REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Title
Planning Commission Input on the Charter Revision Process
Report
BACKGROUND
At the March 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, City Attorney Glen Googins gave an overview of the ongoing Charter review process (commonly referred to as the “Charter Project”). He explained that this will be the first comprehensive update to the City Charter in many years, with the goal of modernizing it to better support efficient, transparent, and adaptable governance.
The Bylaws of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) formed to implement the Charter Project describe the general purpose of the CRC and the project as follows:
The purpose of the CRC is to work with City staff, with input from the community, to facilitate the implementation of the “Charter Project.” The Charter Project involves a process for comprehensive review of the City Charter to identify provisions in the Charter that should be corrected, clarified or modified for the Charter to be fully consistent with applicable state law, aligned with current best practices for City operations and, in general, easier to understand and apply. At the end of the process, the objective of the Charter Project is to produce a draft comprehensive Charter Amendment for presentation to the City Council and, if the City Council so directs, possibly the voters at the November 2026 Election.
Other relevant considerations include:
• The Charter as a structural document. It defines roles of officials and staff, distribution of authority, and high-level governance principles. Charters typically do not dictate operational details. Such details are better left to implementation by City codes and policies.
• Improving efficiency and reducing administrative burdens. Current processes require that too many routine items go to the City Council, creating staff workload inefficiencies, delays in project delivery, and unnecessary use of high-level decision-making. The amendments will result in more decisions at staff level where appropriate, and reserve Council involvement for true policy decisions.
• Clarifying roles and responsibilities. The revised Charter should better define what the City Council does (policy direction and oversight), what staff does (implementation and operations), and what commissions do (review of specific subject matter)
• Maintaining flexibility for the future. The Charter should avoid overly prescriptive language, ensuring that the Charter can accommodate new technologies, evolving procurement methods, and changing governance needs.
The Planning Commission has been identified as an important stakeholder in the review process, particularly in connection with the review of Article X of the Charter, “Boards and Commissions.” The City Attorney asked the Commission for their formal input on the role of the Planning Commission, as well as broader governance principles that affect planning, development, and project review.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission provided some initial feedback to the City Attorney at the March 11 meeting. Several Commissioners also individually provided written comments to Department staff since the March 11 meeting. The City Attorney and Planning staff also advised the Commission that some broader vision issues, such as transportation, sustainability, and connectivity, might be better suited for the General Plan, rather than the Charter, which is structural and more agnostic as to policy.
The City Attorney asked the Planning Commission to focus on the following issues:
1. Does the current composition of the Planning Commission (seven qualified electors) still make sense?
Charter Section 1006 currently identifies the size of the Commission (seven members); other than that, the only requirement to serve is that members be qualified electors. There are no other specific requirements, such as a background in Planning, development, or real estate. The Commission is also composed of seven “at-large” members; Commissioners are not appointed based on geographic districts.
Commissioners provided the following feedback:
• One Commissioner suggested that there should be some method of ensuring that there is an array of different backgrounds or professions on the Commission. For example, a Commission made up of seven real estate agents, or seven developers, or seven engineers, or seven laypersons with no knowledge of any of these topics, would provide a skewed perspective.
• Another Commissioner submitted a written comment that the current composition and requirements are satisfactory.
2. Does the current list of Commission powers and duties properly describe your role and function?
Charter Section 1007 currently lists the following powers and duties for the Planning Commission:
a) Recommend to the City Council the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the General Plan or any part thereof for the physical development of the City;
b) Exercise powers set by ordinance regarding land subdivisions, planning, and zoning; and
c) Exercise other planning, zoning, and environmental functions
Commissioner comments on this Section, so far, included the following:
• Public input. The description of Commission in the Charter should emphasize the importance of hearing and understanding the voices of the people.
• Appeals. The Planning Commission’s decisions could be given more weight in subsequent City Council appeals. For example, if the Planning Commission made a decision via unanimous vote, the City Council should only overturn the Planning Commission by a unanimous vote. Or, if the Council overturned the Planning Commission, the Council would remand the decision back to the Commission for further consideration.
3. Do you have other general concerns about Article X, such as appointment, vacancies, terms, or attendance?
Commissioner comments included:
• Attendance. The attendance requirements for Commissioners need to be clarified, as there are currently no details.
• Outreach Policies. A Commissioner sought more accountability to establish whether notice had been properly provided, in response to circumstances when members of the public complain that they were never notified.
• Modernization of Noticing. Technology should be harnessed to provide broader noticing, such as “push” notifications on cellular devices instead of relying upon newspaper publications, and the Charter should continue to adapt to future technological changes.
• Role of the Mayor. A Commissioner asked whether, in the wake of going to district elections, the City would modify or integrate the role of a Mayor as an elected (at-large) representative, but holding no additional power beyond that of any of the other district representatives. The Commissioner asked whether this division of representation was fair and sustainable.
4. Do you have other concerns you would like to raise?
Commissioners raised several other concerns in both verbal comments on March 11, and in subsequent written comments, about both the content of the Charter and the process used for the Charter Review Project:
• Flexibility. A Commissioner stressed the need for the Charter to be able respond to technological innovations. As an example, regulations on where people can park their vehicles will not immediately translate to self-driving vehicles that have no driver and may not technically be “parking”.
• Guiding Principles. The Project should include clear guiding principles, to enable transparency, accountability and inclusion of feedback from stakeholders and our community members.
• Community Involvement. The Project should clarify how community engagement and trust is being built through the process.
• Providing Feedback. A Commissioner was concerned that the method for Planning Commissioners to participate in the Charter Review Process may be inadequate to ensure that the Council get the full insight and information from the Commission and other bodies. The Commissioner is concerned that relaying this feedback through City staff may result in information being lost or modified before it can be reviewed or considered by the decisionmakers.
• Evaluating Success. The Project should have both qualitative and quantitative metrics to measure the success of the effort.
• Subsequent Review. The Charter should include a process for periodic review of its terms (on the order of every ten years or so), to ensure that it continues to align with the values of future generations
• Integration with Other Documents. While the Charter is a broad umbrella of City government and governance structures, it should be vertically and horizontally integrated with other policies, ordinances, and plans
• Measure R and Telecomm. Charter Section 714.1 prohibits the lease or disposition of parkland for 180 days or more without a 2/3 vote of the electorate. This section could be revised to allow for the installation of wireless facilities.
• Police Chief. A Commissioner asked whether it was still appropriate for the Police Chief to be elected, rather than the more common municipal model of an appointed Police Chief.
• Ease of Access. The Charter should be interconnected to other documents with live links and references.
• Flexibility in Timing to Respond to Urgent Issues. The Charter should provide opportunities for the City to respond to pressing issues. The current timeline for adoption of ordinances does not allow for sufficiently swift responses to issues that arise (for example, the potential for ICE to appear at the Super Bowl, FIFA, and other unique events).
• Robots. A Commissioner asked whether the City could enact policies regulating unattended “bots” roaming in City parks, using City roads, and traveling in pedestrian paths. Delivery bots are already roaming the streets and increasing in frequency. The City could adopt regulations to ensure they safely share our public spaces.
Proposed Planning Commission Actions
The Charter Review Subcommittee on Boards and Commissions has its next meeting on April 16th. The Planning Commission should consider consolidating its comments in a manner that reflects the position of the entire Commission, ideally in areas where Planning Commission issues are implicated. Such comments can either be presented on your behalf by City Attorney staff and/or the Commission may also appoint a representative to present these comments to the Subcommittee.
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 to the City.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney’s Office.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Planning Commission 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.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Provide consolidated comments to staff on Planning Commission relevant charter revisions for the Charter Review Committee and City Council to consider as a part of the “Charter Project” Charter Review Process. The Commission also has the option of appointing a representative to present these comments to the Subcommittee on Boards and Commissions.
Staff
Prepared by: Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Reviewed by: Glen Googins, City Attorney
Reviewed by: Lesley Xavier, Planning Manager
Approved by: Afshan Hamid, Director, Community Development Department