REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action on Membership for the El Camino Real Specific Plan Community Advisory Committee
Report
COUNCIL PILLAR
Promote and Enhance Economic, Housing and Transportation Development
BACKGROUND
The City Council originally appointed a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to provide community input for preparation of the El Camino Real Specific Plan at the January 23, 2018 City Council meeting. The item was presented as a “Note and File” report (Attachment 1) on the consent calendar, but removed from the consent calendar for discussion and then approved unanimously as described in the following synopsis with a referral to add to the CAC a member of the City’s Historical Landmarks Commission:
“The Council proceeded to consider the Director of Community Development’s report recommending that the Council note and file the proposed list of resident and community stakeholders for the El Camino Real Specific Plan Community Advisory Committee (identified in Appendix A to the report) which is anticipated to convene in early February 2018. A Council discussion followed. The Director of Community Development reviewed his report and answered Council questions. MOTION was made by O’Neill, seconded and unanimously carried (Gillmor absent), that the Council note and file the proposed list of resident and community stakeholders for the El Camino Real Specific Plan Community Advisory Committee; and by Council consensus, the Council referred the item to the City Manager to include a Historic and Landmarks Commissioner on the List.”
The CAC met eight times between February 2018 and September 2020 with seven in person meetings and the last meeting conducted online by Zoom. These CAC meetings were part of the process to prepare a Draft El Camino Real Specific Plan that was presented to the City Council in June of 2021. In June 2021 and at subsequent Council meetings, the City Council directed staff to prepare an alternative version of the Draft El Camino Real Specific Plan utilizing lower densities and building heights.
On March 7, 2023, the City Council approved a scope of work with the City’s consultant, Raimi & Associates, for preparation of the revised El Camino Real Specific Plan with scheduled City Council adoption in June 2024 (Attachment 2). The approved work scope includes one meeting with the CAC in September to gather input on the current version of the Specific Plan now under preparation. Staff has contacted CAC members to determine if they are available for upcoming CAC meetings to be held later this year. In response to the staff query, two CAC members have indicated they will not be able to participate and five have not yet responded (see Attachment 3). In their response, the Silicon Valley Central Chamber of Commerce requested that, if possible, they have two representatives on the CAC.
On May 17, 2023, Adam Thompson submitted a Written Petition to the City, requesting to place an agenda item on a future council meeting to request that Council reconsider the CAC membership (Attachment 4). The Petition was considered by the City Council at the June 27, 2023 City Council meeting and the City Council directed staff to place the item on a future City Council meeting agenda.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the CAC is to provide a venue for informed input by community stakeholders into the development of the El Camino Real Specific Plan. The CAC meeting format allows time for more extensive presentation of materials and discussion by community members than might occur through a conventional community meeting, particularly if the CAC members meet multiple times to discuss the Specific Plan, providing input on multiple occasions and becoming more familiar with the Specific Plan contents. Per the current scope of work for completion of the Specific Plan, the CAC would be convened one time to present to the CAC an update on the progress of the Plan, including the current City Council direction regarding land use and density. CAC meetings are open to the public to attend and provide input.
It is the prerogative of the City Council to determine which stakeholders to appoint to the CAC to best communicate the interests of the community. Groups like the CAC typically include community residents as well as members of standing City commissions, who represent a variety of viewpoints, as well as interested stakeholders that represent businesses or organizations, including non-profits, who may offer useful information or a point of view to inform the planning process. For example, the Downtown Community Task Force includes representatives of the general community, as well as specific stakeholders (e.g., Santa Clara University, Reclaiming our Downtown, the Old Quad Resident’s Association, the Historical Landmarks Commission and the Arts and Cultural Commission). Similarly, the recently appointed Santa Clara Station Area Task Force includes representatives of these groups as well as a local realtor and a community member with transportation expertise.
In his petition to the Council (Attachment 4) and in public testimony at the June 27, 2023 Council meeting, Adam Thompson requested that the City Council no longer have representatives from the Building Industry Association (BIA), the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) participate in the CAC. Mr. Thompson alleged that these groups have a vested interest in the contents of the plan, which he believes creates a conflict of interest.
Since March 2023, staff and the consultant have been preparing an updated land use plan based upon prior City Council direction. This updated land use plan is scheduled for City Council review and approval in August and would then be presented to the CAC as an informational item. The City’s contract with the consultant includes one CAC meeting, scheduled to take place in September. According to the contract scope, this meeting will be used to update the CAC on the progress of the revised Specific Plan. Staff may conduct an additional CAC meeting, if needed, but would do so without the consultant in attendance.
From a legal standpoint, the City Attorney’s Office does not believe that representatives of the BIA, NAIOP or SVLG, by virtue of their affiliations with such groups, have “legal” conflicts of interest that prevent them from participating in the CAC review and recommendation process with respect to the El Camino Specific Plan. Nonetheless, if the City Council shares the concerns raised by Adam Thompson, the Council could direct staff to convene the CAC without representatives of the BIA, NAIOP and SVLG. At this point this would only exclude SVLG as the BIA representative has indicated that they are not available for an in-person meeting and staff has not yet received a response from the NAIOP representative indicating that they will attend. Council action to exclude these three members would still allow staff to proceed according to the current schedule. If the City Council agrees with the request from the Silicon Valley Central Chamber of Commerce, they could be allowed to have two representatives for the upcoming meeting. If the City Council directs staff to conduct a new recruitment and selection process, it will likely be necessary to delay the upcoming CAC meeting past September, which would result in a delay to the overall Specific Plan project schedule.
Staff recommends that the City Council proceed with the current CAC membership, consistent with the prior City Council appointment process and existing Council practice of including stakeholders in advisory bodies. This would provide for broader stakeholder input within the CAC setting and minimize disruption of the process underway. Additionally, the Committee’s work is coming to a close and the final meeting of the Committee is anticipated to occur in September/October of this year.
Alternatively, directing staff to convene the CAC without the representatives of the BIA, NAIOP and the SVLG and/or adding a second representative of the Silicon Valley Central Chamber of Commerce would have minimal impact upon overall project schedule. Staff does not recommend a more extensive recruitment process in consideration of the current planned scope of one or two CAC meetings and the resulting delay that such a process would have on the overall project schedule.
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 selection of CAC members does not affect the project budget. As mentioned previously, the consultant would not attend any CAC meetings outside of the project scope.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct staff to continue with the current CAC.
2. Direct staff to reconfigure the CAC without representatives from the BIA, NAIOP and SVLG.
3. Direct staff to add a second representative of the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce to the CAC.
4. Direct staff to conduct a new recruitment process and return to the City Council for appointment of a new CAC
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. Direct staff to continue with the current CAC.
Staff
Reviewed by: Andrew Crabtree, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 23, 2018 City Council Meeting Report for Appointment of the CAC
2. March 7, 2023 Report to Council (RTC 23-185) Raimi Contract
3. El Camino Real CAC Responses
4. Written Petition submitted by Adam Thompson dated May 17, 2023