings. The National Register of Historic Places criteria recognize seven aspects to integrity.

These are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several and usually most of these aspects. According to the Office of Historic Preservation, the modern test of integrity is to stand on the sidewalk and ask yourself the following question: "Does the resource display enough of what made it significant for its historical period that it can be easily grasped by the average passerby?" Both the California Register of Historic Resources and the City of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance follow the National Register integrity criteria.

The property at 1261 Jackson Street has been well maintained and the design, materials and workmanship that comprise the architectural integrity of the structure have not been greatly diminished. There have been only minor alterations to the home's exterior since it was constructed circa 1898, by original window replacement, the removal of the stairs leading to the side porch on the left (north) side of the home sometime prior to 1980 and the construction of a new set of stairs and landing to access the side porch from the rear, The great majority of the visual and character defining materials and features of the historic building have been preserved and retained. The residence retains its original configuration and location and thus it does "display enough of what made it significant for its historical period that it can be easily grasped by the average passerby." The historical use of the building has not changed, and it remains a single-family home. The subject property is set within a historic residential setting in the area of Santa Clara known as the "Old Quad" and the immediate surroundings retain the majority of the qualities that reflect the. period of the /ate 18th and early19th century.

The subject property at 1261 Jackson Street retains enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as a historic property and to convey the reason for its significance (integrity).

National Register of Historic Places Criteria.

There are not any events associated with the residence at 1261 Jackson Street, which have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history or cultural heritage. It would therefore appear that the building would not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places based on Criterion A (associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history). The building has had several sets of owners over the 128 years of its existence, and none appear to reach the level of significant influence required under Criterion B to be considered eligible for the National Register. Neither do any of the other occupants appear to be significant to the history of the region, Nation or State of California. It would therefore appear that the building at 1261 Jackson Street would not be eligible for the National Register based on Criterion B (associated with the lives of persons significant in our past). However, the majority of the character-defining features of its original 1898 construction as a Queen Anne "Cottage" in the Queen Anne style's Shape subtype identified as "Hipped Roof With Lower Cross Gables''. such as its rectangular footprint and asymmetrical plan, hipped and gabled roof, horizontal wood and shingle siding, projecting angled bay and box-bay, rectangular double-hung windows, and its spindlework and assortment of Eastlake ornamentation, and thus, as an example of the Queen Anne "Cottage" architectural style, which was popular circa 1895-1905, under National Register Criterion C the residence at 1261 Jackson Street could be considered to "embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction" and "represent[s] a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may Jack individual distinction" and due to its proximity to (Continued on page 11, Form 523L)
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Gray House

(Continued from page 10, Form 523L)
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
other historically significant homes in the area, it does contribute to a potentially eligible Historic District. Therefore, it does appear that the building may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C.

California Register of Historic Resources Criteria
The Criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Places are consistent with those for listing in the National Register.

However, they have been modified to better reflect the history of California at both a local and State level. Criterion 1 is the California Register equivalent of the National Register Criterion A (events) and California Register Criterion 2, the equivalent of National Register Criterion B (persons). However, although the building has been occupied by a number of residents during its 128 years of existence none of the people or events directly associated with the residence at 1261 Jackson Street are important to the history of California. It would therefore appear that the building would not be eligible for the California Register based on Criteria 1 or 2. Criterion 3 addresses the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. The subject home was originally constructed ca.1898 as a "Queen Anne cottage" in the Shape subtype identified as "Hipped Roof With Lower Cross Gables" and Decorative Detailing subtype identified as "spindle work" of the Queen Anne architectural style. The Queen Anne architectural style, which became a dominant style in California, Is associated with the period from the mid-1880s thru the first decade of 1900s and this subtype Is associated with the period of 1895-1905. It is a nice example of a "Queen Anne Cottage" and is characterized by being a one-story home with a hipped roof with lower cross gables, a side-facing box bay and a front facing full-height angled bay with cutaway windows with carved brackets and pendants, "spind/ework" detailing, partial-width front and side porches with turned columns, which project from the main body of the house, an asymmetrical plan and rectangular footprint, wide horizontal wood sheathing, and rectangular, double-hung windows. Although the property has been slightly altered, most of the significant of the character-defining features of its original construction remain. Therefore, it does appear to reach the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for the California Register under Criterion 3.

City of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance
In 2004, The City of Santa Clara adopted Criteria for Local Significance. Under these criteria, "any building, site, or property in the city that is 50 years old or older and meets certain criteria of architectural, cultural, historical, geographical or archaeological significance is potentially eligible" to be a "Qualified Historic Resource." The evaluator finds that the property meets the following criteria:

Criteria for Historically or Cultural Significance:

To be historically or culturally significant a properly must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The site, building or property has character, interest, integrity and reflects the heritage and cultural development of the city, region, state or nation.

The area in which this home is located was primarily developed as a residential block in the last half of the Nineteenth Century, as due to the growing demand for additional housing in Santa Clara the larger pieces of property were being subdivided. With the population growing, there was an escalating need for affordable housing. Not every family needed a 10-room house, and the development of smaller homes provided the necessary accommodations for working-class families. Ideally suited for the smaller lots being platted at this time, the new simpler designs offered comfortable living at affordable prices, and they a/so stressed the lowcost to construct the house.

The Marilla Gray house has interest, integrity and character and reflects the type of small residential structures that were constructed in Santa Clara in the late nineteenth century that owed their popularity to the public's enthusiastic embrace and to the pattern books and mail order house plans that allowed them to build a small affordable house.

5. A building's direct association with broad patterns of local area history, including development and settlement patterns, early or important transportation routes or social, political, or economic trends and activities.

Constructed ca. 1898, this home at 1216 Jackson Street was first owned and lived in by Marilla Gray, who was the second owner of (Continued on page 12, Form 523L)
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Gray House

(Continued from page 11, Form 523L)
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
the western half of the block, having purchased it in 1879, and who divided her property into separate parcels, including the lot on which this building was built. In 1905 it was purchased by Its second owner, Dr. Henry F. Carpenter. A physician and Pastor of the Advent Christian Church, and, considered to be a "highly esteemed and widely known resident of Santa Clara," Dr. Carpenter bought the house solely for use as a rental property, for which there was a growing demand.

This was at a time, when due to the promotions of entities like the Santa Clara Commercial League, more and more people were attracted to Santa Clara and Santa Clara's growing work opportunities. Due to its proximity to Santa Clara's growing business district, as the town's population grew this area attracted residents whose employment was in downtown Santa Clara. Thus, this home was ideal for renters, who worked at jobs just a couple of blocks away and who for decades would contribute to the economic life of community.

The subject property does meet Criteria 1 and 5 for Historically or Cultural Significance of the City of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance. However, it does not meet Criteria 2, 3 or 4 for Historically or Cultural Significance.

Criteria for Architectural Significance:

To-be architecturally significant a property must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The property characterizes an architectural style associated with a particular era and/or ethnic group.

When an 1883 issue of "California Architect and Building News" introduced what came to be known as the Queen Anne style to the Bay area, it marked a dramatic change from the rigorously vertical Italianate and San Francisco Stick-style houses. The Queen Anne house Is a concoction of volumes and textures with turned balustrades and prominent front porches, trimmed with cut work, and windows with cut-away comers. There is no single roof line but a picturesque composition of merging shapes. The Queen Anne Cottage, a smaller one-story version that was a veritable billboard of textural effects, adapted the popularity of the Queen Anne style to a broader range of budgets. Constructed circa 1898, the residence at 1261Jackson Street is an example of a classic Queen Anne Cottage that retains the majority of its original design.

7. A building's notable or special attributes of an aesthetic or functional nature. These may include massing, proportion, materials, details, fenestration, ornamentation, artwork or functional layout.

Described as a veritable billboard for textural effect, the Queen Anne Architectural style used several devices to avoid a smooth wall appearance. Among these were the use of patterned shingles and being ornamented with a concoction of mil/work made possible by the development of machine lathes. Notable attributes displayed by the subject home include, but are not limited to, the patterned shingles on the gable face, its Spindlework and cutwork, along with the copious amount of Eastlake decorative detailing, which make the house at 1261 Jackson Street a pattern book of the primary decorative elements, which were the hallmark of a Queen Anne Cottage ...

The subject property does meet Criteria for Architectural Significance 1 and 7 of the City of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance.

However, it does not meet Criteria for Architectural Significance 2,3, 4, 5 or 6.

Criteria for Geographic Significance:

To be geographically significant a property must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. A neighborhood, group or unique area directly associated with broad patterns of local area history.

Located within Santa Clara's "Old Quad, " in the last half of the 19th century and well into the twentieth, the immediate area in which the residence at 1261 Jackson Street was constructed was considered one of the best. Currently the block bordered by Fremont, Jackson, Harrison and Main Streets exhibits housing built in the last decade of the 19th and early 20th centuries which has been basically unchanged for over 130 years. The picturesque and harmonious streetscape that is provided by these eclectic wooden residences, which mix stylistic characteristics ~ the Queen Anne, Eastlake and Stick idioms, with their variegated shingles, decorative bargeboards, scrolled brackets and incised ornamentation reflecting the heyday of intricate mil/work and the influence of pattern books, contribute to the historic setting and illustrate this period of Santa Ciara's historic development. (Continued on page 13, Form 523L)
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House

(Continued from page 12, Form 523L)
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
With much of the original architectural ambiance preserved, the neighborhood has basically retained its historic integrity. Currently eight (8) of the homes on the block are listed as Historically Significant properties for the City of Santa Clara.

2. A building's continuity and compatibility with adjacent buildings and/or visual contribution to a group of similar buildings.

Constructed circa 1898, the Marilla Gray House home at 1261 Jackson Street, along with those at 1277, 1295 on the east side block face and 1210 on the west side of Jackson Street, all of which are on the City of Santa Clara's Historically and/or Architecturally Significant Property List, represent the typical Queen Anne Cottage style residences constructed in Santa Clara at the end of the nineteenth century. Their close proximity to one another, leads to a 1890s style of streetscape appearance that is visually very striking and is representative of late nineteenth century patterns of development within this historic "Old Quad" neighborhood.

The subject property does meet Criterion 1 and 2 for Geographic Significance, of the City of Santa Clara Criteria for Local Significance. However, it does not meet Criteria for Geographic Significance 3 or 4.

Criteria for Archaeological Significance:

As the property at 1261 Jackson Street contains no known or unknown prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, it would not be Archaeologically Significant under any of the five of the City of Santa Clara's Criteria for Archaeological Resources. However, should any prehistoric or historic archaeological resources be uncovered in the future, this would be subject to change.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Currently, this property is on The City of Santa Clara Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties list. In this update of the June 1980 Historic Resources Inventory for the City of Santa Clara, the evaluator finds 1261 Jackson Street to be a good example of the Queen Anne "Cottage" architectural style and, although slightly altered since the time of its construction it still retains sufficient integrity to qualify as a historic property. It appears to continue to be, based on compliance with the National Register of Historic Places Criteria, the California Register of Historic Resources Criteria and the City of Santa Clara's Local Significance Criteria, eligible for listing on the City of Santa Clara Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties List.

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House
Page..JL_ofA__

HARRISON STREET
.... J
A
C
.~ K
s ~ · I 0 ·~ N t
llj
s
T
..,
R
E
E
T

FREMONT STREET
Primary#
HRI #
Trinomial

HISTORIC MAPS
M
A
I
N
s
T
R
E
E
T

HARRISON STREET
1866 J.J. Bowen Survey of the Town of Santa Clara Plat of Santa Clara circa 1873-75

HARRISON STREET
7o~; 7~rj;1 6"~~ /00
~ ' (;) ~
' ~
,;:;
~ Q ~ ~ s I.I
~ - ~ . "l Q
J t ~ ~ - J::

A ~ ~ ~ ~ C
K -l,.'
s ~ ..... ' JJ.Aft//e.r. 0 ~ ~ N
~~ ~
" s (ti~ 0
0 T .s: I
R C) J ~
E N "')
E <..; ~ T <_j C
(Jl {'( V) -L l.;i
~ J..
~

FREMONT STREET
1892 C.E. Moore Map of the Town of Santa Clara
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Gray House

Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS
1887 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP 1891 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP ,.
:. z
J
A
C >:i
K
s
0 ~
N
,,..
s
T
R
E
E
T .I [t,
~ ;;,,.
~ lg ~
1~
M
A
I
N
s
T
R
E
'- E
T
•. II ·" ,I.

FREMONT
'I •
'L ~~~~-: ,------:,-- _., ----,;-7___. ~ •
Note: This map only covered the South half of Block
2 North, Ran e 3 West.
1901 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP
' - a - :, rt
'

FREMONT STREET I
DPR 523L (9/2013
'
~' :
",: '
, ;
: '" Z!
l
I
z
0 Ill
~
l)
<
-,
1915 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP
t-r1~ •,._A ___ ~9G·-, qaG I••

FREMONT STREET
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House

DPR 523L (9/2013
. .
. •
. •
• "'" ,!=
~ I
' I
1 :
z
0 (/)
:ac
0 < -,
z
0 ~ 0
< -,
•
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS - Continued
1930 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP

FREMONT STREET
1950 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP
D
G .

G
GJ Q
z
-
c(
l
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House

Lemuel Robinson
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial

HISTORIC PHOTOS
Ann Robinson
1261 Jackson Street (June 1980 Photo - note the window's projecting sills and aprons & missing side porch steps.) DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House

Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
Aerial Photo
2023 Google Aerial photo of the block between Fremont, Jackson, Harrison and Main Streets. indicates 1261 Jackson Street.
0 Marks a house on the City of Santa Clara's Historically Significant Properties List.

DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
Property Name: Marilla Grav House _ _______________ ____ _

Photo No: IMG_1392;
View: Partial N side-elevation.

Photo Date: 2/6/2026;
Camera Facing: E
DPR 523L (9/2013
Additional Photos - Side Elevations
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House

Primary#
HAI#
Trinomial
Additional Photos - Rear Facade
Photo No: IMG 1416·
Photo No: IMG_ 1420;
View: Partial rear facade
showing basement entry.

Photo Date: 2/6/2026;
Camera Facing:W.

DPR 523L {9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
Property Name: Marilla Grav House ________ ______ ______ _ _

Front Porch
Photo No: 100_3689;
View: Interior looking out.

Photo Date: 2/6/2026;
Camera Facing: SSE.

Photo No: IMG_7305;
View: Front Porch:
showing turned
colonettes, carved
brackets, Eastlake
freize and balustrade.

Photo Date: 2/6/2026;
Camera Facing: NE.

DPR 523L (9/2013
Additional Photos - Front Entry Porch Details
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House ______________________ _

Additional Photos - Side Entry Porch
Original Details and Alterations
Photo No: IMG_1423;
View: Side Porch showing original turned colunetes, carved brackets, and Eastlake block freize. Along with altered entry with side ballustrade removed and new extended porch floor and new porch and entry stair railing. Photo Date: 2/6/2026;
Camera Facing: SW.

DPR 523L (9/2013
Photo No: IMG_1440;
View: Side Porch: new entry stairs from rear yard:

Photo Date: 2/6/2026;
Camera Facing: SW.

State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
Property Name: Marilla Gray House ______________________ _

Additional Photos - Gable Face and Comer "Cut-Away" Window Bracket detail Photo No: IMG_7397;
View: Front Facade Gable face with octagon shingles, gable attic window Palladian in design, corner returns, decorative bargeboard, and angled corner window with elongated corner brackets incised with a floral design, ball and rod freize, and drop pendant; Photo Date: 2/6/2026; View ENE
DPR 523L (9/2013
State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary#

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House

HRI#
Trinomial
Additional Photos - Entry Doors
' . '
r
V
/
Photo No: IMG_ 1429; View: Side Entry Door; Photo Date:
2/6/2026.

DPR 523L (9/2013
Photo No: IMG_7310; View:

Partial Front Entry
Door showing detaling;
Photo Date: 2/6/2026.

Photo No: IMG_1425; View: Rear Entry Door; Photo Date:
2/6/2026.

State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Primary#

CONTINUATION SHEET
HRI#
Trinomial
Property Name: Marilla Gray House ___ _ _ _ _________________ _

Additional Photos - Detached "Original" Garage
Above: Photo No: IMG_1414;
View: "Original" Garage Rear fac;ade and entry door seen frem rear yard; Photo Date: 2/6/2026;
Camera Facing:WSW.

Below: Photo IMG_1431; View: "Original" Garage Front
fac;ade, view towards rear yard. Photo Date: 2/6/2026;
Camera Facing:ENE.

DPR 523L (9/2013
Photo No: IMG_1441 ; View: "Original" Garage south side-elevation & rear fac;ade; Photo Date: 2/6/2026; Camera Facing: W.

State of California - The Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Marilla Grav House

Primary#
HRI#
Trinomial
Additional Photos - Detached Garage/Office
Photo No: IMG_1403;
View: Detached Garage/Office;
Photo Date: February 6, 2026;
Camera Facing: ENE.

DPR 523L (9/2013
Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration offeatures, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will '
be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Mills Act Historic Property Contract
Property Address: 1261 Jackson Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Owner: Xi Yang
Historic Name: Queen Anne Cottage at 1261 Jackson Street Estimated Date of Construction: Circa 1890
Historical Significance and Context
The subject property, located at 1261 Jackson Street, is a designated historic resource listed on the City of Santa Clara’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). It is an outstanding and well-preserved example of a Queen Anne cottage, a residential architectural style that was highly prevalent and culturally significant in Santa Clara during the late 19th century (1890s).

Architectural Merit
The property retains its high degree of architectural integrity, featuring several hallmark characteristics of the Queen Anne style:
• Structural Design: The home is a one and one-half story residence featuring a distinctive slanted bay projecting from the left side of the front facade. • Roofing: The slanted bay is prominently topped by a gabled roof, creating a complex and aesthetically pleasing roofline.
• Ornamentation: The exterior is adorned with original gingerbread trim, ornate crown moldings, and high ceilings that reflect the craftsmanship of the era.
• Streetscape Contribution: The property is specifically noted in city records for its contribution to a "pleasant streetscape" along Jackson Street, working in visual harmony with the adjacent historic property at 1295 Jackson Street.

Justification for Reassessment
The requested Mills Act contract and subsequent property tax reassessment are necessary to offset the substantial costs associated with the specialized maintenance required for such a significant resource. While the owner has recently invested in a comprehensive interior and window restoration to preserve the home’s historical functionality, the exterior siding now requires urgent professional remediation to address peeling paint and prevent wood rot.

Approval of this contract will ensure the long-term preservation of 1261 Jackson Street, allowing it to remain a centerpiece of the Jackson Street historic corridor and a testament to Santa Clara’s late-Victorian architectural heritage. 10-YEAR REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN
Property: 1261 Jackson Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Owner: Lili Jiang & Xi Yang I. PROPERTY CONDITION SUMMARY
The property at 1261 Jackson Street is a contributing historical resource to the Santa Clara community. The owners have recently completed an extensive interior remodel and a comprehensive restoration of all windows to ensure structural integrity and energy efficiency while preserving historical aesthetics. Currently, the primary preservation need is the remediation of the exterior building envelope to prevent wood rot and weather-related deterioration, alongside the phased return of windows to traditional wood double-hung configurations to fully align with the property's original Queen Anne style architectural fabric.

II. PROPOSED MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE (2026-2035)
Year Maintenance / Restoration Activity Estimated
Cost
Year
1 Exterior Envelope Restoration (Priority):

Professional scraping and "in-kind" repair of
wood siding; application of historical-grade
primer and paint to address peeling.
$22,000
Year
2-3
Front-Facing Window Historical Restoration:

Prioritize and replace the highly visible frontfacing windows, restoring them back to traditional wood double-hung configurations with
wide board trim to honor the original Queen
Anne style features.
$2,500
Year
4-5
Ornamental Preservation: Specialized repair
and preservation of original gingerbread trim
and ornate moldings on the front facade.

Detailed inspection of the gabled roof.
$45,000
Year
6-7
Window & Seal Maintenance: Inspection and
re-sealing of recently restored windows to
maintain energy efficiency and historical fabric.
$12,500
Year
8-10
Structural Monitoring: Professional
assessment of the foundation and infrastructure
to ensure the longevity of the historical asset.
$3,000
DI ICJ
DI I
DI I
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/ 1261 Jackson Street Typed: May 5, 2026

RECORD WITHOUT FEE
PURSUANT TO GOV'T CODE SECTION 6103
Recording Requested by:

Office of the City Attorney
City of Santa Clara, California
When Recorded, Mail to:

Office of the City Clerk
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Form per Gov't Code Section 27361.6 [SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE]

HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
This Agreement, (herein, "Agreement"), is made and entered into this ___ day of ___________, 2026, ("Effective Date"), by and between Xi Yang and Lili Jiang, owners of certain real property located at 1261 Jackson Street (“OWNERS”) and the City of Santa Clara, California, a chartered California municipal corporation with its primary business address at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95050 ("CITY"). CITY and OWNERS may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement." A. Recitals.
(1) California Government Code Section 50280, et seq. authorizes the CITY to enter into a contract with the OWNERS of qualified Historical Property to provide for the use, maintenance, and restoration of such Historical Property so as to retain its characteristics as property of historical significance.
(2) OWNERS possesses fee title in and to that certain real property, together with associated structures and improvements thereon, shown on the 2021 Santa Clara County Property Tax Rolls as Assessors' Parcel Number 269-15-012, and generally located at the street address 1261 Jackson Street, in the City of Santa Clara ("Historic Property"). A legal description of the Historic Property is attached hereto as "Legal Description," marked as "Exhibit "A," and incorporated herein by reference.
(3) The Historic Property is on the City of Santa Clara Architecturally or Historically Significant Properties list. OWNERS submitted a Mills Act Proposal to City on April 10, 2026.

The Proposal included a Primary Record from the State of California’s Department of Parks and Recreation. A true and correct copy of the Proposal is attached to this Agreement as “Exhibit B”. (4) CITY and OWNERS, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this Agreement both to protect and preserve the characteristics of historical significance of the Historic Property and to qualify the Historic Property for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Section 439.2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
1111 •
Historic Property Preservation Agreement/ 1261 Jackson Street Typed: May 5, 2026

B. Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, CITY and OWNERS, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, do hereby agree as follows:
(1) Effective Date and Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the effective date of this Agreement and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the effective date, such term will automatically be extended as provided in paragraph 2, below.
(2) Renewal.
(a) Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, ("renewal date"), one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of this Agreement unless notice of nonrenewal is mailed as provided herein.
(b) If either the OWNERS or CITY desires in any year not to renew the Agreement, OWNERS or CITY shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the Agreement. Unless such notice is served by OWNERS to CITY at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by CITY to OWNERS at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the balance of the remaining term of the Agreement as provided herein.
(c) OWNERS may make a written protest of a nonrenewal notice issued by CITY. CITY may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the Agreement, withdraw its notice to OWNERS of nonrenewal. If either CITY or OWNERS serves notice to the other of nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining, from either original execution date or the last renewal date of the Agreement, whichever is applicable.
(3) Standards for Historical Property. During the term of this Agreement, the Historic Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements, and restrictions:
(a) OWNERS shall preserve and maintain the characteristics of historical significance of the Historic Property. "The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation," marked as “Exhibit C” to this agreement, and incorporated herein by this reference, contains a list of those minimum standards and conditions for maintenance, use, and preservation of the Historic Property, which shall apply to such property throughout the term of this Agreement.
(b) OWNERS shall, when necessary or as determined by the Director of Planning and Inspection, restore and rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and the California Historical Building Code and in accordance with the attached schedule of potential home improvements, drafted by the OWNERS and approved by the City Council, attached hereto as "The Description of the Preservation and Restoration Efforts," marked as “Exhibit D” to this agreement, and incorporated herein by this reference.
(c) OWNERS shall allow, and CITY requires, that after five (5) years, and every five (5) years thereafter, an inspection of the property’s interior and exterior shall be Historic Property Preservation Agreement/ 1261 Jackson Street Typed: May 5, 2026

conducted by a party appointed by CITY, to determine OWNERS’ continued compliance with the terms of this Agreement. OWNERS acknowledge that the required inspections of the interior and exterior of the property were conducted prior to the effective date of this Agreement. (4) Provision for Information.
(a) OWNERS hereby agree to furnish CITY with any and all information requested by the CITY to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. (b) It shall be the duty of the OWNERS to keep and preserve, for the term of the Agreement, all records as may be necessary to determine the eligibility of the property involved, and the OWNERS compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement, including, but not limited to blueprints, permits, historical and/or architectural review approvals, and schedules of potential home improvements drafted by the OWNERS and approved by the City Council.
(5) Cancellation.
(a) CITY, following a duly noticed public hearing as set forth in California Government Code Section 50280, et seq., shall cancel this Agreement or bring an action in court to enforce this Agreement if it determines any one of the following:
(i) the OWNERS breached any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement; or
(ii) the OWNERS have allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets standards for a qualified historic property. (b) CITY may also cancel this Agreement if it determines that:
(i) the OWNERS have allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets building standards of the City Code and the codes it incorporates by reference, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Housing Code, the California Historical Building Code, the California Fire Code, and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings or; (ii) the OWNERS have not complied with any other local, State, or federal laws and regulations.
(iii) the OWNERS have failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in subparagraph 3(b) of this Agreement. (c) In the event of cancellation, OWNERS shall pay those cancellation fees set forth in California Government Code Section 50280, et seq. As an alternative to cancellation, OWNERS may bring an action in court to enforce the Agreement. (6) No Waiver of Breach.
(a) No waiver by CITY of any breach under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach. CITY does not waive any claim of breach by OWNERS if CITY does not enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in Historic Property Preservation Agreement/ 1261 Jackson Street Typed: May 5, 2026

equity which are not otherwise provided for under the terms of this Agreement or in the City's laws and regulations are available to the City.
(7) Mediation.
(a) Any controversies between OWNERS and CITY regarding the construction or application of this Agreement, and claim arising out of this contract or its breach, shall be submitted to mediation upon the written request of one party after the service of that request on the other party.
(b) If a dispute arises under this contract, either party may demand mediation by filing a written demand with the other party.
(c) The parties may agree on one mediator. If they cannot agree on one mediator, there shall be three: one named in writing by each of the parties within five days after demand for mediation is given, and a third chosen by the two appointed. Should either party refuse or neglect to join in the appointment of the mediator(s) or to furnish the mediator(s) with any papers or information demanded, the mediator(s) may proceed ex parte. (d) A hearing on the matter to be arbitrated shall take place before the mediator(s) in the city of Santa Clara, County of Santa Clara, State of California, at the time and place selected by the mediator(s). The mediator(s) shall select the time and place promptly and shall give party written notice of the time and place at least fifteen (15) days before the date selected. At the hearing, any relevant evidence may be presented by either party, and the formal rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings shall not govern. Evidence may be admitted or excluded in the sole discretion of the mediator(s). The mediator(s) shall hear and determine the matter and shall execute and acknowledge the award in writing and cause a copy of the writing to be delivered to each of the parties.
(e) The submission of a dispute to the mediator(s) and the rendering of a decision by the mediator(s) shall be a condition precedent to any right of legal action on the dispute.

A judgment confirming the award may be given by any Superior Court having jurisdiction, or that Court may vacate, modify, or correct the award in accordance with the prevailing provisions of the California Mediation Act.
(f) Each party shall bear their own cost(s) of mediation. (8) Binding Effect of Agreement.
(a) The OWNERS hereby subjects the Historic Property described in Exhibit "A" hereto to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. CITY and OWNERS hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the OWNERS successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Each and every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering, encumbering, or conveying the Historic Property, or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations, and restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/ 1261 Jackson Street Typed: May 5, 2026

(b) CITY and OWNERS hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of the covenants, reservations, and restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that OWNERS’ legal interest in the Historic Property. (c) CITY and OWNERS hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants, reservations, and restrictions touch and concern the land by enhancing and maintaining the historic characteristics and significance of the Historic Property for the benefit of the CITY, public (which includes, but is not limited to the benefit to the public street generally located at 1261 Jackson Street), and OWNERS.
(9) Notice.
(a) Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.

CITY: City of Santa Clara
Attn: City Clerk
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
OWNERS: Xi Yang and Lili Jiang
1261 Jackson Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050
(b) Prior to entering a contract for sale of the Historic Property, OWNERS shall give thirty (30) days notice to the CITY and it shall be provided at the address of the respective parties as specified above or at any other address as may be later specified by the parties hereto. (10) No Partnership or Joint Enterprise Created. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or assigns; nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise. (11) Hold Harmless and Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, OWNERS agree to protect, defend, hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its City Council, commissions, officers, agents, and employees from and against any claim, injury, liability, loss, cost, and/or expense or damage, however same may be caused, including all costs and reasonable attorney's fees in providing a defense to any claim arising there from for which OWNERS shall become legally liable arising from OWNERS’ acts, errors, or omissions with respect to or in any way connected with this Agreement.
(12) Attorneys' Fees. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to costs and other relief ordered by the court.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/ 1261 Jackson Street Typed: May 5, 2026

(13) Restrictive Covenants Binding. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner pursuant to this Agreement.
(14) Mills Act Historic Property Contract Application Requirements. An application for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract shall be made through the Planning Division and shall include the following:
a. a Historic Resources Inventory form;
b. the description of the preservation or restoration efforts to be undertaken as referenced in paragraph 3 (b) as Exhibit "D";
c. a statement of justification for the Mills Act Historic Property designation and reassessment; and,
d. the Mills Act Historic Property Contract filing fee pursuant to paragraph 17. (15) Mills Act Historic Property Contract Approval. Based upon the Historical and Landmarks Commission's ("Commission") review of the Mills Act Historic Property Contract criteria and recommendation to Council, and based upon the recommendation and approval by Council, a Mills Act Historic Property Contract may be entered into with OWNERS. The decision of the City Council shall be final and conclusive in the matter. (16) Recordation and Notice. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties execute and enter into this Agreement, the CITY shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara.
(17) Fees. The Planning Department may collect such Mills Act Historic Property Contract application fee of $8,746 (eight thousand seven hundred and forty-six), or other fees for the administration of this contract as are authorized from time to time by the City Council. Such fees do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service for which these fees are charged.

OWNERS shall pay the County Recorder's Office recordation fees for recordation of this Mills Act Historic Property Contract and the recordation of the OWNERS updated Historic Resources Inventory form.
(18) Ordinary Maintenance. Nothing in this contract shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature in or on any Historic Property covered by this contract that does not involve a change in design, material, or external appearance thereof, nor does this contract prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition, or removal of any such external architectural feature when the Director of Planning and Inspection determines that such action is required for the public safety due to an unsafe or dangerous condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California Historical Building Code and when such architectural feature can be replaced according to the Secretary of Interior's Standards.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/ 1261 Jackson Street Typed: May 5, 2026

(19) California Historical Building Code. The California Historical Building Code ("CHBC") provides alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, or relocation of structures designated as Historic Properties. The CITY's building permit procedure shall be utilized for any Historic Property which is subject to the provisions of this Agreement, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or the CHBC. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to prevent any fire, building, health, or safety official from enforcing laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and standards to protect the health, safety, welfare, and property of the OWNERS or occupants of the Historic Property or the public. (20) Conservation Easements.
(a) Conservation easements on the facades of the Historical Property may be acquired by the CITY, or on the CITY's behalf, by a nonprofit group designated by the CITY through purchase, donation, or condemnation pursuant to California Civil Code Section 815. (b) The OWNERS, occupant, or other person in actual charge of the Historical Property shall keep in good repair all of the exterior portions of the Historic Property, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature.
(c) It shall be the duty of the Director of Planning and Building Inspection to enforce this section.
(21) Severability. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Agreement is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, such decision shall not affect the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions of this Agreement. CITY and OWNERS hereby declare that they would have adopted this Agreement, and each section, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. (22) Integrated Agreement - Totality of Agreement. This Agreement embodies the agreement between CITY and OWNERS and its terms and conditions. No other understanding, agreements, or conversations, or otherwise, with any officer, agent, or employee of CITY prior to execution of this Agreement shall affect or modify any of the terms or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Agreement. Any such verbal agreement shall be considered as unofficial information and in no way binding upon CITY. (23) Captions. The captions of the various sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs are for convenience only and shall not be considered or referred to in resolving questions of interpretation.
(24) Statutes and Law Governing Contract. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the statutes and laws of the State of California. (25) Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.

Historic Property Preservation Agreement/ 1261 Jackson Street Typed: May 5, 2026

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY and OWNERS have executed this Agreement on the day and year first written above.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA,
a chartered California municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

GLEN R. GOOGINS
City Attorney
JŌVAN D. GROGAN
City Manager
City of Santa Clara
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Telephone: (408) 615-2210
Fax: (408) 241-6771
“CITY”
________________________
Owners of _______________
By: Xi Yang By: Lili Jiang
1261 Jackson Street 1261 Jackson Street
Santa Clara, CA 95050 Santa Clara, CA 95050
“OWNERS”
Exhibits:

A – Property Description
B – Primary Record
C – Standards for Rehabilitation
D – Restoration Schedule
Mills Act Historic Property Contract
Property Address: 1261 Jackson Street, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Owner: Xi Yang
Historic Name: Queen Anne Cottage at 1261 Jackson Street Estimated Date of Construction: Circa 1890
Historical Significance and Context
The subject property, located at 1261 Jackson Street, is a designated historic resource listed on the City of Santa Clara’s Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). It is an outstanding and well-preserved example of a Queen Anne cottage, a residential architectural style that was highly prevalent and culturally significant in Santa Clara during the late 19th century (1890s).

Architectural Merit
The property retains its high degree of architectural integrity, featuring several hallmark characteristics of the Queen Anne style:
• Structural Design: The home is a one and one-half story residence featuring a distinctive slanted bay projecting from the left side of the front facade. • Roofing: The slanted bay is prominently topped by a gabled roof, creating a complex and aesthetically pleasing roofline.
• Ornamentation: The exterior is adorned with original gingerbread trim, ornate crown moldings, and high ceilings that reflect the craftsmanship of the era.
• Streetscape Contribution: The property is specifically noted in city records for its contribution to a "pleasant streetscape" along Jackson Street, working in visual harmony with the adjacent historic property at 1295 Jackson Street.

Justification for Reassessment
The requested Mills Act contract and subsequent property tax reassessment are necessary to offset the substantial costs associated with the specialized maintenance required for such a significant resource. While the owner has recently invested in a comprehensive interior and window restoration to preserve the home’s historical functionality, the exterior siding now requires urgent professional remediation to address peeling paint and prevent wood rot.

Approval of this contract will ensure the long-term preservation of 1261 Jackson Street, allowing it to remain a centerpiece of the Jackson Street historic corridor and a testament to Santa Clara’s late-Victorian architectural heritage.

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-798 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026

REPORT TO COUNCIL AND STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Report on Actions Taken During City Council Recess period from July 15, 2026, through August 17, 2026

BACKGROUND
On July 14, 2026, the City Council authorized the City Manager, on behalf of the City, as the Executive Director for the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, and as the Contract Administrator for the Sports and Open Space Authority, to approve items vital to the function of the City during the Council official recess from July 20, 2026, through August 14, 2026, during which time, there were no scheduled City Council/Santa Clara Stadium Authority/Sports and Open Spaces Authority/Housing Authority meetings.

This authority would be used in cases where inaction would result in project delays, interruption of services and operations, adverse fiscal impact or in the event of an emergency and to ensure that the City of Santa Clara and public continue to receive uninterrupted services throughout the City Council recess.

DISCUSSION
During the Council recess period from July 20, 2026, through August 14, 2026, the following items were approved by the City Manager and /or Executive Director respectively for the City of Santa Clara and Santa Clara Stadium Authority.

Approved by the City Manager for the City of Santa Clara:

No items were approved by the City Manager for the City of Santa Clara during the Council recess.

Approved by the Executive Director for the Santa Clara Stadium Authority:

1. Agreements with ASF Electrical, Inc., Bear Electrical Solutions, LLC, and Cupertino Electric, Inc. for On-Call Electrical Maintenance and Repair Services at Levi’s Stadium Approval of this item was previously deferred by the Council from the June 23, 2026, Joint Council and Authorities Concurrent and Stadium Authority Board Meeting to the July 14, 2026, meeting. The item was not heard at the July 14 meeting, and no action was taken.

Vice Mayor Gonzalez noted, at the July 14, 2026 Joint Council and Authorities Concurrent & Stadium Authority Board Meeting that City Manager Grogan has authority to move forward with this agreement due to delegation of authority to the City Manager during Council recess.

City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-798 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
The request sought approval of a total aggregate not-to-exceed amount of $1,505,408, inclusive of all option years and contingency across the three agreements, as well as delegated authority to approve future amendments consistent with the Board’s authorization.

Pursuant to his delegated authority during the Council/Board recess, on July 20, 2026, the Executive Director approved the Stadium Manager’s April 2, 2026, request for the following actions on behalf of the Stadium Authority Board:
a. Approve and authorize the Stadium Manager to enter into agreements with ASF Electric, Inc., Bear Electrical Solutions, LLC, and Cupertino Electric, Inc., to provide oncall electrical maintenance and repair services at Levi's Stadium for an initial term of three {3} years commencing upon execution of the agreements, and expiring March 31, 2029, with two (2) optional one-year extensions through March 31, 2031. The total aggregate amount payable under all agreement shall not exceed $250,000 per contract year, $750,000 over the initial three-year period, and $1,250,000 over the maximum five (5) year term unless modified pursuant to Recommendation 3 below. The term for each fiscal year is contingent on the Santa Clara Stadium Authority Board (Board) approving the applicable fiscal year's budget, including amounts due under the Agreements. b. Approve a contingency in the amount of $125,000, which is equal to ten percent {10%} of the aggregate total not-to-exceed value of the baseline amount payable under all Agreements over the maximum five (5) year term of the Agreements (i.e., $250,000 per year x 5 years). The contingency may be used to increase the not-to-exceed amount of any Agreement during any contract year, as needed to cover unforeseen services, subject to budget appropriations.
c. Authorize the Stadium Authority Executive Director to approve future amendments as needed to:
i. exercise the option to extend the Agreements by two (2) one-year extension periods through March 31, 2031, and to establish the not-to-exceed amount for each extension period of $250,000 to cover services during each extension; ii. increase the rates in contract years two through five (April 1, 2027 - March 31, 2031) by up to five percent (5%} over the previous year's rates in accordance with the terms and conditions associated with rate increases in Exhibit G of the Agreements;
iii. increase the not-to-exceed amount payable under each Agreement for contract years two through five (April 1, 2027- March 31, 2031}, by up to five percent (5%} over the previous year's amount to account for rate increases, subject to budget appropriations; and
iv. increase the not-to-exceed amount of any Agreement during any contract year using contingency funds as needed to cover unforeseen services, subject to budget appropriations. The aggregate total not-to-exceed value of amounts payable under all Agreements over the five (5) year term, inclusive of all contract years and contingency, shall not exceed $1,506,408.
d. Authorize the Stadium Manager to issue and execute task orders to the three contracting firms, up to the aggregate not-to-exceed amount for each contract year, City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-798 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
subject to budget appropriations.

The agreements do not guarantee a minimum amount of work. Services will be performed only on an as-needed basis through task orders issued by the Stadium Manager within approved budget appropriations.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with all other departments as necessary.

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] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Note and file the Report on Actions taken During City Council Recess period from July 15, 2026, through August 17, 2026.

Reviewed by: Aimee Escobar, Management Analyst, City Manager’s Office Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 26-9588
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
Resolution/Delegation of Authority Council Recess 2026 Page 1 of 2 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 26-9588

A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,

CALIFORNIA, SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY, SPORTS

AND OPEN SPACE AUTHORITY, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
(“COUNCIL AND AUTHORITIES”) DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO

THE CITY MANAGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND CONTRACT

ADMINISTRATOR OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS

ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL AND AUTHORITIES DURING
THE RECESS PERIOD BETWEEN JULY 15, 2026 THROUGH
AUGUST 17, 2026
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara's City Council, Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority, and Housing Authority ("Council and Authorities") have specific purchasing policies or ordinances, and all other agreements and actions not specifically delegated by the City Code or other formal action must be considered and approved by Council or Boards of the Authorities;
WHEREAS, the Council and Authorities do not have any meetings scheduled between July 15, 2026, and August 17, 2026; and
WHEREAS, specific actions will be needed in order to ensure projects will stay on schedule and services will not be interrupted.

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

1. That the City Manager, Executive Director, and Contract Administrator or designee is hereby authorized to consider, approve, and execute contracts and other administrative matters needed for the on-going operation of the City within existing budgetary appropriations during the scheduled recess between July 15, 2026, and August 17, 2026. //
//
//
//
//

2. That the City Manager, Executive Director, and Contract Administrator shall provide a report to the City Council regarding the actions taken under this Resolution at a City Council Meeting in August 2026.

3. 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 14m DAY OF JULY, 2026 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

Attachments incorporated by reference: None
Chahal, Cox, Gonzalez, Hardy, Jain, and Park, and
Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None
ATTEST: ~

NORA PIMENTEL

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/Delegation of Authority Council Recess 2026
Rev: 7/27/2023

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-874 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Review and Approve each Board, Commissions, and Committee Annual Workplan for FY 2026-2027

BACKGROUND
Beginning in 2024, staff implemented an annual workplan development process that is more structured and has a transparent framework for collaboration. Under this process, each Board, Commissions and Committee develops and approves a work plan that is then presented to the City Council for review and approval.

This approach provides several benefits:
· Clear Prioritization: Each Board, Commissions and Committee will have a defined set of objectives, making it easier for Council to assess progress and allocate staff resources efficiently.
· Enhanced Transparency: Workplans will provide greater visibility into the activities and goals of these advisory bodies, fostering stronger communication and accountability. · Improved Coordination: By aligning the efforts of staff, Board, Commissions and Committee, we can ensure more effective collaboration on citywide initiatives. · Informed Decision-Making: With a clear roadmap of each group’s priorities, the City Council will be better equipped to make decisions that support both short-term needs and long-term strategic goals.

At the November 4, 2025, Council meeting staff brought forward the first set of Board, Commissions and Committee Board, Commissions and Committee Workplans for FY 25/26 for Councils review and approval.

At the February 10, 2026, Council meeting, the Council directed staff to reinstate the Board, Commissions and Committee Joint Dinners. These dinners provide the Board, Commissions and Committee an opportunity to share accomplishments, discuss objectives, and engage directly with the City Council.

These dinners were to begin in June 2026, however, there has been a need to reschedule and postpone several meetings to accommodate pressing City business or other schedule conflicts. Staff continues to work with the Board, Commissions and Committee to schedule these future joint dinners.

City staff liaisons worked with their respective Board, Commissions and Committee to develop workplans during March/April 2026. Each BCC reviewed and formally approved their workplans City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 3 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-874 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
between May and August 2026. The workplans are now presented to the City Council for review and approval.

DISCUSSION
Attached for your review are the following Board, Commissions and Committee workplans for FY2026-2027:

By Charter Board and Commission
Board of Library Trustees
Civil Service Commission-Not included, will come forward under separate cover Parks and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission
By Ordinance Commissions and Committee
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Cultural Commission
Historical and Landmarks Commission
Senior Advisory Commission
The Youth Commission is not included because their term aligns with the school year. This Commission is currently developing its workplan and will also be presented at a future City Council meeting.

The Board, Commissions and Committee are provided with training opportunities for their members during the year to help them be more informed on the relevant topics of discussion.

City staff liaisons and each Board, Commissions and Committee will monitor progress throughout the year and use this information to set goals and priorities for the next fiscal year.

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] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Review and Approve each Board, Commissions, and Committee FY 2026-2027 Workplan Prepared by: Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
Reviewed by: Aracely Azevedo, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Workplan

2. Board of Library Trustees Workplan

3. Cultural Commission Workplan
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 3 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-874 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026

4. Historical and Landmarks Workplan

5. Parks and Recreation Workplan

6. Planning Commission Workplan

7. Senior Advisory Commission
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 3 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
Proposed Fiscal Year 2026/2027
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Workplan
Background
On March 23, 2026, the BPAC reviewed the upcoming FY2026/2027 workplan and proposes to work on the following list of items.

1. Complete Streets Review

2. Santa Clara Caltrain/BART Station Multimodal Crossing Feasibility Study

3. North Santa Clara Transit Station Access and Circulation Study

4. Creek Trail Master Plan

5. Wayfinding Project

6. Paving Project

7. BPAC Work Plan Topics

8. Transportation Grants

9. Subcommittees
a. Wayfinding
b. Data Evaluation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
Current Membership
Name Appointed Terms Ends
Vernon Shure 06/03/25 (27) 2027
Ken Kratz
*appointed to a serve a partial 08/15/23 (27) 2027
Hung Duong
*appointed to a serve a partial
08/20/24 (27) 2027
Betsy Megas
*appointed to a serve a partial and full term
07/17/23 (24) 2028
Jonathan Marinaro
*appointed to a serve a partial and full term
06/03/25 (28) 2028
Jorge Haro 06/03/25 (29) 2029
Guillermo Jenaro
*appointed to a serve a partial 05/13/24 (25) 2029
Purpose, Role and Duties of the BPAC: (include in this section the frequency in which the BPAC meets)
The purpose and responsibilities of the BPAC shall be to encourage recreational and commuter bicycling and walking in the City by promoting safe, convenient, welldesigned facilities, and by evaluating local bicycle and pedestrian related projects.

It is intended that the BPAC shall be an advisory committee to the City Council.

The BPAC shall hold meetings on the fourth Monday in January, March, June, August and October at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall. All meetings shall be open to the public and notices and agendas shall be posted at City Hall. A majority of the members of the BPAC shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The affirmative or negative vote of a majority of the entire membership shall be necessary for it to take action.

Approved by the Board of Library Trustees 8/3/2026
Fiscal Year 2026/27
Board of Library Trustees (BOLT) Workplan
Background
On August 3, 2026, BOLT reviewed and approved the upcoming FY 2026/27 workplan and proposes to work on the following list of items.

1. Collection Funding
a. Advocate to ensure future ongoing funding of the collection budget. i. Collection budget funding was restored in the FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 operating budgets. It has not been restored for ongoing years. BOLT to advocate for the restoration of the collection budget to be ongoing.
b. Staff to prepare information on impact of funding pressures and patron behavior on the loss of circulating technology such as hotspots and laptops in neighboring library systems and at the Santa Clara City Library (SCCL)

2. Alternative Funding
a. To reduce reliance on the City’s General Fund, explore additional alternative funding support for library services.
i. Santa Clara City Library Foundation and Friends (SCCLFF)

1. Review fiscal impact of SCCLFF’s grant and donation
support for the Library.
ii. Alternative funding in other Library systems

1. Staff to prepare information on how other regional and comparable library systems are funded beyond the general fund.
iii. General Plan

1. Updated nexus language to include Library in General Plan was prepared as part of the Library Facilities Master Plan.

2. Advocate for inclusion of updated language when the City addresses General Plan revisions.
iv. Alternative Funding Measure

3. Communications Coordinator Funding
a. Advocate for a dedicated communications coordinator staff position, as listed in Library Strategic Plan.

4. Policies
a. Review Library policies and provide advisory support for policy updates and revisions.
i. Upcoming policies for review:

1. Policy for Posting and Distribution of Community Information

2. Use of Electronic Resources Policy

3. Art Exhibits at the Santa Clara City Library Policy

4. Policy Regarding Privacy and Confidentiality
Approved by the Board of Library Trustees 8/3/2026
ii. Policy review to be spread out over the year.
iii. Staff to provide list of Library Policies.

5. Strategic Plan and Facilities Master Plan
a. Provide advisory and advocacy support for the completed Library Strategic Plan and Facilities Master Plan with Council and in the community.
i. Staff to provide regular updates on implementation and status of Strategic Plan and Facilities Master Plan priorities and Measure I projects.
ii. Advocate for Strategic Plan implementation efforts, including budget requests for a Communications Coordinator and Mobile Application.

6. Liaison Work
a. Engage with and strengthen a cooperative relationship with the Santa Clara City Library Foundation and Friends
i. Maintain liaison selections to attend meetings and develop cooperative relationships and advocacy with City Boards, Commissions and Taskforces, including

1. Santa Clara City Library Foundation and Friends (SCCLFF) Board – Marilyn Edelstein
a. Continue regular joint meetings every six months or
more frequently

2. Parks and Recreation Commission – Steve Ricossa

3. Santa Clara Station Area Taskforce – Jonathon Evans

4. Historical and Landmarks Commission – Jonathon Evans

5. Downtown Community Taskforce – Jonathon Evans

6. Youth Advisory Commission – Daniel Huynh

7. Senior Advisory Commission – Marilyn Edelstein

8. Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee - TBD

9. Cultural Commission - TBD
b. Conduct Library outreach with the community
i. Staff to provide information on Strategic Plan outreach priorities ii. Support connection building with local companies and community organizations, such as technology companies and non-profits.

7. Board Development
a. Explore strategic Board development opportunities, including informational reports from staff, funded conferences and training opportunities (budget permitting)
b. Become better educated on the role and context of public libraries in the United States
c. Become better informed on Library operations
d. Advocate for dedicated funding for Board development opportunities Approved by the Board of Library Trustees 8/3/2026
Current Membership
Name Appointed Terms
Ends
Jonathon Evans 05/24/21 (25) 2029
Marilyn Edelstein 7/16/26 (30) 2030
Stephen Ricossa
appointed to a serve a partial and full term 06/21/16 (23) 2027 Daniel Huynh 05/13/24 (28) 2028
G. Salim Mohammed 05/13/24 (28) 2028
Purpose, Role and Duties of BOLT:

BOLT is an advisory body, meaning that its function is primarily to provide advice and recommendations to Library staff and the City Council regarding Library services.

Their primary role is to serve as advocates for the library system. Trustees represent the library system in interactions with the public, gathering community feedback and sharing information on Library operations and services. BOLT’s advocacy includes support of community surveys, strategic planning efforts, and policy updates. BOLT’s powers and duties as defined by Section 1013 of the City Charter are to:
(a) Make and enforce such by-laws, rules and regulations as it may deem necessary for the administration and protection of the City library.
(b) Approve or disapprove the appointment of a librarian who shall be the department head;
(c) Accept into the library fund and administer money, personal property or real estate donated to the City or otherwise acquired for library purposes subject to the approval of the City Council;
(d) Contract with school, county or other governmental agencies to render or receive library services or facilities, subject to the approval of the City Council.

Proposed Fiscal Year 2026/2027
Cultural Commission Workplan
Background
At the June 1, 2026, regular meeting of the Cultural Commission, the Commission adopted work plan priorities and activities for FY 2026/27 related to the Commission’s goals.

1. Host and enhance multicultural events to encourage and acquaint Santa Clara residents with cultural diversity.
a. Plan and implement Summer Concerts in FY 2026/27
b. Plan and implement Street Dance: August 7, 2026
c. Plan and host Friday Night Live Events
d. Secure sponsors for Cultural Commission special events in FY 2026/27

2. Develop and encourage interactive art opportunities to provide temporary, performing, cultural, and public art in the city.
a. Advise and recommend public art to City Council for public benefit: In progress
b. Support Traffic Box Program: Call for artists in Sept. 2026 c. Host Public Art Exhibition (indoor or outdoor) – FY 2026/27 d. Host Halloween Home & Holiday Home Decorating Contest and recognition:
i. 1 winner per Council District, 1 Group Entry Winner, 1 Best of the Best
e. Update and maintain City interactive web-based public art map f. Implement Make Music Day 2027

3. Raise the visibility of commemorative months.
a. Identify a space to curate and facilitate the celebration of Commemorative Months and determine which cultural holidays to celebrate and via what medium

4. Enhance communication and media strategy to increase community awareness of the Cultural Commission
a. Present accomplishments to City Council annually
b. Develop, maintain, and grow partnerships and collaborations with external organizations
c. Select and provide a representative to the Station Area Task Force

5. Prepare for Citywide Arts Master Plan Process
a. Develop, promote, and implement Citywide Arts Master Plan alongside the City Council
Current Membership
Name Appointed Term
Ends
Debra von Huene
appointed to serve a partial term 03/28/17 (19) 2027
Abinas Roy
appointed to serve a partial term 05/14/24 (27) 2027
Candida A. Diaz
appointed to serve a partial and full term 11/21/17 (20) 2028 Kuku Das
appointed to serve a partial term 06/03/25 (28) 2028
Neetu Garg
appointed to serve a partial and full term 06/13/23 (25) 2029 Charles Pontious 06/03/25 (29) 2029
Ana Vargas-Smith 06/30/26 (30) 2030
Purpose, Role and Duties of Cultural Commission:

The Cultural Commission shall consist of seven members, who shall not hold any paid office or employment in the City government and shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
a. Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to cultural enrichment and beautification of the City, sister city relationships and international exchanges.
b. Encourage the beautification of the city and programs for the cultural enrichment of the city.
d. Foster cultural events, activities and displays that celebrate the City’s native and historic cultures and present diversity.
e. Assist in the planning and supervision of international exchange activities with our sister communities, sharing friendship, skills and concerns. f. Develop individual contacts designed to enhance international communication and understanding.
g. Encourage educational, cultural, sports, technical and governmental exchanges to help acquaint citizens of Santa Clara with cultural and political diversity abroad.
h. Perform other such duties and exercise such powers as the City Council may impose or require. (Ord. 1908 § 4, 7-16- 13).

The Commission continues to meet monthly and work towards completion of their goals and activities.

Proposed Fiscal Year 2026/2027
Historical and Landmarks Commission Workplan
Background
On June 4, 2026, the Historical and Landmarks Commission reviewed the upcoming FY2026/2027 workplan and proposes to work on the following list of items.

1. Historic Preservation Ordinance Update / Incorporate HRI Neighborhoods Action 1: Ordinance Updates
 Propose updates to the ordinance to facilitate recognition of neighborhoods as historic districts, providing preservation and protection measures. Refine and clarify procedures for designation, review, and treatment of historic resources; establish clear and objective standards where appropriate; improve usability for property owners, staff, and decision-makers.
 Hold public input meetings.
 Timeline: 2025–2027
 Notes: Planning consultant needed for ordinance update (RFP required).  Budget: $50,000+
Action 2: Neighborhood Survey
 Conduct a comprehensive survey of neighborhoods with historical significance not yet included in the HRI.
 Collaborate with community members and historians to identify key areas and structures.
 Timeline: 2025–2027
 Notes: Historic consultant needed for surveys and/or context statement (RFP required).
 Budget: $50,000+

2. Grant Opportunities for Historical Preservation
Action 1: Identify local, state, and federal grants for historical preservation, and create a resource list for property owners.

Action 2: Develop a streamlined process to help private owners of historical buildings apply for grants and incentives.

Action 3: Pursue large-scale grants for community-wide historical initiatives, including the Heritage Park project.

3. Education and Outreach
Action 1: Host walking tours, lectures, and workshops on the importance of preserving historical landmarks.

Action 2: Develop online content and social media campaigns highlighting the stories behind historic neighborhoods and landmarks.

Action 3: Distribute educational materials to residents in HRI-designated areas about the importance of preserving their properties and the City’s Mills Act program.

Action 4: Partner with local schools and organizations to create educational programs about local history
Action 5: Streetlight Banner Project
 Notes: The Commission intends to expand the program yearly and create a design submission process. Program was put on hold for 2026 due to stadium activities.

4. Establish a Heritage Park at Civic Center: Past to Present Silicon Valley Action 1: Research the opportunity to name a portion of Civic Center as Heritage Park that includes interactive exhibits, memorials, and green spaces.

Action 2: Engage with local historians, architects, and community leaders to ensure the park reflects the city’s historical and cultural heritage.

Action 3: Secure funding for the development of programs at the park through grants, donations, and public-private partnerships.

Action 4: Launch a public campaign to raise awareness and gather community input for the park’s new function and programs.

5. Yearly Commission Tasks
Action 1: Attend relevant trainings throughout the year (CA Preservation Foundation yearly conference etc.)
Current Membership
Name Appointed Re-Appointed Term Ends
Michael Celso 08/21/18 (22) 03/22/22 (26) 2026
Ana Vargas-Smith 08/21/18 (22) 03/22/22 (26) 2026
Yvonne Inciarte 06/13/23 (27) 2027
Patricia Leung
*Appointed to a serve a partial and full term 12/08/15 (19) 05/07/19 (23) 05/09/23 (27) 2027
Kathleen Romano
*Appointed to a serve a partial and full term 08/26/19 (21) 03/10/21 (25) 03/11/25 (29) 2029
Ed Stocks
*Appointed to a serve a partial and full term 10/05/21 (25) 03/11/25 (29) 2029 Kaushal Varshney 06/16/25 (29) 2029
Purpose, Role and Duties of Historical and Landmarks Commission:

Title 2 of the City of Santa Clara City Code includes the following section that outlines the formation of a Historical and Landmarks Commission and its role.

Chapter 2.120.100 Historical and Landmarks Commission
The Historical and Landmarks Commission shall consist of seven members, whose members shall not hold any paid office or employment in the City government, and shall have power and be required to do the following:
(a) Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to historical landmarks, names and renaming of streets, museums and the establishment thereof in the City, and the marking and preservation of historical landmarks and places.
(b) Exercise such other functions as it may be required to perform by the City Council.

The Commission generally meets on the first Thursday of each month.

Proposed Fiscal Year 2026/2027
Parks & Recreation Commission Workplan
Background
At the August 10, 2026, Regular Meeting, the Parks & Recreation Commission adopted the following Workplan Goals for FY 2026/27:

1. Attend and visit city-wide special events, activities, parks, and facilities to inform Parks & Recreation Commission recommendations to City Council.

2. Conduct an annual review of the Parks & Recreation Master Plan implementation.

3. Review the annual Parks & Recreation budget, programs and services outcomes, and where applicable, provide recommendations to the City Council.

4. Collaborate on Parks & Recreation Commission By-Laws, with goal of adoption by June 2027.

Current Membership – Parks & Recreation Commission
Name Appointed Term
Ends
Edward Souza 06/16/26 (30) 2030
Maureen Riley Chu 05/16/22 (30) 2030
Eversley Forte 08/26/19 (27) 2027
Sukrit Ganesh 07/13/26 (30) 2030
Vikas Gupta 07/17/23 (27) 2027
Dana Caldwell
appointed to serve a partial term 05/27/21 (28) 2028
Derek DeMarco 05/14/24 (27) 2027
Purpose, Role and Duties of Parks & Recreation Commission:

The City of Santa Clara charter includes the following sections that mandate the formation of a Parks & Recreation Commission and its role.

Sec. 1008 Parks & Recreation Commission.

There shall be a City Parks & Recreation Commission consisting of seven members to be appointed by the City Council from the qualified electors of the City, none of whom shall hold any paid office or employment in the City government.

Sec. 1009 Parks & Recreation Commission – Powers and duties (Mission).

The Parks & Recreation Commission shall have power and be required to:
(a) Act in advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to parks, recreation, playgrounds, and entertainment;
(b) Consider the annual budget of the Parks & Recreation Department during the process of its preparation and make recommendations with respect thereto to the City Manager and the City Council; and
(c) Assist in the planning and supervision of a recreation program for the inhabitants of the City, promote and stimulate public interest therein and to that end, solicit to the fullest extent possible the cooperation of school authorities and other public and private agencies interested therein. (Amended by electors at an election held March 7, 2000, Charter Chapter 11 of the State Statutes of 2000).

Proposed Fiscal Year 2026/2027
Planning Commission Workplan
Background
On May 20, 2026 the Planning Commission reviewed the upcoming FY2026/2027 workplan and proposes to work on the following list of items.

1. Conferences and Trainings: To maintain a high level of expertise, Commissioners will continue to participate in relevant training opportunities.

2. Study Sessions: Conduct a series of study sessions throughout the fiscal year to inform policy recommendations.

3. Land Use Priorities for Council Consideration: Identify policy areas for potential Council direction and bring forward recommendations on these topics as part of the City’s broader priority-setting process
Current Membership
Name Appointed Re-Appointed Term Ends
Yashraj Bhatnagar
*appointed to a serve a partial term 05/27/21 (23) 05/09/23 (27) 2027 Priya Cherukuru 05/21/19 (23) 05/09/23 (27) 2027
Eric Crutchlow
*appointed to a serve a partial and
full term
06/13/23 (24) 02/06/24 (28) 2028
Lance Saleme
*appointed to a serve a partial and
full term
11/07/17 (20) 06/23/20 (24)
03/00/24 (24) 2028
Qian Huang
*appointed to a serve a partial and
full term
01/12/21 (21) 03/10/21 (25)
03/11/25 (29) 2029
Vacant 2030
Mario Bouza 08/16/22 (26) 02/24/26(30) 2030
Purpose, Role and Duties of Planning Commission
Based on the Charter, the Planning Commission is a quasi-judicial body which acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council in all matters pertaining to the physical development of the City and consists of seven commissioners that are volunteers and are appointed by the City Council and who meet once a month, except in the month of July.

As prescribed by Ordinance, after a public hearing, the Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council on:
 General Plan Amendments
 Zoning of Real Property
 Changes to the Zoning Code
 Land Subdivisions
And, after a public hearing, the Commission takes final action, except in the event of an appeal, for the granting of any:
 Conditional Use Permit
 Variances
 Appeals of Director’s Decision’s for Single-Family residential projects, Minor Modifications, and CEQA determinations.

Per the City Code, when making decisions, the Planning Commission must find that a project is:
 consistent with the General Plan
 any applicable Specific Plan
 the subject zone
 applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and the City Code  that the design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the allowed uses
 that the operation of the use at the location would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City or constitute hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare
 that the site is physically suitable for the project/use in terms of design, location, operating characteristics, shape, size, topography, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access and public services and utilities  that the site is served by highways and streets adequate in width and improvement to carry the type and quantity of traffic the proposed use would likely generate To make informed decisions, the Commission seeks trainings on topics relevant to their decision making by attending conferences and procuring study sessions on relevant topics.

These items are reflected in their workplan. In addition, during the course of its work, the Planning Commission has also identified a list of land use priorities for City Council to consider during its priority setting process, which is also reflected in the workplan.

Workplan

1. Conferences and Trainings
Organization Timeline Notes Budget Website
Joint Venture Silicon
Valley
State of the Valley
Yearly
Approx.
$100 per
ticket
https://jointvent
ure.org/events/s
tate-of-thevalley
League of California
Cities (LCC)
September 23,
2026 - Friday,
September 25,
2026 (Anaheim,
CA)
Yearly
March 10, 2027
(Monterey, CA)
Annual Conference
and Expo
Planning
Commissioner
Academy
Approx.
$660 per
ticket
https://www.calc
ities.org/educati
on-and-events
APA National
Conference
Yearly
April/May 2027
Online: approx. $350
(member), approx.
$400 (non-member)
In-Person: approx.
$785 (member),
Approx. $1,225 (nonmember)
https://www.pla
nning.org/
APA California
Conference
Yearly
October 3-6,
2026 (Los
Angeles, CA)
Member: approx.
$782.50
Non-member: approx.
$966.25 (early-bird
rate $100 off)
https://www.apa
california.org/
Institute for Local
Government (ILG)
No upcoming –
Monitor
Webinars and
Trainings
https://www.cailg.org/post/upc
oming-ilgwebinars
Silicon Valley Business
Journal
No upcoming
for next FY –
Monitor
Events: https://www.bizj
ournals.com/sa
njose/event
California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
Association of
Environmental
Professionals
(AEP) Webinars
There is a list of
topics to purchase
webinars from
https://www.calif
aep.org/webinar
s.php

2. Study Sessions
Topic Timeline Notes Budget
Yearly Housing Legislation
Enacted by the State
Legislature January 2027 Presented by Assistant
CAO No Cost
Infrastructure Planning to
Support Future Growth
VTA Transit Planning How does VTA
decide/plan for routes?
Code Enforcement: Rights
& Obligations
(enforcement of COA’s)
Real Estate and
Development Market
Conditions
What can the City do to
be more successful in
attracting lower cost
housing?
California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
updates
Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
Environmental and
General Plan Consistency
Review
Autonomous Vehicles
Invite an industry
expert.

How will the City
absorb the added
vehicles?
Data Centers

3. Land Use Priorities for Council Consideration
Topic Timeline Notes
Data Center Development
Standards and Location
Requirements
Should the City meter
out the allowance for
data centers? Based
on power availability?
Anything over 1 MW?
Is there a maximum?
Moratorium?
What other high
energy users are
there in the City?
Entertainment District
Supportive Housing
Solutions – Tiny Homes;
Moveable Homes
Sustainability and ClimateRelated Policies
Vacant & Blighted Building
Ordinance Would it include
vacant office
buildings?
Skilled Labor Policy Look at what other
cities have adopted
polices. Why not
Santa Clara?
Citizen Commission
Overseeing SVP
Policy - Wireless Facilities
Master Plan
Proposed Fiscal Year 2026/2027
Sr. Advisory Commission Workplan
Background
At the August 17, 2026, regular meeting of the Sr. Advisory Commission, the Commission adopted workplan priorities and activities for FY 2026/27 related to the following Commission’s goals:

Goal #1: Advocate for the Housing of Older Adults in Santa Clara A. Advocate for Senior Housing Rental Rights.
a. Research benchmarking of older adult rental regulations in surrounding Cities. b. Collaborate with other City of Santa Clara Departments to develop a recommendation.
c. Make a recommendation on proposed regulations, which could include an ordinance, related to rental property protections for older adults 50 +.

Goal #2: Connect Older Adults to Resources in Santa Clara A. Participate in the ’27 Health & Wellness Fair
a. Host a table
i. Promote Senior Advisory Commission
ii. Offer small public survey
Goal #3: Communicate Results of the Senior Needs Assessment A. Review Senior Needs Assessment data
B. Present results at joint dinner with City Council - November Current Membership
Name Appointed Term Ends
Rick Andrews
*appointed to a serve a partial term 06/03/25 (26) 2027 Kris Kisho Kapadia
*appointed to a serve a partial 06/03/25 (26) 2026
Adila Saadat 2030
Michelle Schmitz 2028
Rebecca J. Selden
*appointed to a serve a partial 06/03/25 (27) 2026
Maria Vaz 06/13/23 (27) 2027
Alma Soto
*appointed to a serve a partial term 06/03/25 (28) 2028 Purpose, Role and Duties of Senior Advisory Commission:

The Senior Advisory Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council in matters affecting people age 50 and older in the City, including health, education, employment, housing, transportation and recreation. The Commission consists of seven Commissioners that are volunteers and are appointed by the City Council.
26-920 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
report. The recommendation is to designate Councilmember Kevin Park as the voting delegate for the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo. Based on current Council attendees, there are no recommendations for alternate voting delegates for the conference.

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 Cal Cities Annual Conference expenses for City Council attendance are included in the FY 2026/27 Adopted Biennial Operating Budget. City representatives participate and represent the City of Santa Clara given the legislative activity that is in the City’s interest.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated with the City Manager’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] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Designate City Councilmember Kevin Park as the Voting Delegate for the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo; and

2. Designate Alternate Voting Delegates, if any, for the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo
Reviewed by: Maria Le, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2026 League of California Cities Voting Delegate Information Packet

2. 2026 League of California Cities Resolution Packet

3. P&P 052 Legislative Advocacy Position Policy
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 2 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, May 13, 2026
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 23-25, 2026 Anaheim Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Friday, Sept. 25, 2026 the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration opens June 2.

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and Council Action Advised by September 1, 2026

LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA
CITIES
alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Anaheim Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Sept. 23, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 24, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 25, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Tuesday, Sept. 1. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly

LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA
CITIES
Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). illi •••
_. G
••• G
--+
2025-2026

CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Gabe Quinto
Mayor
El Cerrito
First Vice President
Teresa Acosta
Council Member
Carlsbad
Second Vice President
David Cohen
Council Member
San Jose
Immediate Past President
Lynne B. Kennedy
Mayor Pro Tem,
Rancho Cucamonga
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 10, 2026
TO: Cal Cities Members

RE: Cal Cities 2026 Resolution Packet
Sixty days before the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities. This year, Cal Cities received one resolution by the July 25 deadline.

The attached packet contains the proposed resolution, background information, supporting letters from cities and city officials, and an analysis of the resolution by Cal Cities. The packet includes detailed information on the resolution process and the next steps for the resolution.

We encourage each city council to consider the resolution and determine a position so your voting delegate can represent your city’s position on the resolution.

Voting Delegates: City councils must appoint a voting delegate to vote during the General Assembly. Each city may also appoint up to two alternate delegates. If your city has not already done so, please appoint your voting delegate by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. The voting delegate packet contains more information.

The 2026 General Assembly will be held Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. in the Anaheim Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo.

For questions about resolutions, voting delegates, or the General Assembly, please contact Zach Seals.

LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA
CITIES
2026
Resolution
Packet

LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA
CITIES
2026 Resolution Packet
Information on 2026 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, Cal Cities President Gabe Quinto has referred the submitted resolution to the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. The committee will meet on Thursday, Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.

A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.

Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Thursday, Sept. 24, at 1:00 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.

The Resolutions Committee consist of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location.

A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.

Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. to consider any resolutions the Resolutions Committee has forwarded. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked in at the voting delegate booth.

Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Thursday, Sept. 24. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page three of this packet.

Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1 2026 Resolution Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The table below shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.

Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly. 2 2026 Resolution Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:

Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee.

For General Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation
Resolutions Committee
Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar
Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly
For Petitioned Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Disqualified Does not proceed to General
Assembly
Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. If an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote.

Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.

Voting Procedures:

Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome, a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.
3 2026 Resolution Packet
2026 Resolution

1. Resolution No. 1 submitted by City of Murrieta
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. City of Banning;
ii. City of Calimesa;
iii. City of Canyon Lake;
iv. City of Moreno Valley;
v. City of Norco;
vi. City of Torrance;
vii. Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto;
viii. Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
• Referred to Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
4 2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1
Submitted by City of Murietta
5 2026 Resolution Packet

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES

CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER

HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS
Source: City of Murrieta
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities/city officials: City of Banning; City of Calimesa; City of Canyon Lake; City of Moreno Valley; City of Norco; City of Torrance; Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto; Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
Referred to: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy Committee WHEREAS, California cities have historically been responsible for adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing housing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the streets, water, wastewater, public safety, parks, transportation, and other infrastructure and services necessary to support responsible, environmentally sound, and well-planned residential growth; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is dedicated to protecting and expanding local control for municipalities across the state to ensure their orderly growth and development; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities recognizes that local zoning is a primary function of cities and an essential component of home rule, and that a city’s general plan should guide its land use planning and strategic decision-making free from pre-emption by the state; and
WHEREAS, increasingly prescriptive statewide housing mandates and development approval requirements can override locally adopted plans, zoning standards, and public review procedures without adequately accounting for differences that exist in each unique jurisdiction in infrastructure capacity, water availability, wildfire and evacuation risks, environmental constraints, fiscal impacts, public service needs, and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, California’s housing goals can be more effectively advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships that support housing production while preserving the authority of locally elected officials to determine how and where housing is best planned and approved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in Anaheim, California, on September 25, 2026, that the League of California Cities support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballotbased strategies that restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters within municipal boundaries, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications; and
6 2026 Resolution Packet
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any constitutional amendment or alternative strategy should preserve the State’s authority to establish broad statewide housing goals and enforce constitutional and civil rights, fair housing requirements, building and life-safety standards, and generally applicable environmental protections, while protecting cities from state actions that compel, through funding conditions or state law, the approval of housing developments that are inconsistent with locally adopted requirements; override local zoning or density standards; or invalidate locally adopted housing or land use decisions when a city has planned in good faith to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation and maintains adequate capacity for housing at all income levels; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters including but limited to: conducting appropriate legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for; the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time frame as determined by the working group.
7 2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Background
Information
8 2026 Resolution Packet
Background Information for Resolution
Source: City of Murrieta
Background:

California cities are responsible for planning residential growth, adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the infrastructure and public services necessary to support new housing. Since 2010, the State has enacted more than 500 housing-related laws that have increasingly shifted housing and land use authority away from local governments. These laws have expanded by-right development, limited locally adopted standards and review processes, and established enforcement mechanisms, including the builder’s remedy, that may override local plans and zoning. Although these measures are frequently presented as solutions to housing affordability, many increase development capacity or restrict local review without delivering the meaningful production of housing needed to address the housing crisis.

At the same time, the State has continued to prioritize increased development capacity without adequately accounting for the infrastructure, public services, economic realities, and safety measures necessary to support housing growth.

State mandates often fail to reflect local conditions, including roadway and utility capacity, water availability, wildfire exposure, environmental limitations, fiscal impacts, and the availability of essential services. Cities are consequently required to accommodate additional housing while receiving no funding or assistance to address the resulting infrastructure and service demands.

Local elected officials are directly accountable to the residents who experience the effects of development decisions and are responsible for balancing housing production with infrastructure capacity, public safety, environmental protection, fiscal sustainability, and community needs. Cities of all types in California have been grappling with this dynamic, ranging from urban to rural, coastal to inland, small to large, northern to southern, voicing concerns to legislative representatives with minimal responsiveness. This is an issue of statewide concern that needs the strength and diversity of the League of California Cities to pursue a long-term solution.

The proposed resolution directs the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The working group would be tasked with developing a more balanced framework that preserves the State’s role in establishing broad housing goals and enforcing constitutional, civil rights, fair housing, building, life-safety, and environmental requirements, while restoring meaningful local authority to allow cities to determine how statewide housing 9 2026 Resolution Packet
objectives should be implemented in a manner that reflects local conditions and community priorities while continuing to support responsible housing production.

As the primary statewide organization representing California cities, the League is uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Its established policy, legal, legislative, communications, and advocacy networks enable it to convene municipalities, evaluate potential strategies, conduct legal and fiscal analyses, build consensus, engage stakeholders, and coordinate with statewide decision-makers. League leadership would help ensure that any recommendation reflects the collective interests of California municipalities and would provide the credibility, organizational capacity, and statewide reach necessary to advance a viable strategy.
10 2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence
11 12
July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
City of Banning
Office of the Mayor
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority
Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to the Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25, 2026. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Banning, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta's submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Respectfully,
Richard Royce, Mayor
District 4, City of Banning
~~cJL
Colleen Wallace, City Council Member
District 5, City of Banning
President, Riverside County Division
League of California Cities
99 E. Ramsey St.• P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 • Fax (951) 922-3128 13 July 21, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Calimesa, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta's submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.
e Cervantez
ayor
City of Calimesa
July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and

25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Canyon Lake, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Arron Brown
City Manager
City of Canyon Lake
14 LAKE
www.canyonlakeca.gov
® 951.244.2955
® 951.246.2022
31516 Railroad Canyon Road I Canyon Lake,CA92587
July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches to address increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Moreno Valley, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Brian Mohan
City Manager
City of Moreno Valley

15 City of Moreno Valley

CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
www.moval.org/citymanager ~ 951.413.3020
Brian Mohan
City Manager
'$) 14177 Frederick St.

Moreno Valley, CA 92553
July 22, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority
Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of the Norco, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Kevin Bash
City Council Member
(951) 768-8981
16 0 CITY OF
NORCO

HORSETOWN USA
2870 Clark Avenue, Norco, CA 92860 www.norco.ca.us
17 CITY OF

TORRANCE

SHARON KALANI
MAYOR
July 29, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
DAVID KARTSONIS - District I
BRIDGETT LEWIS - District 2
ASAM SHEIKH - District s
VA CANT - District 4
BETTY LIEU - District 5
Dr. JEREMY GERSON - District 6
RE: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority
Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Torrance, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta's submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Local authority is essential because cities are best positioned to craft housing strategies tailored to their unique community conditions, infrastructure capacity, and geographic needs.
3031 Torrance Boulevard • Torrance, California 90503 • 310/618-2801 • FAX 310/618-5841 18 When given the flexibility to plan locally, cities can achieve meaningful housing results while maintaining the character and balance of their communities.

The City of Torrance has consistently demonstrated that local control and proactive housing production go hand in hand:
• Housing Corridor Overlay Zone: Through our approved 6th Cycle Housing Element, Torrance created the Housing Corridor Overlay (HCO). This targeted local framework allows for by-right housing and mixed-use development across seven key commercial and transit-adjacent corridors, streamlining approvals and incentivizing production across a full range of income levels.
• Housing Element Progress & Accountability: As documented in our Housing Element Annual Progress Reports (APR), Torrance actively tracks, updates, and implements programs-such as aligning our Land Use and Safety Elements-to clear barriers for residential development while ensuring robust infrastructure and public safety standards.

These initiatives illustrate that local governance can effectively drive housing opportunities without one-size-fits-all mandates from the state. Restoring and protecting local land use authority will allow cities across California to continue developing solutions that work best for their residents.

If you have any questions or require further discussion, please feel free to contact Carlos Huizar, Management Associate at (310) 618-5880 or via email at CHuizar@TorranceCA.!!ov.

Sincerely
~
,
Sharon Kalani
Mayor, City of Torrance
cc:

Ron Holiday, Mayor Pro Tern, City of Murrieta
Lori Stone, City Councilmember, City of Murrieta
Jeff Kiernan, Los Angeles County Division, [email protected] League of California Cities, [email protected]
Joe A. Gonsalves & Sons, [email protected]
19 595 S San Jacinto Ave, San Jacinto, CA 92583
Cell: 951-282-1895 • Office: 951-487-7330
July 23, 2026
Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
• email: [email protected]
Subject: Support for Murrieta's Proposed Resolution on Housing and Local Governance Dear League of California Cities Leadership,
I am writing in my individual capacity as Mayor of the City of San Jacinto to express my strong support for the City of Murrieta's proposed resolution, which is scheduled for consideration by the General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

This resolution represents a timely and important opportunity to thoughtfully examine the balance between California's statewide housing goals and the fundamental constitutional principle of local governance. The proposal to establish a statewide working group to explore a potential constitutional amendment, legislative reforms, or other policy initiatives would create a valuable forum for assessing how local authority over housing and land use decisions can be strengthened while still addressing the State's housing challenges.

Cities are uniquely positioned to understand the distinct needs, opportunities, and constraints of their communities. Local elected officials are directly accountable to the residents they serve and are best equipped to make land use decisions that reflect a community's character, infrastructure capacity, economic development priorities, environmental stewardship, and long-term vision. Moreover, local governments carry the primary responsibility for protecting public safety. Issues such as housing density, transportation, emergency access, wildfire preparedness, evacuation routes, law enforcement and fire service capacity, water availability, and critical infrastructure are inherently local matters that demand the knowledge, judgment, and responsiveness of those who serve their communities daily.
20 While the State has a critical role to play in addressing California's housing needs, a collaborative approach that respects local expertise and preserves meaningful local discretion will result in stronger, safer, and more sustainable communities. The proposed working group offers a constructive path forward to evaluate policies that achieve our shared housing objectives while restoring an appropriate balance between state direction and local authority.

Although this letter reflects my personal position as Mayor and does not constitute an official action or policy of the City of San Jacinto or the San Jacinto City Council, I respectfully endorse the City of Murri eta's submission of this resolution and encourage its favorable consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly.

Thank you for your leadership and your thoughtful consideration of this important matter.

Respectfully,
~c}-4){2~
Crystal Ruiz
Mayor
City of San Jacinto
595 S San Jacinto Ave, San Jacinto, CA 92583.

Cell: 951-282-1895 • Office: 951-487-7330 • email: [email protected] July 23, 2026
Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for the City of Murrieta's Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto:

I am writing in my individual capacity as Mayor of the City of Temecula to express my strong support for the City of Murrieta's proposed resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities at the 2026 Annual Conference.

The proposed resolution presents an important opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate the appropriate balance between California's statewide housing objectives and the constitutional principle of local governance. Establishing a statewide working group to examine a potential constitutional amendment, legislative reforms, or other policy initiatives will provide a meaningful forum to assess how local authority over housing and land use decisions can be strengthened while continuing to address the State's housing challenges.

Cities are uniquely positioned to understand the needs, opportunities, and constraints of their communities. Local elected officials are accountable to the residents they serve and are best equipped to make land use decisions that reflect a community's character, infrastructure capacity, economic development goals, environmental stewardship, and long-term vision. Equally important, local governments bear the primary responsibility for protecting public safety. Decisions regarding housing density, transportation, emergency access, wildfire preparedness, evacuation routes, police and fire service capacity, water availability, and critical infrastructure are inherently local matters that require the knowledge and judgment of those who serve their communities every day.

While the State has an important role in addressing California's housing needs, a collaborative approach that respects local expertise and preserves meaningful local discretion will produce stronger, safer, and more sustainable communities. The proposed working group offers an opportunity to evaluate policies that achieve these shared objectives while restoring an appropriate balance between state direction and local authority.
21 Ci~ of Temecula
41000 Main Street ■ Temecula, CA 92590
(951'1694-6416• Fax f9511 694-6499 • TemeculaCA.gov
Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
July 23, 2026

Although this letter reflects my personal position and is not an official action or policy of the City of Temecula or the Temecula City Council, I respectfully endorse the City of Murrieta's submission of this resolution and encourage its favorable consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly.

Thank you for your leadership and your thoughtful consideration of this important issue.

Respectfully,
Jessica Alexander
Mayor, City of Temecula
Signing in her individual capacity
and not on behalf of the City of Temecula
or the Temecula City Council.
22 2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis
23 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Brady Guertin, Legislative Advocate
Committee: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Summary:

Resolution No.1 states that the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) will:

1. Support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategy that restores and strengthens local authority over housing and land use matters, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications.

Pursuant to the resolution, the strategy should preserve the state’s authority to set broad, statewide housing goals and enforce civil rights, fair housing, building safety, and environmental standards while protecting local control by preventing the state from compelling the approval of developments that conflict with local requirements, override local zoning or density standards, or overturn local land use decisions where a city has planned for and maintained sufficient capacity to meet its housing obligations.

2. Consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

The resolution states: “conducting legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time period.” Background:

As provided in the background information, the city of Murrieta is sponsoring this resolution in response to concerns over state laws that have increasingly reduced city discretion over housing and land use decisions, including legislation that requires ministerial or by-right approvals for housing projects, limits the application of local development standards, and strengthens state enforcement mechanisms against local governments.

Additionally, the city of Murrieta, in its background information, maintains that these legislative efforts have not resulted in sufficient housing production to address California's housing shortage and have not adequately accounted for 24 local infrastructure, public service needs, public safety, market, and fiscal considerations.

The resolution states that California’s housing goals are better advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships, while preserving local authority over how and where housing is best planned and approved.

Consideration of the resolution may be informed by a brief examination of how the California Constitution allocates authority between the state and cities with respect to land use decisions.

The constitution grants cities the power to adopt local laws to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. This grant is called the “police power,” which is the basis for local land use regulation. The constitution grants charter cities the additional power to adopt local laws affecting “municipal affairs.” This power, commonly referred to as “home rule,” is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to identify and satisfy the needs of the local community.

The constitution’s broad grant of police power contains a significant limitation.

Local law adopted under the police power is not valid if it “conflicts” with state law. A local law “conflicts” with state law when it regulates the same “field” in which the Legislature has stated its intent to occupy. In that case, state law is said to “preempt” the local law and it cannot be enforced.

An ordinance adopted by a charter city under the municipal affairs power cannot be enforced if it affects a “matter of statewide concern.” The subjects that have been identified as “matters of statewide concern” have changed over the years due to economic, social, and political circumstances.

Since the 1960s, the state has enacted numerous laws that limit or preempt aspects of local land use and zoning authority. These laws include the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, Permit Streamlining Act, accessory dwelling unit laws, California Environmental Quality Act, and others. In recent years, the state has enacted several laws that Cal Cities was the leading opposition force against, as many of the proposals pre-empted local land use authority, limited public review, and constrained local flexibility. In support of its housing and land use legislation, the Legislature has cited a statewide housing crisis and the need for increased housing production at all income levels while asserting that a uniform approach to local land use decision-making is required. 25 Discussion:

The resolution does not prescribe a specific policy mechanism. The eight letters in support recommend creating a working group or committee to evaluate potential approaches, including legislative proposals, constitutional amendments, or ballot initiatives to strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

A discussion of a strategy to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters will need to consider the California Constitution’s framework for both preemption of police power enactments and municipal affairs, discussed above. It will also need to determine whether changes to the California Constitution will be proposed, and whether they constitute an amendment or a revision, which require different processes.

A constitutional revision is a multistep process blending legislative consensus, voter support, and on occasion, a constitutional convention. It requires significant public engagement.

A constitutional amendment would require a ballot initiative, which includes gathering enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, building large coalitions to support election efforts, and campaigning to voters to support the initiative. This process can involve significant costs. In the last major election for ballot initiatives in 2024, proponents spent $8-$18 million to qualify for the ballot and spent nearly $700 million for the full election cycle, averaging out to about $100 million per ballot initiative.

Cal Cities has been engaged in ballot advocacy for over 20 years. In the early 2000s, Cal Cities developed a ballot advocacy infrastructure that included forming an issue political action committee, fundraising, establishing a network of regional managers, and building a coalition with other organizations to ultimately advocate on a ballot measure. Ballot advocacy requires the approval of the Board of Directors with a supermajority vote.

In the Legislature, Cal Cities plays an active and influential role to ensure that local flexibility and autonomy in the land use and housing space is maintained by engaging on dozens of bills every legislative session to ensure that cities' voices are heard at the state Capitol. Below, you will find Cal Cities “Existing Policy” on local control, housing, and land use policies.

Fiscal Impact
The resolution itself would not have a significant direct fiscal impact. However, depending on what actions follow, the fiscal costs could be significant. 26 Existing Cal Cities Policy
Vision
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities.

Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

We Believe
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility.
• The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities. • Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• Cities are vital to the strength of the California economy. • The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
• The active participation of all city officials increases the League's effectiveness.
• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.

Zoning
Cal Cities believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice and hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. Cal Cities opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements.

Housing Element
Housing issues should be addressed in the general plan as other planning issues are. The housing element should be prepared for the benefit of local 27 governments and should have equal status with the other elements of the general plan.

Encourage Full Community Participation
Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.

Well-Planned New Growth
Recognize and preserve open space, watersheds, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a manner that:
• De-emphasizes automobile dependency;
• Integrates the new growth into existing communities;
• Creates a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers; • Provides job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels.

Support:

The following letters of concurrence were received:

City of Banning
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Torrance
Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto
Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
28 City of Santa Clara
Policy and Procedure Manual

LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY POSITION POLICY
PURPOSE To establish clear guidelines for advancing City goals and positions through legislative review and advocacy at the regional, state, and federal levels of government and to provide guidance for City officials who serve on regional, state, and national boards, committees, and commissions when they are asked to review public policy matters and issues.

POLICY To attain a comprehensive review of legislation affecting cities, to obtain the Council position on proposed legislation, to make the City’s position known, and to maintain a record of pertinent information, the following guidelines shall be followed.

All legislative reviews are to be made on the basis of the effect on the City and citizens as a whole, and taking into account existing City positions, policies, or goals, rather than on the individual’s personal feelings.

The guiding principles for legislative advocacy include and are not limited to:
• Support the League of California Cities and National League of Cities positions on priority bills that benefit Santa Clara. • Protect local revenue sources and prevent unfunded mandates. • Protect and/or increase funding for specific programs and services. • Protect and/or increase local government discretion.
• Advance approved policies such as the City’s Statement of Values, the General Plan, or the Climate Action Plan.

Annually, Legislative Advocacy Positions (LAP) shall be adopted or updated by the City Council at the beginning of the calendar year to identify specific legislative priorities outside of the legislative guiding principles listed above and posted on the City’s website.

PROCEDURE
FOR

EVALUATING
AND

SUPPORTING

LEGISLATIVE

ADVOCACY
Legislation and issues of interest are brought to the City’s attention through several means: the League of California Cities, the National League of Cities, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County, Council Members, city staff, citizens, and professional or governmental organizations and legislators. All legislation or issues of interest are to be referred to the City Manager’s Office.

1. City Manager’s Office (CMO) reviews the proposed legislation and, if warrants, requests assistance from one or more departments.

Adopted 10/9/2018
Resolution No. 18-8611
P&P 052 Page 1 of 2
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY POSITION POLICY (cont.)

2. CMO/Department evaluates the bill for its impact upon Santa Clara, recommends a position and potential action, and drafts a position statement or support/opposition letter.

3. If Council has previously adopted a policy directly relevant to the legislation or the proposed legislation is generally consistent with the City’s overall guiding principles for legislative advocacy or LAP, the Mayor or City Manager may sign a letter supporting or opposing legislation on behalf of the city as further detailed below.

4. If a Council policy relative to the legislation does not exist, the issue is politically controversial, or there is significant local interest in the issue, the proposed legislation including a recommendation to support, remain neutral, or not support the legislation is brought to Council for consideration.

5. Letters and other communications expressing the City’s position on legislation will customarily bear the signature of the Mayor in accordance with City Charter Section 704.2 – 704.3. If the legislation’s principal impact affects the City’s operation, the communication may be signed by the City Manager.

6. In order to keep the Council informed of all City communications on legislation, copies of the letter or summary of actions will be distributed to the City Council as information items in the Council Meeting Agendas.

7. Staff will provide and/or coordinate quarterly legislative updates on public policy items of interest to Council and departments.

Adopted 10/9/2018
Resolution No. 18-8611
P&P 052 Page 2 of 2
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-756 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026

REPORT TO STADIUM AUTHORITY BOARD

SUBJECT
Informational Report on Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager Meetings for the Period January 1 to March 31, 2026

BACKGROUND
On August 24, 2017, the Stadium Authority approved the Harvey Rose Audit titled “Comprehensive Audit of Stadium”. Audit recommendation 1.Q states that “the Stadium Authority Board should direct the Executive Director to require that all meetings, including the date and purpose of the meetings between Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff be documented and reported quarterly or annually to the Stadium Authority Board.” Staff has implemented this audit recommendation on a quarterly basis.

At the August 25, 2020 meeting, the Stadium Authority Board provided additional direction to staff to prepare minutes for all future Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff meetings.

DISCUSSION
In accordance with the Board approved audit recommendation, meetings between Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff for the period of January 1 to March 31, 2026 are listed below. The attendees and topics discussed at these meetings are included in this report as Attachment 1.

On occasion, both 49ers entities and Stadium Authority/City will be named jointly as defendants in a third-party litigation matters and are represented jointly in the defense of the cases by insurance counsel. In such cases, joint defense meetings involving representatives of the 49ers, Stadium Authority, insurance carrier(s), and defense counsel will occur. Such meetings are privileged attorney -client communications, include discussion of confidential work product, and fall within the litigation exemption of the Public Records Act; for these reasons, such meetings are not included in this report.

Date Meeting Purpose
01/05/2026 Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress Update (Teams) 01/06/2026 Finance Catch-Up (Teams)
01/08/2026 Stadium Items (Zoom)
01/09/2026 Stadium Event (Teams)
01/12/2026 Flag Raising Event (Zoom)
01/12/2026 Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress Update (Teams) 01/13/2026 Meeting with Sara Jin from 49ers Santa Clara Management Company (SMC) (Zoom)
01/14/2026 Weekly Accounting Status (Teams)
01/14/2026 Check-in Meeting with NFL (Zoom)
01/15/2026 Procurement (Zoom)
01/15/2026 Super Bowl Parking (Phone Call)
City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 4 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-756 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
01/09/2026 Stadium Event (Teams)
01/12/2026 Flag Raising Event (Zoom)
01/12/2026 Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress Update (Teams) 01/13/2026 Meeting with Sara Jin from 49ers Santa Clara Management Company (SMC) (Zoom)
01/14/2026 Weekly Accounting Status (Teams)
01/14/2026 Check-in Meeting with NFL (Zoom)
01/15/2026 Procurement (Zoom)
01/15/2026 Super Bowl Parking (Phone Call)
01/20/2026 Super Bowl Triangular Parcel License (Teams) 01/22/2026 Super Bowl Issues (Zoom)
01/23/2026 Permit Chat (Zoom)
01/26/2026 Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress (Teams) 01/26/2026 Stadium Budget (In-Person)
01/27/2026 Super Bowl Triangular Parcel License (Teams) 01/27/2026 Super Bowl Issues (Teams)
01/29/2026 Stadium Budget (49ers Office)
01/29/2026 Super Bowl LX x SVP Catch Up (Zoom)
01/30/2026 Procurement (Zoom)
02/02/2026 Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress (Teams) 02/03/2026 Community Event Discussion (Teams)
02/04/2026 Stadium Tour (Levi’s Stadium)
02/09/2026 Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress (Teams) 02/10/2026 Stadium Event Walk Talkin (Levi’s Stadium)
02/12/2026 Stadium Event Walk Talkin (Zoom)
02/12/2026 Procurement (Zoom)
02/12/2026 02-28 Event - Food and Beverage (Zoom)
02/13/2026 Confirmed: Stadium Event Logistics and Public Safety Discussion (Teams)
02/13/2026 Stadium Event Walk Talkin (Teams)
02/17/2026 Stadium Event Walk Talkin (Teams)
02/18/2026 Stadium Issues (Teams)
02/19/2026 Confirmed: Stadium Event and Public Safety (Teams) 02/19/2026 Check In - Santa Clara Event (Zoom)
02/20/2026 Stadium Issues (Teams)
02/23/2026 Stadium Event Walk Talkin (Teams)
02/23/2026 02-28 Event Food and Beverage (Zoom)
02/25/2026 Community Event Discussion City x Stadium Event Ticket Structure (Teams)
02/25/2026 A Day on the Field - Pre-Event Operations Meeting (Zoom) 02/25/2026 Santa Clara Stadium Authority (SCSA) Stadium site-visit (Levi’s Stadium)
02/26/2026 Procurement (Zoom)
02/27/2026 Civic Engagement Agreement (Teams)
02/27/2026 Stadium Event Tech and Dress Rehearsal (Levi’s Stadium) 03/02/2026 Paraguayan Consul General Tour (Levi’s Stadium) 03/02/2026 Stadium Budget (Teams)
City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 4 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-756 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
(Teams)
02/25/2026 A Day on the Field - Pre-Event Operations Meeting (Zoom) 02/25/2026 Santa Clara Stadium Authority (SCSA) Stadium site-visit (Levi’s Stadium)
02/26/2026 Procurement (Zoom)
02/27/2026 Civic Engagement Agreement (Teams)
02/27/2026 Stadium Event Tech and Dress Rehearsal (Levi’s Stadium) 03/02/2026 Paraguayan Consul General Tour (Levi’s Stadium) 03/02/2026 Stadium Budget (Teams)
03/04/2026 Weekly Accounting Status (Teams)
03/06/2026 Check In on Misc. Operational Items (Teams)
03/06/2026 Stadium Budget (Teams)
03/10/2026 Stadium Budget (Zoom)
03/11/2026 Weekly Accounting Status (Teams)
03/13/2026 Procurement Meeting - RFA Sync (Zoom)
03/16/2026 Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress Meeting (Teams)
03/18/2026 Stadium Manager Request for Amendments to Agreement (Teams) 03/19/2026 Mission Trail Coordination for FIFA (Teams)
03/23/2026 Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress (Teams) 03/24/2026 Stadium Manager Request for Amendments to Agreements (Phone Call)
03/25/2026 Celebrate Santa Clara - Event Debrief (Zoom) 03/25/2026 Weekly Accounting Status (Teams)
03/30/2026 Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress (Teams)

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
There is no fiscal impact related to this item aside from administrative time to prepare this report.

COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the Stadium Authority Counsel and Treasurer’s Offices.

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] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 4 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-756 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
Note and file the quarterly report on Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager staff meetings and corresponding summaries for the period of January 1 to March 31, 2026.

Reviewed by: Kenn Lee, Acting Assistant City Manger
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Stadium Authority and Stadium Manager Meeting Summaries for the Period of 1/1/2026 to 3/31/2026
City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 4 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
Super Bowl LX and Fifa World Cup Permit Progress Update Meeting Date: 1/05/2026; 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Afshan Hamid, David Tran, Jake Tomlin, Lesley Xavier, Nimisha Agrawal, Calvin Plascencia, Armand Lobao (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Cameron Lacson (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Review critical permitting items related to SBLX and FIFA WC II. Continued Permit Coordination across departments
Finance Catch-Up Meeting
Date: 01/06/26; 4:00pm to 4:40pm
Teams Meeting: Kenn Lee (City/Stadium Authority); Jeff Fong and Alex Acton (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Radio Booth CapEx Deposit
II. Budget Questions and Submittal
Stadium Items Meeting
Date: 01/08/2026; 5:30 p.m.

Zoom Meeting: Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman (49ers/ Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Items
Stadium Event Meeting
Date: 01/09/2026; 12:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Jovan Grogan, Paulina Morales, Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority); Francine Hughes (49ers/ Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Event Items
Flag Raising Event
Date: 01/12/2026; 3:00 p.m.

Zoom Meeting: Jovan Grogan, Paulina Morales, Janine De la Vega, David Knight (City/Stadium Authority); Ruth Shikada, Zaileen Janmohamed, Karina Herold, Patty Hubbar (BAHC); Kelsey Pietrangelo (NFL); Francine Hughes, Irene Coronado (49ers/ Stadium Manager); Mike Witte, Leigh Fairey (Metropolis)
I. Flag Raising Event Items
Super Bowl LX and Fifa World Cup Permit Progress Update Meeting Date: 1/12/2026; 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Afshan Hamid, David Tran, Jake Tomlin, Lesley Xavier, Nimisha Agrawal, Calvin Plascencia, Armand Lobao (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Cameron Lacson, Francine Hughes, Michael Rescigno (49ers/Stadium Manager), Leigh Fairey, Mike Witte (Metropolis)
I. Review critical permitting items related to SBLX and FIFA WC II. Continued Permit Coordination across departments
Meeting with Sara Jin from 49ers Santa Clara Management Company (SMC) Date: 1/13/2026; 12:30pm to 1:00pm
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight, John Schlosser, Rachel Schmidt (City/Stadium Authority); Sophie Qian, Sara Jin (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Discuss potential partnership for the STEM Zone, Major Community Event Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 1/14/26; 2:30pm to 2:54pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook, Brenda Lee (City/Stadium Authority); Caitlin Ritchie, Erin Fernandez, Stephanie Lee, and Jeremiah Lagasca (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Q3 Financial Report
II. Agreed Upon Procedures (AUP) Audit
III. Photos of the Stadium for Budget
Check-in Meeting with NFL
Date: 1/14/26; 5:30pm
Zoom Meeting: Jovan Grogan (City/Stadium Authority); Kelsey Pietrangelo (NFL); Francine Hughes
I. Check-in Meeting
Procurement Meeting
Date: 01/15/2026, 11:00-11:30 a.m.

Zoom Meeting: Christine Jung, Grace Dougherty (City/Stadium Authority); Alyssa Kutz, Holly Gilbert (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Manager Items:
a. Compactor Project
II. Open Discussion/Q&A
Super Bowl Parking Meeting
Date: 01/15/2026 11:30 a.m.

Phone Call: Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Super Bowl Parking
Super Bowl Triangular Parcel License
Date: 01/20/2026 3:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority; Jihad Beauchman (49ers/ Stadium Manager)
I. Super Bowl Triangular Parcel License
Super Bowl Issues Meeting
Date: 01/22/2026 5:00 p.m.

Zoom Meeting: Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Super Bowl Issues
Permit Chat
Date: 1/23/2026; 9:00am to 9:30am
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight, Nimisha Agrawal, Daniel Sobczak (City/Stadium Authority); Carlos Monroy, Francine Hughes, Michael Rescigno (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Parking Permit Discussion
Super Bowl LX and Fifa World Cup Permit Progress Update Meeting Date: 1/26/2026; 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Afshan Hamid, David Tran, Jake Tomlin, Lesley Xavier, Nimisha Agrawal, Calvin Plascencia, Armand Lobao (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Cameron Lacson, Francine Hughes (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Review critical permitting items related to SBLX and FIFA WC II. Continued Permit Coordination across departments
Stadium Budget Meeting
Date: 01/26/2026 4:00 p.m.

In Person at 4655 Great America Pkwy, Santa Clara, CA 95054; Jovan D. Grogan, Glen R.

Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman, Peter Wilhelm (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Stadium Budget Meeting
Super Bowl Triangular Parcel License Meeting
Date: 01/27/2026 12:30 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Super Bowl Triangular Parcel License
Super Bowl Issues Meeting
Date: 01/27/2026 4:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman (49ers/ Stadium Manger)
I. Super Bowl Issues
Stadium Budget Meeting
Date: 01/29/2026, 10:00-11:00 a.m.

In Person Meeting at 49ers Office: Jovan Grogan, Christine Jung, Kenn Lee (City/Stadium Authority); Peter Wilhelm, Jihad Beauchman (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Proposed Capital Expense Projects and Schedule
Super Bowl LX x SVP Catch Up
Date: 1/29/2026; 12:30pm to 1:00pm
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight, Allie Jackman, Chris Karwick, Nico Procos (City/Stadium Authority); Micheal O’Leary, Dave Bisplinghoff, Megan O’Malley, Justen Medina, Billy Langebstein (NFL), Tod Barns (Populous)
I. Review critical permitting items related to Super Bowl LX and FIFA WC Procurement Meeting
Date: 01/30/2026, 2:00-2:30 p.m.

Zoom Meeting: Christine Jung, Grace Dougherty (City/Stadium Authority); Alyssa Kutz, Holly Gilbert (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. SCSA Items:
a. Trash Compactor CapEx Projects
b. Request for Template Agreements
II. Stadium Manager Items:
a. Landscaping Contract
b. Compactor Project
c. Contract Length
d. Special Inspector – options
III. Open Discussion/Q&A
Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress Meeting Date: 2/2/2026; 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Afshan Hamid, David Tran, Jake Tomlin, Lesley Xavier, Nimisha Agrawal, Calvin Plascencia, Armand Lobao (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Cameron Lacson, Francine Hughes (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Review critical permitting items related to SBLX and FIFA WC II. Continued Permit Coordination across departments
Community Event Discussion
Date: 2/3/2026; 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority); Francine Hughes (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Review planning items for Community Event at the Stadium Stadium Tour
Date: 02/04/2026 9:00 a.m.

In-Person Meeting at Levi’s Stadium (4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa Clara, CA 95054):

Jovan D. Grogan, Glen R. Googins, Aracely Azevedo (City/Stadium Authority); Francine Hughes (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Tour
Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress Meeting Date: 2/9/2026; 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Afshan Hamid, David Tran, Jake Tomlin, Lesley Xavier, Nimisha Agrawal, Calvin Plascencia, Armand Lobao (City/Stadium Authority); Cameron Lacson (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Review critical permitting items related to SBLX and FIFA WC II. Continued Permit Coordination across departments
Stadium Event: Walk Talkin
Date: 2/10/2026; 10:00am to 12:00pm
In Person Meeting at Levi’s Stadium: Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Camila Hammers, Francine Hughes, Teddy Barnes (49ers/Stadium Manager), Carlos Guaico, Saiyidah Morris, Vanessa Rowan (Walk Talkin)
I. Stadium Walk through
II. Production planning for the community event at the stadium Stadium Event: Walk Talkin
Date: 2/12/2026; 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Teddy Barnes, Camila Hammer, Jason Montgomery (49ers/Stadium Manager), Carlos Guaico, Mary Tio, Lauren Dunn, Vanessa Rowen, Saiyidah Morris, Carla Silveria, (Walk Talkin) I. Review planning items for Community Event at the Stadium Procurement Meeting
Date: 02/12/2026, 11:00-11:30 a.m.

Zoom Meeting: Christine Jung, Grace Dougherty, Galen Yusufzai-Boggs (City/Stadium Authority); Alyssa Kutz, Holly Gilbert (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. SCSA Items
II. Stadium Manager Items
a. Landscaping agreement (existing and RFP)
b. On-call agreements – Electrical Services
c. Trash compactor CapEx
III. Open Discussion/Q&A
2/28 Event-Food and Beverage
Date: 2/12/2026; 14:30 pm to 15:00 pm
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority), Leslie Panion (Levy) I. Review Banquet Event Order (BEO) for the Community Event at the Stadium Confirmed: Stadium Event Logistics and Public Safety Discussion Date: 2/13/2026; 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Bryan Williams, Richard Fitting, Jake Tomlin, Aric Enos, Aracely Azevedo, Maximilian Nielepko, Matt Queen, Carol Shariat, Ajmal Puyehgar, Craig Mobeck, David Knight (City/SCSA); Jeremy Vox, Michael Rescigno, Nelson Ferreira, Jason Montgomery (49ers/Stadium Manager) Carlos Guaico, Mary Tio, Lauren Dunn, Vanessa Rowen, Saiyidah Morris(Walk Talkin)
I. Feasibility planning meeting regarding the Stadium Event on Feb 28th.

II. Street Closures and Circulation
III. Parking Plan
IV. Emergency Access
Stadium Event: Walk Talkin
Date: 2/13/2026; 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Teddy Barnes, Camila Hammer, Jason Montgomery (Stadium Manager/49ers), Carlos Guaico, Mary Tio, Lauren Dunn, Vanessa Rowen, Saiyidah Morris, Carla Silveria, (Walk Talkin) I. Review planning items for Community Event at the Stadium Stadium Event: Walk Talkin
Date: 2/17/2026; 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Cameron Lacson, Camila Hammer, Teddy Barnes (49ers/Stadium Manager) Carlos Guaico, Mary Tio, Vanessa Rowen, Saiyidah Morris, Carla Silveria, (Walk Talkin)
I. Feasibility planning meeting regarding the Stadium Event on Feb 28th Stadium Issues Meeting
Date: 02/18/2026 4:30 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Issues
Confirmed: Stadium Event and Public Safety
Date: 2/19/2026; 10:30 am to 12:00 pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Bryan Lee, Richard Fitting, Jake Tomlin, Aric Enos, Aracely Azevedo, Maximilian Nielepko, Matt Queen, Carol Shariat, Ajmal Puyehgar, Craig Mobeck, Mike Liw, David Knight, Kim Castro, Anthony Pascoal, Armand Lobao, David Tran, Afshan Hamid, Lesley Xavier, Leslie Panion, Janine De la Vega (City/Stadium Authority); Jeremy Vox, Michael Rescigno, Nelson Ferreira, Jason Montgomery, Teddy Barnes, Camila Hammer, Cameron Lacson (49ers/Stadium Manager) Carlos Guaico, Mary Tio, Lauren Dunn, Vanessa Rowen, Saiyidah Morris, Carla Silveria, (Walk Talkin)Feasibility planning meeting regarding the Stadium Event on Feb 28th.

I. Feasibility planning meeting regarding the Stadium Event on Feb 28th.

II. Street Closures and Circulation
III. Parking Plan
IV. Emergency Access
Check In – Santa Clara Event
Date: 2/19/2026; 2:00 pm to 2:30 pm
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight, (City/Stadium Authority); Francine Hughes (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Feasibility planning meeting regarding the Stadium Event on Feb 28th.

Stadium Issues Meeting
Date: 02/20/2026 4:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman (49ers/ Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Issues
Stadium Event: Walk Talkin
Date: 2/23/2026; 10:00 am to 12:00 pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority); Michael Rescigno, Nelson Ferreira, Teddy Barnes, Camila Hammer (49ers/Stadium Manager) Carlos Guaico, Mary Tio, Vanessa Rowen, Saiyidah Morris(Walk Talkin)
I. Final planning meeting regarding the Stadium Event on Feb 28th. 02/28 Event-Food and Beverage
Date: 2/23/2026; 2:30 pm to 3:00 pm
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (City/SCSA), Leslie Panion (Levy) I. Review Banquet Event Order (BEO) for the Community Event at the Stadium City x Stadium Event Ticket Structure
Date: 2/25/2026; 8:30 am to 9:00 am
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority), Marcus Wong (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Review ticketing structure for the Community Event at the Stadium 2/28.

A Day on the Field - Pre-Event Operations Meeting
Date: 2/25/2026; 10:00 am to 11:00 am
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight, Jake Tomlin, Anthony Pascoal, Matt Queen, Andrew McGuire, Aric Enos, Bryan William, Casey Rettig, Gregory Deger, John Terry, Max Nielepko, Rachel Thomas, Richard Fitting, Scott Mead (City/Stadium Authority); John Heberden, Victor Ramirez, Jason Rodriguez, Ian Meek, Veronica Tse, Danny Carvajal, John Ngo, Jason Montgomery, Jocelyn Potmesil, Daniel Lee, Christian Huhn, Jacob Hirsch, Henry Trang, Roger Elu, Alexandra Cava, Dan Bobier, Ted Slominski, Carlos Monroy, Skylar Barbero, Cameron Lacson, Michael Rescigno, Lindsey LoPicolo, Prima Patel, Marcus Wong, Brittany Silveria, Diego Perez, Dylan Calamoneri, Riya Patel, Juan Cruz, Sean Hernandez, Nelson Ferreira, Teddy Barnes, Camila Hammer (Stadium Manager/49’ers) Carlos Guaico, Mary Tio, Vanessa Rowen, Saiyidah Morris(Walk Talkin), Lisa Leong (Levy), Paula Jaramillo, Omar Munoz (ABM) I. Final planning meeting regarding the Stadium Event on Feb 28th.

Santa Clara Stadium Authority (SCSA) Stadium site-visit Date: 2/25/26; 1:00pm to 2:15pm
In Person Meeting at Levi’s Stadium 4900 Marie P. Debartolo Way, Santa Clara, CA 95054:

Tyler Cook, Brenda Lee (City/ Stadium Authority); Caitlin Ritchie, Erin Fernandez, and Stephanie Lee (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Pictures of Capital Expenditure improvements around the Stadium Procurement Meeting
Date: 02/26/2026, 11:00-11:30 a.m.

Zoom Meeting: Christine Jung, Grace Dougherty, Galen Yusufzai-Boggs (City/Stadium Authority); Alyssa Kutz, Holly Gilbert (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. SCSA Items
a. Amendment Requests
II. Stadium Manager Items
III. Open Discussion/Q&A
Civic Event Agreement Meeting
Date: 02/27/2026, 11:30 a.m.

Teams: Sujata Reuter (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman, Kevin Wang (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Civic Event Agreement
Stadium Event Tech and Dress Rehearsal
Date: 2/27/26; 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm
In Person Meeting at Levi’s Stadium 4900 Marie P. Debartolo Way, Santa Clara, CA 95054:

Elycia Knight, David Knight, Tyler Freitas, Kimberly Castro, Paulina Morales, Janine De la Vega, Elizabeth Klotz, Aracely Azevedo (City/ Stadium Authority); Camila Hammer, Teddy Barnes, Nelson Ferriera (49ers/Stadium Manager)

1. Event run through and tech rehearsal for the Feb 28th community event.

Paraguayan Consul General Tour
Date: 03/02/2026, 10:00 am
In-Person at Levi’s Stadium: Mayor Lisa Gillmor, Paulina Morales (City/Stadium Authority); Francine Huges, Emily Swide (49ers/Stadium Manager); Consul General Manuel Ruiz Diaz, Ambassador Gustavo Alfredo Leite Gusinky (Paraguay Consulate); Deanna Tryon (Office of Protocol); Maryam Muduroglu (Silicon Valley Host Committee) I. Tour of Levi’s Stadium
II. Partnership Opportunities during FIFA World Cup
Stadium Budget Meeting
Date: 03/02/2026 1:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Budget
Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 3/4/26; 2:30pm to 2:47pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook, Brenda Lee (City/Stadium Authority); Caitlin Ritchie, Erin Fernandez, and Jeremiah Lagasca (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. SBL Transfer
II. Non-NFL Event Revenue
III. Photos of the Stadium for Budget
Check In on Miscellaneous Operational Items
Date: 03/6/2026, 2:30 – 3:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Christine Jung (City/Stadium Authority); Francine Melendez Hughes (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Salvaged inventory
II. Stadium Builders Licenses amendments
III. Request regarding Stadium Event
Stadium Budget Meeting
Date: 03/06/2026 4:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Glen R. Googins, Kenn Lee (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman (49ers/ Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Budget
Stadium Budget Meeting
Date: 03/10/2026 1:30 p.m.

Zoom Meeting: Jovan Grogan, Glen R. Googins (City/Stadium Authority); Jihad Beauchman, Peter Wilhelm (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Budget
Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 3/11/26; 2:30pm to 2:59pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook, Brenda Lee (City/Stadium Authority); Caitlin Ritchie, Erin Fernandez, and Stephanie Lee (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. SBL Transfer
II. March Bank Reconciliations
III. Business Central (BC)
IV. Transactions in BC through Q3
Procurement Meeting – RFA Sync
Date: 03/13/2026, 9:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Zoom Meeting: Christine Jung, Grace Dougherty (City/Stadium Authority); Alyssa Kutz, Holly Gilbert (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Discussion of various Stadium Manager procurements
Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress Meeting Date: 3/16/2026; 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Afshan Hamid, David Tran, Jake Tomlin, Lesley Xavier, Nimisha Agrawal, Calvin Plascencia, Armand Lobao, Aric Enos, Jing Deng, Christine Jung, Richard Fitting, Carol Shariat, Ajmal Puyehgar (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Cameron Lacson, Francine Hughes, Michael Rescigno (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Review critical permitting items related to FIFA WC
II. Continued Permit Coordination across departments
Stadium Manager Request for Amendments to Agreements Meeting Date: 03/18/2026 12:00 p.m.

Teams Meeting: Jennifer Beyers (City/Stadium Authority); Kevin Wang (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. Stadium Manager Request for Amendments to Agreements Mission Trail Coordination for FIFA
Date: 3/19/2026; 9:30 pm to 10:00 am
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Afshan Hamid, Christine Jung (City/Stadium Authority); Yvette Sessions (Mission Trail) Cameron Lacson (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Discuss FIFA World Cup and what vendors / the City might require in services.

Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress Meeting Date: 3/23/2026; 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Afshan Hamid, David Tran, Jake Tomlin, Lesley Xavier, Nimisha Agrawal, Calvin Plascencia, Armand Lobao, Aric Enos, Jing Deng, Christine Jung, Richard Fitting, Carol Shariat, Ajmal Puyehgar (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Cameron Lacson, Francine Hughes, Michael Rescigno (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Review critical permitting items related to FIFA WC
II. Continued Permit Coordination across departments
Stadium Manager Request for Amendments to Agreements Meeting Date: 03/24/2026 5:30 p.m.

Phone call: Jennifer Beyers (City/Stadium Authority); Kevin Wang (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Stadium Manager Request for Amendments to Agreements Celebrate Santa Clara - Event Debrief
Date: 3/25/2026; 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm
Zoom Meeting: Elycia Knight (City/Stadium Authority), Teddy Barnes, Camila Hammer (49ers/Stadium Manager), Carlos Guaico, Mary Tio, Vanessa Rowen, Saiyidah Morris (Walk Talkin)
I. Post event discussion and evaluation for Community Event at the Stadium Weekly Accounting Status Meeting
Date: 3/25/26; 2:30pm to 2:45pm
Teams Meeting: Tyler Cook, Brenda Lee (City/Stadium Authority); Caitlin Ritchie, Erin Fernandez, and Stephanie Lee (49ers/Stadium Manager)
I. February Bank Reconciliation
II. Santa Clara Day on the Field
III. Financial Management Audit
IV. Year-end transactions
Super Bowl LX and FIFA World Cup Permit Progress Update Meeting Date: 3/30/2026; 3:00pm to 4:00pm
Teams Meeting: Elycia Knight, Afshan Hamid, David Tran, Jake Tomlin, Lesley Xavier, Nimisha Agrawal, Calvin Plascencia, Armand Lobao, Aric Enos, Jing Deng, Christine Jung, Richard Fitting, Carol Shariat, Ajmal Puyehgar (City/Stadium Authority); Nelson Ferreira, Cameron Lacson, Francine Hughes, Michael Rescigno (49ers/Stadium Manager) I. Review critical permitting items related to FIFA WC
II. Continued Permit Coordination across departments
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-728 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Public Hearing: Action on Appeal (PLN26-00318) of a Project Located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street of an Approval of an Architectural Review Permit (PLN24-00533) for the Demolition of Existing Buildings and Construction of Three Separate Multi-Family Buildings Resulting in 14 Townhomes and a Duplex Building With Commercial Space and Determination of Statutory Exemption from CEQA per Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025))

SUMMARY
The project is before the City Council as an appeal of a Development Review Hearing decision to approve 14 townhomes and a duplex building with 2 residential units over ground-floor commercial space. The appeal is filed by Michael and Cheryl Fisher. The property owner, Speno Enterprises (“Damian Speno”), filed an application on October 21, 2024, requesting an Architectural Review approval to demolish the existing buildings and construct three separate multi-family buildings. The project site includes three lots located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street, between Lafayette Street and Alviso Street, behind El Camino Real (Attachment 1) and is an infill site. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with multi-family residential, commercial, and single -family residential uses.

The project proposes two affordable units and will pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining 0.4 fractional unit, consistent with the 15% affordable housing requirement under the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, Santa Clara City Code (SCCC) Section 17.04.080. The applicant is also using State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to seek waivers and concessions from certain SCCC requirements.

At the June 17, 2026, Development Review Hearing (DRH), per SCCC 18.120.020.D.3 and

18.120.020.D.7, Architectural Review Process - Public Hearing Required, the project was heard by the Development Review Officer (DRO) and approved. At the hearing, members of the public spoke in opposition to the project. Comments included concerns that the project design is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood, specifically the adjoining townhomes. Speakers also raised concerns regarding the proposed building height, lack of multi-story step-backs, and potential privacy impacts from the proposed balconies.

On June 24, 2026, the adjacent neighbors, Michael and Cheryl Fisher (appellants), filed an appeal of the DRO decision. As this is a project appeal, the project is now scheduled before the City Council for a public hearing. Pursuant to SCCC 18.144.030.E, the City Council hears the Development Review Hearing appeals regarding architecture reviews de novo or “anew.” This means while the City Council may consider the prior arguments and the DRO’s determination as part of its decision-making, the Council will make its own determination based on the record presented. The City Council is not limited to reviewing the prior arguments and decisions for compliance with applicable procedures and policies. The City Council serves as the final City decision-making body on the appeal, but its de City of Santa Clara Page 1 of 9 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-728 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
novo review is constrained by applicable state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and State Density Bonus Law (SDBL).

REPORT IN BRIEF
Appeal Applicant: Michael and Cheryl Fisher
Architectural Review Applicant: Anderson Architects, Inc.

Property Owner: Speno Enterprises
General Plan: Community Mixed-Use
Zoning: MU-CC - Mixed-Use Community Commercial
Site Area: 0.61-acre
Existing Site Conditions: Two lots on Civic Center Drive developed with two building structures with auto-repair uses. The lot on Alviso Street is vacant.

Surrounding Land Uses:
· North: Commercial Uses (MU-CC) across Civic Center Drive · East: Two-Story Townhomes and Two-Story Single-Family Residence (MU-CC) · South: Two-Story Hotel (MU-CC)
· West: One-Story Single-Family Residences (MU-CC) and One-Story Commercial Building (MU-CC)

BACKGROUND
On October 21, 2024, the property owner, Damian Speno of Speno Enterprises, submitted an Architectural Review application for the proposed project, as required by SCCC Section

18.120.020.D. Under the General Plan CMU designation and the MU-CC Zoning, the proposed multifamily project is a permitted use. The only entitlement required is a DRH approval for the architecture, which is the land-use approval at issue in this appeal. Under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), if a housing development complies with the applicable objective standards in effect when the application was determined to be complete, the City may not disapprove the project or require a lower-density project unless the project would result in a specific impact on public health or safety.

Staff finds the project consistent with the applicable development standards, as modified by the requested SDBL waivers and concession, and has identified no specific in public health or safety impacts meeting the HAA standard.

On September 16, 2025, the applicant held a Community Meeting, in both online and in-person formats. Seven members of the public attended in-person and no members attended online.

Comments raised at the meeting generally related to on-street parking, the existing width of Civic Center Drive and privacy concerns. The applicant responded to on-street parking concerns and stated that each townhome unit would provide a two-car garage, the duplex units would have assigned parking, and that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are exempt from parking requirements.

The applicant also stated that the project proposes a six-foot masonry wall consistent with the Zoning Code along with landscaping along the perimeter to provide additional privacy.

Michael and Cheryl Fisher, the appellants, were also at the DRH meeting. The appellants received entitlements for an adjacent property under the old code. Prior to the DRH, staff received email correspondence from the appellants, regarding concerns about the entitlement process for the appellants’ own project compared to the proposed project, as well as concerns regarding the project’s design compatibility with the neighborhood. Staff provided responses to the comments, included as Attachment 6. On August 13, 2026, staff met with Mr. Fisher to review his concerns and explained City of Santa Clara Page 2 of 9 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-728 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
that his project was processed under the old code that had a different process for architectural review. The new Zoning Code and State Laws are now applicable to the current development.

Furthermore, the El Camino Specific Plan which is cited in the appeal, cannot be retroactively applied.

Summary of Appeal Request:

On June 17, 2026, staff received a public comment letter from the appellants’ attorney in opposition to the project. The letter stated that Brown Act requirements were not met because the statutory CEQA exemption was not listed; that the project did not provide substantial evidence to support requested waivers; and that the project design is inconsistent with the zoning code and adjacent residential uses. Staff addressed these comments during the staff presentation at the June 17, 2026, DRH meeting. The PowerPoint presentation containing staff responses to the comments is included as Attachment 4.

At the publicly noticed DRH on June 17, 2026, the DRO reviewed the request. Following staff and applicant presentations, the DRO opened the hearing for public comment. Four members of the public provided comments in opposition to the proposal. After considering the record and public comments, the DRO approved the project, consistent with staff’s recommendation.

On June 24, 2026, the appellants filed a timely appeal of the DRO’s decision to City Council in accordance with SCCC 18.144.020.B. The appeal raises four primary objections to the project as approved:
· The appellants allege that the project is ineligible to use the statutory CEQA exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, as amended by (AB 130 (2025)), based on an alleged General Plan inconsistency;
· The appellants claim that the City needed more evidence to approve the requested waivers and concession;
· The appellants believe the City cannot make the necessary findings to approve the architectural review, based on subjective concerns over compatibility of style and privacy; and · The appellants claim that the Project is inconsistent with the May 2026 El Camino Real Specific Plan.

Brief responses to these allegations are provided below; a more detailed response is attached to this Report as Attachment 6.

DISCUSSION
Proposed Project
Existing Conditions
The project site is located in a neighborhood developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and hotel uses. The surrounding uses include townhomes to the east across Alviso Street, commercial uses to the north and south, a hotel use to the south, and one-story residences to the west. The project site is not located within 200 feet of a Historic Resource. The parcels along Civic Center Drive are currently developed with one-story auto-repair and auto-related uses. The parcel along Alviso Street is currently vacant.

Proposed Project
The proposed project would redevelop the site with 14 four-story “for-sale” attached townhomes City of Santa Clara Page 3 of 9 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-728 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
distributed across two four-story buildings: one building with eight units and one with six units. The project also includes a three-story building with two residential units, two accessory dwelling units, and approximately 715 square feet of commercial space. The project application was determined to be complete and cleared at the April 14, 2026, Project Clearance Committee meeting.

As provided in more detail below, the proposal is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines in that it would improve the aesthetic condition of the site (Goals 4a and 4b), incorporate a design compatible with the surrounding development pattern (Goal 2a), and would facilitate efficient and convenient layout of parking and pedestrian circulation (Goal 4c).

Affordable Housing and State Density Bonus Waivers
The project proposes two affordable units and payment of an in-lieu fee for the 0.4 remaining fractional unit, consistent with the 15% affordable housing requirement under the Affordable Housing Ordinance, SCCC Section 17.04.080. Because the project includes affordable housing units, the applicant is utilizing the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) to request four waivers and one concession from certain Santa Clara City Code development standards. The four waivers include:

1. A reduction in the rear setback;

2. A waiver of the front setback requirement along Civic Center Drive;

3. A waiver of the multi-story step-back requirements; and

4. A waiver of the height limit to allow an increase in building height.

The applicant also requests a concession to reduce the commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement.

Staff has reviewed and approved the requested waivers and concession in accordance with State Density Bonus Law and the applicable provisions of the Santa Clara City Code.

Prior Action
At the June 17, 2026, DRH public hearing, staff recommended approval of the proposed project after making the required Architectural Review findings under SCCC 18.120.020.F. The findings are listed below, with the facts supporting each finding shown in italics. After reviewing the appeal letter, staff have provided further clarification and information for each finding, with the finding listed first in bold text.
1) That any off-street parking area, screening strips, and other facilities and improvements necessary to secure the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code and the General Plan of the City are a part of the proposed development, in that:
· The project is within one-half mile of a major transit stop and therefore is not subject to minimum parking requirement pursuant Government Section 65863.2 (AB 2097 (2022)).

Accessory Dwelling Units are not required to provide parking pursuant to Government Code section 66322(a). While parking is not required, each townhome unit will have a twocar garage which provides the Code required two covered parking spaces. Each of the two units in the duplex will have one space assigned, one covered parking space, and a third parking space that will be provided uncovered. An additional ADA parking space is provided in front of the Mixed-Use Building.
2) That the design and location of the proposed development and its relation to neighboring developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of City of Santa Clara Page 4 of 9 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-728 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
investment or occupation in the neighborhood, will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring developments, and will not create traffic congestion or hazard, in that:
· The proposed project would generate less than 100 net new peak hour trips. The number of vehicles entering/exiting the site at any time would be minimal and would not disrupt traffic flow in the existing neighborhood. The project did not meet the threshold for additional evaluation for vehicle miles traveled or a local transportation analysis study. The project includes pedestrian improvements by construction of a new six-foot sidewalk with a four-foot landscape strip along Civic Center Drive and Alviso Street. · The proposed development is consistent with the objective standards set forth in the General Plan and Zoning Code, and with the waivers and concessions, will comply with the MU-CC zoning district’s development standards. For purposes of the HAA's restrictions on disapproval or reduced density, the City must apply the applicable objective development standards; subjective design preferences cannot supply additional development standards for denying or reducing the density of an objectively compliant project. · While the applicant requests a waiver to increase the height and waive the multi-story step-back requirement, the project is a contemporary architectural design that incorporates a variety of building materials, textures, and styles to enhance visual interest. The proposed architecture style incorporates existing contemporary Spanish architecture style present in the existing townhome project east of the proposed site. The proposed design conforms to the City’s Community Design Guidelines in that it improves the aesthetic of the existing parcels (the existing site on Civic Center Drive are developed with auto-oriented uses and the site on Alviso Street is vacant), creates a mix of uses by providing residential use in proximity to existing commercial near El Camino Real, and is designed to be compatible with the existing surrounding development.
3) That the design and location of the proposed development is such that it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and is such as not to be detrimental to the harmonious development contemplated by the Zoning Code and the General Plan of the City, in that:
· The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding character of the neighborhood by including compatible building color palette, contemporary Spanish architectural design, double pane windows, and metal railings. The architectural features of the proposed design are true to the architectural form and appropriate for the neighborhood. In accordance with the HAA, subjective design criteria cannot be used as additional development standards to disapprove the project or require it to be developed at a lesser density, where it complies with the applicable objective standards. To the extent of complying with development standards, the proposed project complies with the MU-CC zoning district’s development standards, with waivers and concessions. 4) That the granting of such approval will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of said development, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injuries to property or improvements in said neighborhood, in that:
· The project is subject to the California Building Code and City Code requirements, which serve to regulate new construction to protect public health, safety, and general welfare.
· The project proposes 15 percent (2 units, and for the fractional 0.4 unit, in-lieu fees) of City of Santa Clara Page 5 of 9 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-728 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
the total unit count for the households at moderate-income. Affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project and contain the same number of bedrooms as market rate units.
5) That the proposed development, as set forth in the plans and drawings, are consistent with the set of more detailed policies and criteria for architectural review as approved and updated from time to time by the City Council, which set shall be maintained in the planning division office, in that:
· The proposal is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines in that it would improve the aesthetic condition of the site (Goals 4a and 4b), incorporate a design compatible with the surrounding development pattern (Goal 2a), and would facilitate efficient and convenient layout of parking and pedestrian circulation (Goal 4c)..

Considerations
Appeal Letter
The appellants’ attorney submitted an appeal letter, dated June 24, 2026, included as Attachment 5 stating reasons that substantial evidence does not support the DRO’s approval. The appeal letter raises five main points, as listed below. Staff responses to the concerns raised in the appeal letter are provided briefly below, with a more detailed response in Attachment 6.

1. Use of CEQA Exemption under AB 130 (2025): The Project relies on the AB 130 statutory exemption for qualifying infill residential projects on sites generally not more than 20 acres.

The appellant objects because the AB 130 exemption is only available to projects that are consistent with the General Plan, and the Appellant argues that the project is inconsistent.

Their argument is based on General Plan policies that require qualitative judgment, such as “high quality design,” compatibility with neighboring uses, and providing adequate transition from surrounding neighborhoods. But AB 130 provides that a housing development project shall be deemed consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning ordinance if substantial evidence would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the project is consistent. Here, substantial evidence supports that determination, including the Community Mixed Use designation, which authorizes the proposed residential and commercial uses and density. In addition, approval of SDBL concessions and waivers may not be used as grounds for finding that a project is inconsistent with the General Plan under AB 130, so to the extent the Appellants’ objections are related to the height, step back, or setbacks, those factors cannot be considered.

2. Inconsistency with May 2026 El Camino Real Specific Plan. The Project Clearance Committee determined the application was complete on April 14, 2026, before the Specific Plan was adopted on May 19, 2026. HAA compliance is evaluated against the applicable objective general plan, zoning, subdivision, and design-review standards in effect when the application was deemed complete. Accordingly, development standards first adopted through the May 2026 Specific Plan do not apply and cannot be used as the standards against which the City may evaluate this Project for purposes of HAA disapproval or reduced-density review.

3. Evidence supporting requested concession and waivers. The applicant is utilizing a concession to reduce the required commercial square footage, because the unusual and constrained configuration of the Project Site results in a narrow northern leg extending to Alviso Street and the larger portion of the Site is situated behind that frontage. Consequently, only a limited portion of the Site has the street exposure, visibility, and direct pedestrian City of Santa Clara Page 6 of 9 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-728 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
access ordinarily associated with viable commercial space. The appellants argue that the City should have required additional evidence from the applicant that economic infeasibility justified the granting of the concession. But legally, for a concession, an applicant does not have to prove economic necessity or submit a pro forma or similar evidence, and the City bears the burden to justify denial.

The applicant is also receiving waivers of development standards for front and rear setbacks, the multi-story step back requirement, and the maximum height. The appellants argue that the City should have required additional evidence for the need for these waivers. To grant waivers, there must be a factual basis for concluding a development standard would physically preclude the qualifying project, but the City cannot require the developer to remove amenities or redesign the project merely to eliminate the need for the waiver. Here, the unusual configuration of the Site already limits the horizontal area available for residential buildings. Full application of the setback requirements would further reduce the ground-level building envelope; application of the multistory step back requirement would reduce the available building envelope on the upper stories; and application of the otherwise-required height limit would prevent the Project from accommodating vertically the residential floor area displaced by those constraints. In combination, these standards would physically preclude construction of the Project at the allowable density.

4. Architectural Review Findings. The appellants also argue that the City cannot make two of the architectural review findings, related to neighborhood compatibility and harmonious development. The HAA does not authorize subjective compatibility criteria to serve as additional development standards for disapproving or reducing the density of an otherwise objectively compliant housing development project. The City may nevertheless make the locally required Architectural Review findings where the record supports them, and the evidence supporting those findings is identified above.

5. Requested design changes. The appellants ask that the Project be redesigned to reduce height and increase setbacks, which are development standards for which the applicant has requested SDBL waivers. But as described above, strict application of the development standards would preclude construction of the project at the allowable density. In addition, the appellants requested changes to specific architectural details (requesting wood trim windows and arches) and wanted to modify the condition on balconies. Staff believes that the current architectural design is of a high caliber and compatible with surrounding developments.

Finally, the appellants wanted to constrain the uses allowed at the commercial space.

However, this is not one of the relevant topics for an architectural review.

Again, a more thorough analysis of these issues is provided in Attachment 5. In summary, staff believes that none of the objections to the project presented by appellants provide a compelling or legal basis for overturning the DRO’s decision to approve the project.

Recommended City Council Actions
The project is presented to the City Council for consideration and action. The following specific actions are required:
a) Appeal: Adopt the resolution overruling the appeal and upholding the decision to approve the Architectural Review permit for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate multi-family buildings, including an eight-unit townhome building, a six-unit townhome building, and a two-unit duplex building with two accessory dwelling units and 715 square-foot City of Santa Clara Page 7 of 9 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-728 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
of commercial space; and determine the project to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)), located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

The Architectural Review Permit is a quasi-judicial decision with a list of required findings under SCCC 18.120.020.F. The required findings with the supporting facts were discussed in the Discussion section of this report.

The Architectural Review permit includes the conditions of approval in the form drafted by staff (Attachment 9).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered is subject to a statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)). AB 130 exempts qualifying infill projects from formal environmental review if the proposed project meets the following criteria:
a) The project site is less than 20 acres;
b) The project site is within the incorporated municipality of City of Santa Clara; c) The project site was previously developed with an urban use and adjoins other urban uses; d) The project is consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan, given that the use is authorized by both the MU-CC zoning and CMU General Plan designation, and meets all objective development standards not subject to a waiver or concession; e) The project density is 26.2 du/ac, which is above the minimum density requirement of 15 du/ac set forth in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B);
f) The project meets the requirements of Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), in that it is not located in a coastal zone, on farmland or wetlands, on a hazmat site, within an earthquake fault zone, within a special flood hazard area or regulatory floodway, on lands subject to a conservation plan, within habitat for special species, or on lands under a conservation easement;
g) The project will not demolish historic structures on the national, state, or local register; h) The project is not designated as hotel, motel, or transient lodging; i) The project will be required to prepare an Environmental Assessment; and j) The project has completed a Tribal Consultation process, which concluded on July 31, 2025.

The City met with the Tamien Nation and Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Based on the record described above, staff finds that the proposed project meets the applicable requirements of AB 130 and is statutorily exempt from CEQA.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for processing the requested application other than administrative time and expense typically covered by processing fees paid by the applicant.

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

PUBLIC CONTACT
City of Santa Clara Page 8 of 9 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
26-728 Agenda Date: 8/25/2026
Public contact was made by posting the City 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] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

On August 13, 2026, the notice of public hearing for this item was mailed to 162 property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the project site. At the time of this staff report, no comments have been received by the Planning Division in support or opposition to the project. Previously written comments were submitted for June 17, 2026, Development Review Hearing, included in the June 17th DRH staff report (Attachment 3).

RECOMMENDATION

1. Determine the project to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)); and

2. Conduct the public hearing, consider all evidence presented and unless the Council determines that the AB 130 CEQA Exemption is inapplicable or that the Project would result in a specific adverse public-health or safety impact, adopt the resolution overruling the appeal and upholding the decision to approve the Architectural Review permit for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate multi-family buildings, including an eight-unit townhome building, a six-unit townhome building, and a two-unit residential building with two accessory dwelling units and 715 square feet of commercial space, located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval.

Prepared by: Meha Patel, Associate Planner, Community Development Department Reviewed by: Afshan Hamid, Director of Community Development Reviewed by: Glen Googins, City Attorney
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Vicinity Map

2. Reso. to Overrule Appeal and Approve the Arch. Review

3. Web Link to June 17, 2026 DRH Staff Report

4. June 17 DRH Staff Presentation

5. Appeal Letter

6. Staff Response to Appeal Letter

7. Public Comment Letter from Appellants

8. Project Data Compliance Table

9. Conditions of Approval

10. Development Plans
City of Santa Clara Page 9 of 9 Printed on 8/21/2026
powered by Legistar™
Vicinity Map (Zoning) - 860 and 858 Civic Center
Drive and 1526 Alviso Street
Legend
Zoning
Land Parcels
MH, HI - Industrial Heavy
MUCC - Mixed Use Community
Commercial
OS - Parks/Open Space
PD - Planned Development
R1 - Single-Family Residential
R3 - Medium Density Residential
Base Layers
Site Addresses
Multiple
Single
Utility
Air Parcels
Land Parcels
Land Parcels
Right of Ways
Common Areas
Streets
Notes
created on 05/26/2026 12:28:41
0 200 400
ft
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable.

NAD_1983_2011_StatePanel_California_III_FIPS_0403_Ft_US ©City of Santa Clara THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1 •·-·-~ Cityof '. ,' s.mac~ .. - T _, _,, _.,._..,
...
■
■
□
■
Resolution/ 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street - Architectural Review Page 1 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA

OVERRULING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HEARING APPROVAL OF THE

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT AND DETERMINING THE

PROJECT TO BE EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT PUBLIC
RESOURCE CODE SECTION 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)) FOR 860
AND 858 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE AND 1526 ALVISO STREET.

WHEREAS, on October 21, 2024, Damian Speno of Speno Enterprises (“Applicant”) filed an Architectural Review Permit application for the demolition of existing buildings to construct three separate multi-family buildings resulting in 14 townhomes and duplex building with commercial space (“Project”) at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street (“Project Site”); WHEREAS, the Project Site is currently zoned Mixed-Use Community Commercial (“MU-CC”) and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Mixed-Use; WHEREAS, Santa Clara City Code (“SCCC”) Section 18.120.020 requires Architectural Approval through a Development Review Hearing for the construction of 14 townhomes and a duplex building with commercial space;
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2026, a duly noticed Development Review Hearing was held to consider the Project, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the Development Review Officer approved the Architectural Review Permit;
WHEREAS, the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resource Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)), exempting qualifying infill projects from full environmental review if the proposed project meets the qualifying criteria;
WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Section 18.120.020.K, the decision in the Development Review Hearing is appealable to the City Council in compliance with SCCC Section 18.144.020.B; WHEREAS, on June 24, 2026, Michael and Cheryl Fisher (“Appellants”) filed a timely appeal of the Development Review Hearing decision to the City Council; Resolution/ 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street - Architectural Review Page 2 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Chapter 18.146, on August 13, 2026, notices of the public hearing for the City Council Hearing August 25, 2026, were mailed to property owners within a 500 feet radius;
WHEREAS, pursuant to SCCC Chapter 18.146, on August 15, 2026, notices of the public hearing of August 25, 2026, were posted at City Hall, the Central Park Library, the Mission Branch Library, and on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Appeal during which the Council invited and considered any and all verbal and written testimony and evidence offered in favor of and in opposition to the Project.

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

1. That the City Council hereby finds that the above Recitals are true and correct and by this reference makes them a part hereof.

2. That the City Council hereby determines the project to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Public Resource Code Section 21080.66 (AB 130 (2025)), in that (a) the project site is less than 20 acres; (b) the project site is within the incorporated municipality of City of Santa Clara; (c) the project site was previously developed with an urban use and adjoins other urban uses; (d) the project is consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan, given that the use is authorized by both the MU-CC zoning and CMU General Plan designation, and meets all objective development standards not subject to a waiver or concession; (e) at a density of 26.2 du/ac, the project is above the minimum density requirement of 15 du/ac in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B); (f) the project meets the requirements of Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), in that it is not located in a coastal zone, on farmland or wetlands, on a hazmat site, within an earthquake fault zone, within a special flood hazard area or regulatory floodway, on lands subject to a conservation plan, within habitat for special species, or on lands under a conservation easement; (g) The project will not demolish historic structures on the national, state, or local register; (h) the project is not Resolution/ 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street - Architectural Review Page 3 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
designated as hotel, motel, or transient lodging; (i) the project is conditioned to prepare an Environmental Assessment; and (j) the project has completed a Tribal Consultation process, which concluded on July 31, 2025;

2. That the City Council hereby overrules the Appeal and upholds the Approval of the Architectural Review Permit for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate multi-family buildings, including an eight-unit townhome building, a six-unit townhome building, and a two-unit duplex with two accessory dwelling units and a 715 square-foot commercial space, located at the Project Site, subject to Conditions of Approval, attached hereto by this reference.

3. That based upon substantial evidence in the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in this resolution, the City Council hereby finds that:

A. That any off-street parking area, screening strips, and other facilities and improvements necessary to secure the purpose and intent of this title and the general plan of the City area a part of the proposed development, in that:
i. The project is within one-half mile of a major transit stop and therefore is not subject to minimum parking requirement pursuant to Government Section 65863.2 (AB 2097 (2022)). Accessory Dwelling Units are not required to provide parking pursuant to Government Code section 66322(a). While parking is not required, each townhome unit will have a two-car garage which provides the Code required two covered parking spaces. Each of the two units in the duplex will have one assigned, one covered parking space, and a third parking space that will be provided uncovered. An additional ADA parking space is provided in front of the MixedUse Building.

B. That the design and location of the proposed development and its relation to neighboring developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood, will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring developments, and will not create traffic congestion or hazard, in that:

Resolution/ 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street - Architectural Review Page 4 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
i. The proposed project would generate less than 100 net new peak hour trips. The number of vehicles entering/exiting the site at any time would be minimal and would not disrupt traffic flow in the existing neighborhood. The project did not meet the threshold for additional evaluation for vehicle miles traveled or a local transportation analysis study. The project includes pedestrian improvements by construction of a new six-foot sidewalk with a fourfoot landscape strip along Civic Center Drive and Alviso Street. ii. The proposed development is consistent with the objective standards set forth in the General Plan and Zoning Code, and with the waivers and concessions, will comply with the MU-CC zoning district’s development standards. For purposes of the HAA's restrictions on disapproval or reduced density, the City must apply the applicable objective development standards; subjective design preferences cannot supply additional development standards for denying or reducing the density of an objectively compliant project. iii. While the applicant requests a waiver to increase the height and waive the multi-story step-back requirement, the project is a contemporary architectural design that incorporates a variety of building materials, textures, and styles to enhance visual interest. The proposed architecture style incorporates existing contemporary Spanish architecture style present in the existing townhome project east of the proposed site. The proposed design conforms to the City’s Community Design Guidelines in that it improves the aesthetic of the existing parcels (the existing site on Civic Center Drive are developed with auto-oriented uses and the site on Alviso Street is vacant), creates a mix of uses by providing residential use in proximity to existing commercial near El Camino Real, and is designed to be compatible with the existing surrounding development.

C. That the design and location of the proposed development is such that it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and is such as not to be detrimental to the harmonious development contemplated by the Zoning Code and the General Plan of the City, in that:

Resolution/ 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street - Architectural Review Page 5 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
i. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding character of the neighborhood by including compatible building color palette, contemporary Spanish architectural design, double pane windows, and metal railings. The architectural features of the proposed design are true to the architectural form and appropriate for the neighborhood. In accordance with the HAA, subjective design criteria cannot be used as additional development standards to disapprove the project or require it to be developed at a lesser density, where it complies with the applicable objective standards. To the extent of complying with development standards, the proposed project complies with the MU-CC zoning district’s development standards, with waivers and concessions.

D. That the granting of such approval will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of said development, and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injuries to property or improvements in said neighborhood, in that:
i. The project is subject to the California Building Code and City Code requirements, which serve to regulate new construction to protect public health, safety, and general welfare.
ii. The project proposes 15 percent (2 units, and for the fractional 0.4 unit, in-lieu fees) of the total unit count for the households at moderate-income. Affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project and contain the same number of bedrooms as market rate units.

E. That the proposed development, as set forth in the plans and drawings, are consistent with the set of more detailed policies and criteria for architectural review as approved and updated from time to time by the City Council, which set shall be maintained in the planning division office, in that:
i. • The proposal is consistent with the City’s Community Design Resolution/ 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street - Architectural Review Page 6 of 5 Rev: 7/27/2023
Guidelines in that it would improve the aesthetic condition of the site (Goals 4a and 4b), incorporate a design compatible with the surrounding development pattern (Goal 2a), and would facilitate efficient and convenient layout of parking and pedestrian circulation (Goal 4c).

3. 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 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCILORS:

NOES: COUNCILORS:

ABSENT: COUNCILORS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:

ATTEST: ______________________________

NORA PIMENTEL, MMC

ASSISTANT CITY CLERK

CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Attachments incorporated by reference:

1. Development Plans

2. Conditions of Approval
Web Links to June 17, 2026 DRH
Name of Document: June 17, 2026, DRH Staff Report
DRH Meeting (June 17, 2026):

Here you will find documents related to the Development Review Hearing such as the staff report and attachments.
https://santaclara.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=8070794&GUID=DCB12668-80E3-4480-8ADFC0A80BDA0AD9&Options=&Search= These documents are available for viewing in the Community Development Department Development
Review Hearing
Item # 4
860 and 858 Civic Center
Drive and 1526 Alviso
Street
June 17, 2026
Meha Patel, Associate Planner
Request
• Architectural Review for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate multi-family buildings, including an eight-unit 20,672 square-foot building, a sixunit 15,323 square-foot building, and a two-unit 6,012 square-foot building with 715 squarefoot commercial space. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Assembly Bill (AB) 130 (2025) (Public Resource Code § 21080.66).
• Architectural Review required per the Santa Clara City Code 18.120.020.D.3 and

18.120.020.D.7 for new construction of new multi-family development of any size 2 Existing Site
3 • Acreage: 0.61 • Surrounding Uses: – N: Commercial – S: Commercial – E: Multi-Family Residential/Townhomes – W: Single-Family Residential • Zoning: MU-CC - Mixed-Use Community Commercial
• General Plan Designation: Mixed-Use
Neighborhood Commercial
4 Alviso Street
Civic Center Drive
I
' \
.

I
\
'
2-STORY
RESIDEITTW.
2- ~
5 Townhome Building Type
6 Duplex and Commercial Building Type
---
[0[0 II
1 1 1 1 I I I I I I
7 Colors and Materials
L !ltuc<:I, W..1/T'rin:,J Cor~
s:t,.......,-W,lliorn,
~cwbaund 5W 7004
~ndilnl,h

2. Sluroo W1nd""' l rin:,J Wood ~g
Window monufocwrored color t<J motch
si,,,,,w;,..Wiliarn,,
~ 2!Y.l:7 WHthawin~
S.nd j,t,

3. Aca!n.t SIU<Ilo Woll
$1,,,,wi,..Wllliam,
Hommored Silvor ~w 2840
S.nd iinhf,

4. Goro.s• Dooir:

Omrheil.d ifcN- 'ft'l,ermi100r,~•
MisYCnOok.

Obscun, GI•"'
5a Wllll Acain! St<Jno
Ehl,oro~,o Ston•
C..t Coo= · Sczlw:I
Consistency with Zoning Code
• Site Layout and Design
– Two four-story attached townhome buildings
– A three-story building with two units, two ADUs, and commercial space – 2,097 square-foot common open space
– 6-foot masonry wall along all property lines, except the frontage • Building Architecture
– Incorporates contemporary Spanish architectural style, using a variety of building materials, textures, styles.
– Materials proposed are stucco and brick veneer with metal railings for balconies. – Corner townhomes’ entrances oriented towards the street frontage 8 Consistency with Zoning Code
• Circulation and Parking
– Direct vehicular access to the site is provided with 22-foot-wide two-way driveway. – Pedestrian walkways are proposed on the northeast and southwest sides of the parcel – Building 3 (duplex unit with ADUs and commercial space) does not have driveway access.

One back-out parking space is provided for accessible, unassigned guest parking. • Landscaping and Open Spaces
– Projects includes a mixture of plant species and trees for planting along both frontages, pedestrian walkways, common open space, and along the project perimeter. – A total of seven trees are proposed to be removed and replaced with 24 trees on site. – Project includes approximately 2,097 square-foot common open space. 9 Consistency with Zoning Code
• State Density Bonus Law and Affordable Housing Ordinance – The project proposes 2 affordable units and pay an in-lieu fee for the 0.4 remaining fraction, consistent with the 15% City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance. – Requests waivers for a reduction in the rear setback and the front setback along Civic Center Drive, to waive multi-story step-back requirements, daylight plane, and for a height increase.
– Requests a concession to reduce the commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement. 10 Public Outreach – Community Meetings
• September 16, 2025: Online + In-person meeting
– 7 members of the public in-person and no members were present online • Overall concerns: on-street parking, the existing width of Civic Center Drive, and privacy concerns.
• The applicant addressed some of the comments in that each townhome unit will be provided with a two-car garage, the duplex unit will have assigned parking, and ADUs are exempt from parking requirements, additionally, applicant is proposing a six-foot masonry wall and planting landscaping along the perimeter to provide additional privacy. 11 Public Outreach – Public Comments
• Overall concerns: privacy, height, and parking concerns. • Staff provided responses to address the comments by explaining the role of the state housing laws regarding waivers to request an increase in height and waiving transitional development objective standards.
12 Post Meeting Materials – Public Comments
• Staff received a letter in opposition of the project after the meeting agenda was posted. • The letter provides the following comments:
– The project does not meet the Brown Act requirements because it does not list the statutory CEQA exemption.
– The project does not provide substantial evidence supporting the requested waivers of development standards.
– The project design is inconsistent with the zoning code and adjacent residential uses. 13 Post Meeting Materials – Public Comments
• Staff has reviewed the letter and is providing the following information in response:
– The Notice of Public Hearing and the Agenda include the CEQA exemption under Assembly Bill 130 (2025). The staff report published with the Agenda outlines, under the Environmental Review section, how the project meets the requirement in Public Resource Code § 21080.66 for the exemption. It also clarifies that Tribal Consultation was completed on July 31, 2025. – The project applicant submitted a completed Density Bonus Supplemental Form to document the requested concession and waivers and the affordable units. The completed Density Bonus Supplemental Form is the provided substantial evidence. Under Background, in the staff report, the explanation for their qualification is provided. They qualify because they are providing the required affordable units. Under State law, no justification is necessary, other than complying with density bonus law. 14
Post Meeting Materials – Public Comments
• Staff has reviewed the letter and is providing the following information in response:
– The project can only be reviewed for consistency with objective development standards under State density bonus law. The project design is consistent with the objective development standards, except for the standards requested to be waived. The City cannot review the project on subjective design.
• The listed concerns were in regards to the incompatible architecture style and privacy concerns.
– The City has discussed the listed revised design with the applicant. The applicant is not interested in making changes to their proposed design at this time. 15 Revised Condition of Approval
• Revise G8 General condition to update the reach code year from 2022 to 2025. 16 CEQA Evaluation
• The action being considered is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 130 (2025), pursuant to Public Resource Code § 21080.66.
• AB 130 codifies CEQA streamlining measures from AB609, exempting qualifying infill projects from full environmental review if the proposed project meets the qualifying criteria. 17 Recommendation
• Determine the project to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to AB 130 (2025) (Public Resource Code § 21080.66); and • Approve the Architectural Review for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three separate multi-family buildings, including an eight-unit 20,672 square-foot building, a six-unit 15,323 square-foot building, and a two-unit 6,012 square-foot building with 715 square-foot commercial space, located at 860 and 858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street, subject to findings and conditions of approval, with the revised G8 condition. 18 19
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Planning Appeal Form
Instructions
Use this form to appeal a decision made at the Development Review Hearing or Planning Commission.

All appeals must be filed with the Planning Division within seven calendar days of the action being appealed.

Appeals from the Development Review Hearing are made to the Planning Commission (for single-family residential projects) or to the City Council (for projects other than single- family residential projects) and will be set for hearing on the next available agenda. Appeals from the Planning Commission are made to the City Council and will be placed on a subsequent City Council Agenda. Please contact the Planning Division at the number listed above with any inquiries about the process.

Applications will be filed through the City’s Permitting Online Portal. You will need to register for an account to file. Applications may also be filed in person at the Permit Center, City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara.

Information submitted on this form is public record
Appeal Fees
Appeal Fees are set by the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clara and are subject to annual review.

Submitted appeals will be invoiced by staff for payment. Fee payment must be received by the City of Santa Clara before this form submittal can be certified as complete.

Appellant Declaration
Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Telephone Number:

E-mail Address:

In accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Clara, I hereby appeal the following action at the:
☐ Development Review Hearing ☐ Planning Commission
at its meeting of (month/day/year)
Rev. (01/26) Page 1
City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What's Possible
Planning Appeal Form
Appellant Statement
(If more space is required, attach a separate sheets)
Action being appealed:

Reason for Appeal:
(If more space is required, attach a separate sheets)
Certification of Authenticity
Beware, you are subject to prosecution if you unlawfully submit this form. Under penalty of law, transmission of this form to the City of Santa Clara is your certification that you are authorized to submit it and that the information presented is authentic.

Signature of Appellant: Date:

Contact Information
Planning Division: 408-615-2450 | Email: [email protected] Rev. (01/26) Page 2
June 24, 2026
Submitted Via Online Permitting Portal
& via Email: [email protected]
Honorable Mayor Gillmor
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
Permit Center, City Hall
1500 Warburton Ave
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Re: Appeal of Development Review Approval (June 17, 2026) (PLN24-00533) 860/858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street Dear Mayor Gillmor and Honorable City Councilmembers,
On behalf of our clients, Mr. and Mrs. Fisher, we submit this appeal of the above referenced Development Review Officer approval for the City Council’s de novo review.1 Our clients live adjacent to the proposed project and spent years working with City of Santa Clara (City) staff at great time and expense to restore their existing two-story (1935) Spanish Colonial Revival home and to develop the adjoining property in a complementary style to City staff’s liking. 2
By contrast, the mostly four-story proposed project at 860/858 Civic Center Drive and 1526 Alviso Street (Project) is devoid of any complementary architectural style or scale with the existing - and directly contiguous - residential homes and the developing neighborhood. Instead, the buildings reflect a generic modern boxy style apartment/ attached town-home design on oddly shaped (L) parcel(s) that require no less than 5 waivers and concessions from the City’s development standards.

The waivers and concessions are needed to exceed the maximum permitted height for Buildings 1 and 2, drastically reduce the minimum amount of commercial space and FAR otherwise required, and reduce the minimum setback requirements in the MixedUse Community Commercial (MU-CC) zone. Our clients and their neighbors are also 1 / See Zoning Code § 18.120.020, subd. (K)(3). As part of the appeal we also incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the arguments made in our letter dated June 17, 2026, to the Development Review Officer. (See Exhibit A.) 2 / More about their home may be found at: https://www.svvoice.com/spanish-colonialrevival-featured-home-in-santa-claras-historic-home-tour/ Andrea K. Leisy
[email protected]
RMM

REMY MOO SE MANLEY LLP
555 Capitol Ma ll, Suite 800 Sacramento CA 9581 4 I Phone: (916) 443-2745 I Fax: (916) 443-90 17 I www.rmmenvirolaw.com Mayor Gillmor
Honorable City Councilmembers
City of Santa Clara
June 24, 2026