Activista Disfrazado de 'Batman' Exige Protecciones Contra ICE en Discurso Cargado de Groserías ante el Concejo de Santa Clara

Item 215644: Public Comment

Basic Information

• Type: general_business
• Staff Recommendation: N/A (Public comment period)
• Department: City Clerk / City Council
• Fiscal Impact: None

Staff Presentation Summary

No formal staff presentation. This was an open public comment period that was reorganized to allow discussion of Councilmember Park’s 030 request regarding immigration enforcement policies ahead of the Super Bowl.

Public Comment

• Number of speakers: 0 in favor, 0 opposed, 25+ on immigration/I.C.E. policy (urgent action requested)

• Notable speakers:

  • Batman (community activist): Delivered explosive, profanity-laden speech demanding council take immediate action on I.C.E. protections, called council “cowards” and “traitors”
  • Lucy Ortiz (Deputy Director, Working Partnerships USA): Called “not poking the bear” strategy “offensive and cowardly,” demanded action before Super Bowl
  • Elisa (Santa Clara resident): Drew direct comparison between Trump administration tactics and Nazi strategies on International Holocaust Remembrance Day
  • Kim (SIREN community organizer): Urged special meeting before Super Bowl on February 8th to pass immigrant protections
  • Arizi Torres (SIREN representative): Described children being taught how to survive I.C.E. interactions
  • Akimi Flynn (IPEN representative): Offered partnership and noted San Jose has done “heavy lifting” on legal review
  • Carmen (Organizing Latinos): Delivered direct electoral threat - “If you don’t act…you are the ones to blame…we’ll make sure you are not elected again”
  • Howard the Hot Dog Dude (local vendor): Complained about being shut out of business during Super Bowl “clean zone,” called the label “very offensive”
  • Chris (volunteer): Requested guidance to promote Santa Clara as Senior Friendly City during big events

• Standout moments:

  • Batman’s speech used explicit profanity (“What the fuck are we doing here?”, “I’m fucking demanding that you act with some semblance of a fucking spine”), directly called council members “cowards” and “traitors,” broke decorum intentionally
  • Lucy Ortiz explicitly referenced Batman’s speech saying “It’s kind of hard to follow Batman”
  • Omar (online speaker) said “I agree on everything [Batman] said, but the bad words that he said”
  • Elisa compared current immigration enforcement to Nazi tactics on International Holocaust Remembrance Day
  • Councilwoman Cox expressed public shame: “Shame on us…we saw how easy it is to regulate hot dog sales. We created a safe zone for selling hot dogs”
  • Eshula made provocative comparison requesting city refuse to enforce California’s open carry firearms law if they won’t enforce I.C.E. restrictions

• Speaker cross-references:

  • Lucy Ortiz said “It’s kind of hard to follow Batman” - identifying the previous speaker as Batman
  • Omar said “I wanted to echo…the previous speakers, including the Batman. I agree on everything that he said, but the bad words”

• Common themes:

  • Urgent need for immigration protections before Super Bowl (February 8th)
  • Request for special meeting before the game
  • Criticism of council inaction and “not poking the bear” approach
  • References to Minneapolis I.C.E. operations and deaths
  • Requests for specific policies: I.C.E.-free zones, no data sharing, safe site protocols, no cooperation without judicial warrants
  • Multiple references to San Jose and Santa Clara County having already passed protections

Council Discussion

• Key positions:

  • CM Park: Submitted 030 request, provided extensive context about weighing options, acknowledged he’s been criticized for wanting to “not poke the bear” but felt speaking out is necessary
  • CM Cox: Expressed shame at council inaction, made motion to agendize for special meeting, compared inaction to how easily they regulated “hot dog sales”
  • CM Chahal: Seconded motion, noted as immigrant himself, stated “we need to act on it”
  • CM Jain: Asked about adding item to February 3rd special meeting already scheduled
  • CM Hardy: Defended council’s prior actions, noted she’s been involved in restricting first responder communication systems from state/federal access, stated many protections “can’t be said” due to operational security

• Questions raised:

  • Can the 030 item be moved up for discussion tonight?
  • Can action be taken at the February 3rd special meeting?
  • What is legally possible given Brown Act requirements?

• Amendments proposed:

  • Original 030 was to agendize for February 10th
  • Motion amended to agendize for February 3rd special meeting with potential for action, not just discussion

Outcome

• Motion: To agendize item for February 3rd special meeting (prior to Super Bowl) for discussion and potential action on comprehensive policies to protect immigrant communities
• Made by: CM Cox
• Seconded by: CM Chahal
• Vote: 6-0 (Mayor Gillmor absent)
• Result: PASSED

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 5 (Lead Story)
• Factors:
  • [x] Controversial (significant public opposition to council inaction)
  • [ ] High fiscal impact (>$1M or significant % of budget)
  • [x] Affects many residents directly (immigrant communities, Super Bowl attendees)
  • [x] Ongoing/recurring issue with prior coverage (I.C.E. enforcement nationally)
  • [x] Involves notable entities (49ers/Levi’s Stadium, Super Bowl, NFL)
  • [x] Policy change or precedent-setting (potential sanctuary-style policies)
  • [x] Generates strong public turnout (25+ speakers on single issue)
  • [x] Viral potential: Batman’s profanity-laden speech, direct accusations of cowardice and betrayal, Holocaust comparisons on Holocaust Remembrance Day
  • [x] Notable speaker: Batman (activist known by alias, dramatic confrontational style)
  • [x] Cross-referenced: Multiple speakers referenced Batman by name, indicating his speech’s impact

Quotable Moments

“What the fuck are we doing here? Seriously, you have had months to prepare for this upcoming event. I don’t give a damn if this is outside of decorum. People are dying on our streets.” — Batman, community activist

“I’m not begging you. I’m fucking demanding that you act with some semblance of a fucking spine. Do something.” — Batman, community activist

“As of right now, I stand in front of a council of cowards, and if you do not act, you’re not just cowards. You are traitors, traitors to each and every individual you serve.” — Batman, community activist

“It’s kind of hard to follow Batman.” — Lucy Ortiz, Deputy Director of Working Partnerships USA

“The idea of, quote, unquote, not poking the bear… I am finding that really, really offensive and cowardly.” — Lucy Ortiz, Deputy Director of Working Partnerships USA

“Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and in this moment, it’s impossible not to remember when we see the strategies and attitudes of the Nazis being overtly duplicated by the Trump administration.” — Elisa, Santa Clara resident

“Shame on us. As somebody that works at the university in a doctoral program… we saw how easy it is to regulate hot dog sales. We created a safe zone for selling hot dogs.” — Councilwoman Cox

“If you don’t act upon this and things do go off when immigration enforcement comes into this city, you are the ones to blame for it and we’ll make sure that you are not elected again.” — Carmen, Organizing Latinos

“We are not dirty. This clean zone is very offensive.” — Howard the Hot Dog Dude, local vendor

Item 215663: CONTINUANCES/EXCEPTIONS/RECONSIDERATIONS

Basic Information

• Type: general_business
• Staff Recommendation: N/A (procedural item)
• Department: City Clerk/City Attorney
• Fiscal Impact: None

Staff Presentation Summary

This was a procedural item regarding requests to move Item 030 (a councilmember request regarding immigrant protection policies ahead of the Super Bowl) from the end of the agenda to earlier in the meeting. City Attorney clarified that even if discussed, no definitive action could be taken that night since the 030 request was only about whether to agendize an item for future council consideration.

• Key points:
  • Item 030 was not formally agendized but was part of the verbal council 030 process
  • Any action would be limited to a referral to staff and potential agendization for a future meeting
  • Council could vote to move the item up in the agenda order

Public Comment

• Number of speakers: 3 speakers during the continuances portion, 25+ speakers total on the 030 topic
• Notable speakers:
  • Working Partnerships USA representative: Expressed disappointment Item 030 not on agenda, urged urgent action before Super Bowl
  • Alisa/Elsa (Santa Clara resident): Requested Item 030 be moved up, noted no other council meeting before Super Bowl
  • Community member: Requested Item 030 be moved to hear council’s position on protecting residents from federal overreach
  • Batman (later identified by Lucy Ortiz’s reference): Delivered profanity-laden, emotionally charged speech demanding council action, called council “cowards” and “traitors”
  • Lucy Ortiz (Deputy Director, Working Partnerships USA): Criticized “not poking the bear” approach as cowardly, urged special meeting before Super Bowl
  • Kim (SIREN community organizer): Called for special meeting and strong policy prohibiting cooperation with ICE
  • Maricela (SIREN Executive Director): Urged courage, noted rapid response network receives 120+ calls on some days
  • Elisa (Santa Clara resident): Drew Holocaust parallels on International Holocaust Remembrance Day
  • Melinda Berlant (Santa Clara resident): Expressed fear but refused to be silenced, invoked Holocaust Memorial Day
  • Howard “the Hot Dog Dude” Givens: Complained about being shut out of business by “clean zone” for Super Bowl
• Standout moments: Batman’s speech used explicit profanity (“I’m not begging you. I’m fucking demanding that you act with some semblance of a fucking spine”), called council “cowards” and “traitors” for inaction
• Speaker cross-references: Lucy Ortiz said “It’s kind of hard to follow Batman” - identifying the previous speaker as Batman
• Common themes: Urgency of action before Super Bowl; request for special meeting before February 8th; need for strong sanctuary policies; fear in immigrant communities; comparisons to Minneapolis ICE actions; call for ICE-free zones; prohibiting cooperation with ICE without judicial warrant

Council Discussion

• Key positions:
  • CM Park: Submitted the 030 request, explained evolution of his proposal given procedural constraints, emphasized importance of speaking out even without guaranteed outcomes, used Pascal’s Wager analogy
  • CM Cox: Apologized on behalf of council (“Shame on us”), noted irony of regulating hot dog sales while failing to address this, supported agendizing for special meeting
  • CM Chahal: Seconded motion, expressed personal connection as immigrant from India, noted unprecedented nature of current federal actions
  • CM Hardy: Defended past actions, mentioned establishing policies at regional interoperability authority to not share data with federal agencies, expressed frustration at being told council did nothing
  • CM Jain: Asked for staff report on current city policies, state law on masked individuals, what San Jose and County have done, and current data-sharing practices
• Questions raised: Can this be added to February 3rd special meeting agenda? What can staff bring back in such short timeframe?
• Amendments proposed: Motion evolved from original 030 request to agendize for February 10th to instead adding to February 3rd special meeting

Outcome

• Motion: Move Item 030 discussion to after public presentations; subsequently voted to agendize comprehensive discussion of policies and protocols for February 3rd special meeting
• Made by: CM Park (initial motion to move up); CM Cox (motion to agendize for Feb 3rd)
• Seconded by: CM Chahal
• Vote: 6-0 (Mayor Gillmor absent)
• Result: PASSED - Item will be agendized for February 3rd special meeting with staff to provide report on comparable jurisdictions’ policies

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 5
• Factors:
  • [x] Controversial (significant public opposition to council inaction)
  • [ ] High fiscal impact (>$1M or significant % of budget)
  • [x] Affects many residents directly
  • [x] Ongoing/recurring issue with prior coverage
  • [x] Involves notable entities (49ers/Levi’s Stadium, Super Bowl)
  • [x] Policy change or precedent-setting
  • [x] Generates strong public turnout (25+ speakers)
  • [x] Viral potential: Batman’s profanity-laden speech calling council “cowards” and “traitors”
  • [x] Notable speaker: Batman - speaker known only by alias, dramatic delivery
  • [x] Cross-referenced: Lucy Ortiz said “It’s hard to follow Batman” indicating impact of previous speaker

Quotable Moments

“What the fuck are we doing here? Seriously, you have had months to prepare for this upcoming event. I don’t give a damn if this is outside of decorum. People are dying on our streets… I’m not begging you. I’m fucking demanding that you act with some semblance of a fucking spine. DO SOMETHING.” — Batman (public speaker)

“As of right now, I stand in front of a council of cowards, and if you do not act, you’re not just cowards. You are traitors, traitors to each and every individual you serve.” — Batman (public speaker)

“It’s kind of hard to follow Batman.” — Lucy Ortiz, Deputy Director of Working Partnerships USA

“The idea of, quote, unquote, not poking the bear… is really, really offensive and cowardly. Not only is it cowardly for you to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the most vulnerable in your community in hopes that it will not happen to you.” — Lucy Ortiz, Deputy Director of Working Partnerships USA

“Shame on us. We were at every press event talking about how great this was, and we failed to see the big picture through this.” — Councilmember Cox

“If we are able to speak, we must do so.” — Melinda Berlant, Santa Clara resident (paraphrased, invoking Holocaust Memorial Day)

“Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and in this moment, it’s impossible not to remember when we see the strategies and attitudes of the Nazis being overtly duplicated by the Trump administration.” — Elisa, Santa Clara resident

Item 215713: REPORTS OF MEMBERS, SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND COUNCILMEMBER 030 REQUESTS

Basic Information

• Type: general_business
• Staff Recommendation: N/A (multiple sub-items under reports)
• Department: Various (City Council)
• Fiscal Impact: Various (see sub-items)

---

This segment covers multiple distinct sub-items under the general business/reports portion of the meeting. I’ll break them down individually.

---

Sub-Item A: 030 Request — Agendizing Immigration/Community Protection Policies

Basic Information

• Type: general_business (030 Councilmember Request)
• Staff Recommendation: N/A (Councilmember-initiated)
• Department: City Council / City Manager’s Office
• Fiscal Impact: None immediately; staff time for research

Staff Presentation Summary

No formal staff presentation. City Manager Grogan confirmed that a special meeting scheduled for February 3rd (originally for labor negotiations) could accommodate an additional open session item. He noted that California state law requires 24-hour notice for special meetings and that staff would endeavor to publish well in advance. He cautioned that staff would have only Wednesday through Friday to prepare research, analysis, and potentially draft policies, and that police leadership would need to be available to support policy deliberation during Super Bowl week.

• Key points:
  • City Attorney reminded council multiple times that under the Brown Act, discussion should be limited to whether to agendize the item, not substantive policy positions
  • City Manager warned that expecting completed staff work and adoptable policies by February 3rd would be extremely challenging given the 72-hour timeline
  • Council Member Park originally proposed the 030 to agendize a comprehensive discussion of immigration/community protection policies for February 10th

Public Comment

• Number of speakers: Public comment occurred earlier in the meeting under Public Presentations (not captured in this segment)
• Notable speakers: Referenced from earlier public comment:
  • Dani: Referenced by CM Park — stated if I.C.E. is not legally able to go to other places, they will come here
  • Lucia: Referenced by CM Park — spoke about turning a blind eye
  • Omar: Referenced by CM Park (cut off by City Attorney)
  • Melinda: Referenced by CM Park — said “if we are able to speak, we must do so”
• Standout moments: CM Park attempted to repeat and respond to individual public speakers by name, was repeatedly interrupted by the City Attorney for Brown Act concerns
• Speaker cross-references: CM Park referenced multiple public speakers by name from the earlier public comment period
• Common themes: Urgency of adopting sanctuary/community protection policies; other cities (San Jose, County) have already acted; Santa Clara is late

Council Discussion

• Key positions:
  • CM Park: Initiated the 030 request. Passionate about hearing from the public first before council speaks. Referenced Oscar Schindler — “didn’t think about everything he’d done, but the people he couldn’t save.” Wanted to ensure agendized item allows for action, not just discussion. Pushed back against City Attorney’s procedural constraints.
  • CM Cox: Made the motion to agendize. Said “shame on us” for being late on this. Drew comparison to how easily the city regulated hot dog sales/safe zones. Apologized to the public.
  • CM Chahal: Seconded the motion. Spoke as an immigrant from India about human rights and freedom of speech. Noted Santa Clara is a “minority majority community” with over 50% minorities.
  • CM Hardy: Took the criticism personally. Defended actions already taken — specifically cited chairing the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority where policy was set not to share first responder communication systems with state or federal agencies. Said many protective actions can’t be disclosed publicly. Mentioned human trafficking as an underaddressed concern around large events.
  • CM Jain: Requested staff come back with information on: state law regarding masked people, what San Jose and the County have done, current policy on sharing license plate reader/Flock data without judicial warrants, and information about safe sites.
  • Vice Mayor Gonzalez: Managed the discussion, tried to keep it focused on the motion.
• Questions raised: Whether the motion was for discussion only or potential action; how staff could prepare comprehensive work in 72 hours; what specific policies and information council wanted staff to bring back
• Amendments proposed: Motion was refined to agendize for February 3rd special meeting (instead of originally proposed February 10th) with potential for action, not just discussion; to include study of resolutions and policies from other cities

Outcome

• Motion: Agendize a comprehensive discussion of community protection policies and protocols for the February 3rd special meeting, with potential for action, including study of what other cities (San Jose, County) have done
• Made by: CM Cox
• Seconded by: CM Chahal
• Vote: 6-0 (Ayes: Cox, Chahal, Jain, Park, Hardy, Gonzalez; Absent: Mayor Gillmor)
• Result: PASSED

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 4
• Factors:
  • [x] Controversial (significant public turnout referenced from earlier in meeting)
  • [ ] High fiscal impact
  • [x] Affects many residents directly
  • [x] Ongoing/recurring issue with prior coverage
  • [ ] Involves notable entities
  • [x] Policy change or precedent-setting
  • [x] Generates strong public turnout
  • [x] Viral potential: CM Park’s Oscar Schindler reference; CM Cox saying “shame on us”; CM Hardy’s emotional defense; City Attorney repeatedly cutting off CM Park for Brown Act violations
  • [ ] Notable speaker
  • [x] Cross-referenced: CM Park referenced multiple public speakers by name

Quotable Moments

“Shame on us. We were at every press event talking about how great this was, and we failed to see the big picture through this.” — CM Cox

“If we’re not looking at what else we can do, if we’re satisfied at any time with the work we’ve already done, nothing will get better.” — CM Park

“Oscar Schindler didn’t think about everything he’d done, but the people he couldn’t save.” — CM Park

“A lot of other things we’ve done to keep people safe can’t be said or it would violate our concerns for the people and things we are protecting.” — CM Hardy

“Please don’t look at somebody and make assumptions.” — CM Hardy

---

Sub-Item B: Santa Clara Stadium Authority Financial Status Report (Q2, ending September 30, 2025)

Basic Information

• Type: general_business
• Staff Recommendation: Note and file the financial status report; approve budget amendments
• Department: Finance
• Fiscal Impact: $5.4M NFL ticket surcharge revenue; $4.4M non-NFL ticket surcharge; $3.4M SBL proceeds; $14.2M debt service payments; $17.2M capex; stadium debt reduced from $650M (2014) to $210M

Staff Presentation Summary

The Finance Director presented the Q2 financial status report for the Stadium Authority. Revenues totaled $5.4 million from NFL ticket surcharges (partial season), $4.4 million in non-NFL event ticket surcharges, and $3.4 million from Stadium Builder License proceeds. Public safety costs were $2.4 million ($612,000 per game average), a significant increase from the prior year average of $111,000 per game, attributed to salary/benefit increases, higher threat assessments, and a methodology change in cost allocation.

• Key points:
  • Non-NFL events generated $6.1 million net revenue ($20.4M gross revenues minus $14.2M expenses)
  • Outstanding public safety cost balance of $5.3M projected to decrease to ~$2M by year end, with full payoff expected by FY26/27
  • Stadium debt reduced from $650M in 2014 to $210M currently
  • SBL defaults are remarketed at a gain to the Stadium Authority
  • Additional ticket surcharge ($2.6M) now exceeds base ticket surcharge ($1.7M) and funds public safety cost reserve

Public Comment

• Number of speakers: 0
• Common themes: N/A

Council Discussion

• Key positions:
  • CM Jain: Led detailed questioning through financial report tables. Highlighted that public safety costs per game ($660K) far exceed the 49ers’ threshold payment ($374K), with the difference covered by the additional ticket surcharge on non-NFL events. Estimated ~$9M could flow to general fund by Q4. Noted stadium debt reduced from $650M to $210M.
  • CM Cox: Asked about SBL default losses (clarified as gains when remarketed). Questioned whether the $5.3M public safety debt from 2018-2024 can be paid off by the 27/28 goal given lower non-NFL revenue during Super Bowl preparation.
  • CM Park: Thanked CM Jain for detailed financial analysis. Admitted he originally opposed the stadium due to debt concerns. Credited CM Jain for showing through data how the stadium is progressing toward profitability.
  • CM Chahal: Echoed praise for CM Jain. Highlighted the settlement agreement’s role in enabling revenue to flow to the general fund. Noted the stadium is generating revenue, paying off debt, and contributing to the general fund.
• Questions raised: Why public safety costs increased 5.5x per game; SBL default impact; timeline for public safety debt payoff; how much will flow to general fund
• Amendments proposed: None

Outcome

• Motion: Note and file the financial status report and approve budget amendments
• Made by: CM Jain
• Seconded by: [unclear]
• Vote: 6-0 (Absent: Mayor Gillmor)
• Result: PASSED

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 3
• Factors:
  • [ ] Controversial
  • [x] High fiscal impact (stadium debt reduction, potential $9M to general fund)
  • [x] Affects many residents directly
  • [x] Ongoing/recurring issue with prior coverage
  • [x] Involves notable entities (49ers/Levi’s Stadium)
  • [ ] Policy change or precedent-setting
  • [ ] Generates strong public turnout

Quotable Moments

“Little did I know what the budget of Santa Clara was, but now I know very well what the budget is.” — CM Park, on originally opposing the stadium

“The stadium is generating revenue, and the stadium is paying off the debt.” — CM Chahal

---

Sub-Item C: Silicon Valley Power (SVP) Annual Update

Basic Information

• Type: general_business (informational report)
• Staff Recommendation: Note and file
• Department: Silicon Valley Power
• Fiscal Impact: ~$120M transformer order from South Korea; 4% recent rate increase; 22% staff vacancy rate; $22M capital budget; 40MW battery project under construction; 280MW battery project planned for 2029

Staff Presentation Summary

SVP Director Nico Prokos presented a comprehensive update on load growth, system expansion, technology improvements, and resource procurement. Santa Clara is experiencing significant load growth (primarily from data centers), described as “the poster child in California” for load growth. Major infrastructure projects include receiving station construction (completion 2028-2029), a 115kV transmission project, a 40MW battery project under construction, and a 280MW battery project planned for 2029. The utility launched a new outage management system in November 2025 and is implementing predictive maintenance, physical security upgrades across 27 critical assets, and new asset management technology.

• Key points:
  • SVP experiencing significant load growth, primarily from data centers; 90% of revenues come from large customers/data centers
  • $120M transformer order from South Korea faces tariff uncertainty
  • 22% staff vacancy rate
  • Physical security improvements: Phase 1 covering 7 critical sites nearly complete with sophisticated cameras linked to PD; Phase 2 to cover all 27 critical assets
  • Resource stack: Solar, wind, geothermal, battery storage projects in pipeline; currently in “pretty good shape” but some contracts facing tariff/supply chain pressures
  • Cost of service study planned for Q3; load development fee being reevaluated
  • SVP is second-cheapest utility in California (behind Turlock Irrigation District)
  • 130th anniversary celebration planned for July

Public Comment

• Number of speakers: 1
• Notable speakers:
  • Linda: Noted undergrounding costs double that of overhead wires and is harder to repair after floods or earthquakes. Requested the presentation be made publicly available as it was hard to read small text while listening.

Council Discussion

• Key positions:
  • CM Jain: Concerned about old utility poles (referenced 5 poles snapping on Homestead Road in a windstorm years ago); asked about decarbonization efforts similar to Palo Alto; wants proactive undergrounding of distribution lines; concerned about substation aesthetics; asked about electricity affordability and NCPA efforts to reduce costs.
  • CM Chahal: Praised technology focus. Asked about multifamily ADU program details, small business rebate programs, and plans to increase solar installations within city jurisdiction.
  • CM Cox: Asked whether SVP differentiates between data center types (edge computing vs. hyperscale); whether data centers could bring their own on-site generation (referenced hydrogen plant in Mountain View); suggested designating a fund to demonstrate community benefits of data centers; concerned about rate increase public outreach starting only in October 2025.
  • CM Hardy: Asked about using city-owned land for distributed infrastructure; confirmed 130th anniversary is July 2026 and urged celebration planning.
  • CM Park: Most critical of rate impacts. Argued SVP shouldn’t rest on being cheaper than PG&E — rates rising faster than cost of living is a net loss for residents. Called for rate stabilization. Questioned what infrastructure costs would look like without data center growth. Noted the 6% rate increase attributed to infrastructure shouldn’t be borne by residents if driven by data center demand. Expressed concern about sustainability implications of doubling capacity.
• Questions raised: How rates would change without data center growth; whether data centers pay their fair share of infrastructure; Prop 26 cost allocation implications; incentivizing data center on-site generation; NEM/solar policy direction; small business rebates timeline
• Amendments proposed: None

Outcome

• Motion: Note and file
• Made by: [unclear]
• Seconded by: [unclear]
• Vote: 6-0 (Absent: Mayor Gillmor)
• Result: PASSED

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 3
• Factors:
  • [ ] Controversial
  • [x] High fiscal impact ($120M transformer order, rate increases, system expansion costs)
  • [x] Affects many residents directly (rate increases, reliability)
  • [x] Ongoing/recurring issue with prior coverage (data center growth, rates)
  • [ ] Involves notable entities
  • [ ] Policy change or precedent-setting
  • [ ] Generates strong public turnout

Quotable Moments

“We are the poster child in California, probably, of load growth really taking off.” — SVP Director Nico Prokos

“Nobody in our city should need rebates. We’ve got a lot of money going to general fund.” — CM Park, on rate affordability

“It’s not enough being the lowest price if the rates are still going up faster than people can keep up with them.” — CM Park

“I actually look at substations and think they’re beautiful.” — SVP Director Nico Prokos

“Unfortunately, Turlock Irrigation District has taken over for us. We’re going to strive to get back to number one.” — SVP Director Nico Prokos, on cheapest utility ranking

---

Sub-Item D: Mills Act Contract Terminations (1711 Main Street & 906 Monroe Street)

Basic Information

• Type: public_hearing
• Staff Recommendation: Terminate Mills Act contracts for both properties due to non-compliance
• Department: Community Development
• Fiscal Impact: Annual tax savings to city under $300 per property; 12.5% of fair market value cancellation fee paid to County if terminated

Staff Presentation Summary

Community Development Director Hamid presented the proposed termination of two historic property preservation (Mills Act) agreements. The Mills Act provides tax incentives for owners to restore and preserve historic buildings; properties are audited every five years. Two properties failed to respond adequately to the 2024 audit cycle despite five phases of outreach (letters, emails, phone calls, certified mail, code enforcement hand-delivery). 1711 Main Street’s owner submitted two emails referencing building permits that didn’t exist in city records. 906 Monroe Street is bank-owned (Lamb Partners) and completely unresponsive.

• Key points:
  • 98% compliance rate across all other Mills Act properties
  • 1711 Main Street: Pioneer Gothic style, contract since 2000, owner claimed permits existed but none found in city database, refused on-site inspection — the referenced work was a water heater
  • 906 Monroe Street: Eastlake Victorian style, contract since 1998, now bank-owned, zero response to any outreach
  • Cancellation fee is 12.5% of current fair market value (not assessed value), paid to County
  • Properties remain on Historic Resources Inventory regardless of Mills Act status

Public Comment

• Number of speakers: 0
• Common themes: N/A (neither property owner appeared)

Council Discussion

• Key positions:
  • CM Hardy: Made initial motion for termination but ultimately amended to continuance. Called it “a necessary reality and a sad one.”
  • CM Jain: Questioned how the city can enforce historic maintenance standards once a property is off Mills Act. Noted the Historic Resources Inventory was involuntary — city just placed homes on it. Concerned about the lien implications of 12.5% penalty.
  • CM Cox: Questioned the extent of contact (noted bank-owned property hadn’t been contacted since February 2025). Asked about the narrative report from 1711 Main Street owner. Asked whether properties could reapply for Mills Act after termination.
  • CM Park: Most sympathetic to property owners. Concerned bank-owned property may fall into disrepair. Suggested alternative enforcement mechanisms rather than termination — fines, strongly worded letters, or forcing a sale. Suggested a “wellness or welfare program” for owners falling short of Mills Act requirements. Speculated owners may have hit hard times during COVID.
• Questions raised: Can properties reapply for Mills Act after termination? (Yes.) What happens if owners can’t pay 12.5%? (Likely a lien.) How can the city enforce historic standards without the Mills Act incentive? What was the Main Street owner trying to prove with the building permit reference? (A water heater.)
• Amendments proposed: City Manager Grogan suggested continuing the public hearing to March 10th for one final outreach to ensure property owners understand the 12.5% fair market value penalty

Outcome

• Motion: Continue the public hearing to March 10th for both properties, with staff conducting one final outreach
• Made by: CM Hardy (amended from original termination motion)
• Seconded by: CM Chahal
• Vote: Unanimous (6-0, Mayor Gillmor absent)
• Result: CONTINUED to March 10, 2025

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 2
• Factors:
  • [ ] Controversial
  • [ ] High fiscal impact
  • [ ] Affects many residents directly
  • [ ] Ongoing/recurring issue
  • [ ] Involves notable entities
  • [x] Policy change or precedent-setting (first-ever Mills Act cancellation attempt in Santa Clara)
  • [ ] Generates strong public turnout

Quotable Moments

“This is what I would call a necessary reality. And a sad one.” — CM Hardy

“Nobody in our city should need rebates… maybe there ought to be a wellness or welfare program for people who are falling short of Mills Act.” — CM Park

“A water heater is not a big deal, but there’s been no kind of agreement from the homeowner to even let us do on-site inspections.” — Community Development Director

---

Sub-Item E: City Manager Employment Agreement Amendment (3% Salary Increase)

Basic Information

• Type: general_business
• Staff Recommendation: Approve 3% salary adjustment retroactive to May 11, 2025 (new salary: $430,767.36 with $8,686.10 retroactive payment); modify performance appraisal process; adopt updated salary plan
• Department: Human Resources
• Fiscal Impact: New annual salary of $430,767.36; retroactive payment of $8,686.10

Staff Presentation Summary

Acting HR Director Marco Mercado presented the item as codifying a December 2024 council decision to amend City Manager Jovan Grogan’s employment contract. City Manager Grogan recused himself and left the room. The City Attorney’s compensation was required to be read into the public record per California Government Code. The increase covers the 2024/2025 rating period; the City Manager had not received a salary increase since December 2023.

• Key points:
  • Last salary increase was December 2023
  • 3% increase is for the 2024/2025 rating period specifically
  • Without this increase, the City Manager ranked as the 4th highest classification by salary range; with it, moves to 3rd
  • Same process was followed for the City Attorney’s increase
  • A formal performance evaluation process with 360 review is being developed for the 2025/2026 period
  • Unit 9 (unclassified) employees received up to 4% merit increases in the same period

Public Comment

• Number of speakers: 1 (Wanda Buck, who stated she had no comment)

Council Discussion

• Key positions:
  • CM Cox: Most critical. Called the process potentially “unethical” — two separate raises without clear designation as merit or ECOLA. Wanted both increases handled simultaneously. Concerned about transparency and public perception. Repeatedly pressed on whether this was merit, ECOLA, or just a generic raise.
  • CM Jain: Explained the rationale for the automatic 2% clause in the contract (to incentivize council to do timely reviews). Asked about 360 review and consultant costs. Raised compaction concerns — direct reports getting 4% while city manager gets nothing creates salary compression.
  • CM Park: Pushed back on Cox’s use of “unethical.” Argued it’s unfair to the city manager that subordinates received increases while he didn’t due to council inaction. Said “unfair” is the right word — the city manager may be receiving less than deserved because of lack of proper evaluation.
  • CM Hardy: Made the motion. Took ownership as subcommittee member to ensure timely follow-up.
  • City Attorney Egan: Clarified his own increase followed the same one-action-per-period process and was not a two-step raise.
• Questions raised: Whether this is merit or ECOLA (neither — just a salary adjustment); compaction risk with subordinates; when 25/26 review would occur (shortly after May); will there be a formal evaluation process going forward (yes, with 360 review and consultant)
• Amendments proposed: None

Outcome

• Motion: Approve the recommendation (3% salary increase, contract amendment, updated salary plan)
• Made by: CM Hardy
• Seconded by: CM Park
• Vote: 6-0 (Absent: Mayor Gillmor; City Manager Grogan recused)
• Result: PASSED

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 3
• Factors:
  • [x] Controversial (CM Cox raised transparency/ethics concerns)
  • [ ] High fiscal impact
  • [x] Affects many residents directly (top executive compensation)
  • [x] Ongoing/recurring issue (repeated failure to conduct timely performance reviews)
  • [ ] Involves notable entities
  • [x] Policy change or precedent-setting (establishing new performance evaluation process)
  • [ ] Generates strong public turnout

Quotable Moments

“I don’t want this to be looked at by the public as a sneaky way to give our top-appointed staff members unfair raises through a mechanism where we kind of pull it under the rug.” — CM Cox

“When we suggest that it’s unethical for us to do that… I don’t know if ethical is the word I would use. But unfair would be the word I would use — to say we are potentially giving them much lower increases because we didn’t evaluate their performance.” — CM Park

“I can do this all day.” — CM Hardy, on continuing past midnight

---

Sub-Item F: Council Member Reports (NCPA Sacramento Advocacy)

Basic Information

• Type: general_business (member reports)
• Staff Recommendation: N/A
• Department: City Council
• Fiscal Impact: None

Summary

CM Chahal and CM Jain reported on NCPA (Northern California Power Agency) advocacy in Sacramento.

CM Chahal’s report:

• Attended NCPA Capitol Day lobbying legislators
• Key issues: affordability (especially wildfire liability reform — 11 states have passed reasonable liability reforms, California has not); 100% hydrogen-ready plant in Lodi lost federal funding; small modular nuclear gaining traction in other states but not California
• SVP is considered a “crown jewel” within NCPA
• Met with Assembly Member Aaron’s staff and Senator Wahab’s staff

CM Jain’s report (NCPA Strategic Issues Conference):

• Assemblyman Chris Rogers: PG&E incentivized to overbuild ($4B to bury lines vs $400M to insulate conductors) due to return-on-investment structure
• Maria Pope (Portland General Electric): Oregon has more aggressive climate goals than California; last wind project actually lowered customer rates by 2%; Portland 6th largest EV market; data center bill would charge 25% premium
• Introduced State Senator Tim Grayson (Senate Majority Whip) — SB 237 to stop refinery closures
• Governor’s energy advisors: Diablo Canyon extension, permitting reform, California now has 16GW battery storage vs 55GW peak load
• Elliot Mainzer (CAISO): Extended Day-Ahead Market/Pathways Initiative to combine neighboring states’ grids
• Paul Lowe (SMUD CEO): SMUD carbon-free by 2030; rates cheaper than SVP; 160,000 of 600,000 customers can’t afford bills even at low rates
• Fire victims trust: $18B ($9B utilities + $9B state) vs hundreds of billions in actual damages

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 2
• Factors:
  • [ ] Controversial
  • [ ] High fiscal impact
  • [x] Affects many residents directly (affordability advocacy)
  • [ ] Ongoing/recurring issue
  • [ ] Involves notable entities

Quotable Moments

“Silicon Valley Power is considered within NCPA as a crown jewel.” — CM Chahal

“160,000 customers can’t afford their electric bills, even though their electricity is really cheap.” — CM Jain, reporting on SMUD

---

Sub-Item G: City Manager’s Report

Basic Information

• Type: general_business (executive report)
• Staff Recommendation: N/A
• Department: City Manager’s Office
• Fiscal Impact: $45,000 in sponsorship pledges for 2026 community events

Summary

City Manager Grogan briefly reported that the Lunar New Year Festival (partner-led by Ding Ding TV) is the first in a series of 2026 community events. The Economic Development Committee has secured $45,000 in sponsorship pledges, with more business outreach ongoing.

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 1

---

Sub-Item H: Adjournment

The meeting adjourned past midnight to closed session (Item 1B: labor negotiations with Fire). Council voted by consensus to continue. The meeting adjourned in memory of Monte Mesa Jr. and Tom Hensley. The next meeting was changed from the regular February 10th meeting to a special meeting on February 3rd (time TBD) to address the immigration/community protection policies item.

Item 215742: Action on Approval of (1) First Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement, and (2) Resolution Approving and Adopting the Updated Salary Plan that includes the Classification of City Manager

Basic Information

• Type: general_business
• Staff Recommendation: Approve modifications to the City Manager’s compensation package including a ~3% salary adjustment retroactive to May 2025, authorize the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1 to the employment agreement with City Manager Jovan D. Grogan, and adopt a resolution updating the unclassified salary plans.
• Department: Human Resources (Acting HR Director Marco Mercado presenting, with Assistant City Manager Araceli Acevedo)
• Fiscal Impact: New annual salary of approximately $430,767.36 with a corresponding retroactive payment of $8,686.10

Staff Presentation Summary

There was no formal presentation. Acting HR Director Marco Mercado stated the item was before the council to codify a decision made in December to amend the City Manager’s employment contract. The City Attorney required the full compensation details be read into the record per California Government Code requirements for council appointees.

• Key points:
  • The 3% salary adjustment is retroactive to May 11, 2025, covering the 2024/2025 rating period
  • The City Manager’s last salary increase was in December 2023
  • The item also modifies the performance appraisal process as set forth in Amendment No. 1

Public Comment

• Number of speakers: 1 called, 0 with substantive comment
• Notable speakers:
  • Wanda Buck: Called in but stated “I have no comment”
• Standout moments: None
• Speaker cross-references: None
• Common themes: N/A

Council Discussion

• Key positions:
  • CM Hardy: Supportive; made the motion to approve. Volunteered to take responsibility as part of the subcommittee to ensure the process moves forward, stating “I’ll take the bull by the horns.”
  • CM Cox: Expressed significant concern about transparency and equity. Pressed repeatedly on whether the 3% was a merit increase or cost-of-living adjustment, and objected that neither label applied. Warned it could look like “a sneaky way to give our top-appointed staff members unfair raises” and called the two-step approach “unethical” and lacking transparency. Wanted both the retroactive and future increases handled in a single action.
  • CM Jain: Provided context that the council has historically failed to conduct timely performance reviews for its appointees, and that a 2% automatic increase was added as an incentive for council to fulfill its duty. Raised concerns about salary compaction if the City Manager receives less than subordinates. Asked about the 360 review process and budget implications for a consultant.
  • CM Park: Pushed back on the use of the word “ethical,” arguing it was unfair to the City Manager to not be evaluated for work during periods when “contracts were settled and lawsuits were settled.” Characterized the issue as one of “process, procedure, and ownership” rather than ethics.
  • Vice Mayor (presiding): Expressed comfort with the item as “an initial kick-off point” to address compaction and provide an increase to “a City Manager who was doing his job.” Drew on prior experience with evaluation delays on a school board.
• Questions raised:
  • Is this a merit increase, COLA, or neither? (Staff confirmed it was not characterized as either — just a salary increase)
  • Could there be a second salary increase later in the year? (Staff confirmed the 25/26 rating period would be addressed separately after May)
  • What increases did the City Manager’s direct reports (Unit 9) receive? (Up to 4% merit for 2024, up to 4% for 2025)
  • What is salary compaction and does it apply here? (The City Manager was ranked 4th by salary range; the 3% would move them to 3rd)
  • Who owns ensuring the May evaluation deadline is met? (The subcommittee, with HR bringing forward a formalized policy)
• Amendments proposed: None

Outcome

• Motion: Approve the staff recommendation (modifications to compensation, Amendment No. 1, and updated salary resolution)
• Made by: Councilmember Hardy
• Seconded by: [Unclear from transcript — a voice said “I’ll second that”]
• Vote: 6-0 (Absent: Mayor, who recused due to the item involving his appointee’s contract — City Manager Grogan left the dais)
• Result: PASSED

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 3
• Factors:
  • [ ] Controversial (split vote or significant opposition)
  • [ ] High fiscal impact (>$1M or significant % of budget)
  • [x] Affects many residents directly — executive compensation is a perennial public interest topic
  • [x] Ongoing/recurring issue with prior coverage — the council’s failure to conduct timely performance reviews has been a recurring issue
  • [ ] Involves notable entities (49ers/Levi’s Stadium, large developers)
  • [x] Policy change or precedent-setting — establishing a formalized evaluation process for council appointees
  • [ ] Generates strong public turnout
  • [ ] Viral potential
  • [ ] Notable speaker
  • [ ] Cross-referenced

Quotable Moments

“I don’t want this to be looked at by the public as a sneaky way to give our top-appointed staff members unfair raises through a mechanism where we kind of pull it under the rug.” — Councilmember Cox

“I’ll take the bull by the horns and I’m part of the subcommittee and we’ll make certain we meet with you.” — Councilmember Hardy

“I don’t know that the word ethical, which is used quite a bit in this council, is the word that I would use. But I would certainly say that it is not fair to anyone, especially the recipients of the increases, to not be fairly evaluated on the work they have done.” — Councilmember Park

“If the city council refuses to do their duty to do these performance reviews… there’s at least a 2% or a cost of living or inflation, whichever is lower, automatically to the two employees.” — Councilmember Jain, explaining the automatic increase provision

Item 215751: Reports of Members, Special Committees and Councilmember Requests

Basic Information

• Type: general_business
• Staff Recommendation: N/A (informational reports)
• Department: City Council
• Fiscal Impact: None (informational only)

Staff Presentation Summary

No staff presentation. This item consists of councilmember reports on external conference attendance.

Public Comment

• Number of speakers: 0
• Notable speakers: N/A
• Standout moments: N/A
• Speaker cross-references: N/A
• Common themes: N/A

Council Discussion

Two councilmembers reported on recent NCPA (Northern California Power Agency) events in Sacramento.

• Key positions:

  • CM Chahal: Reported on NCPA Capitol Day (attended the day prior, returned same day). Highlighted several legislative priorities:

    • Fire liability reform: 11 states have passed reasonable liability reforms; California has not. NCPA and member cities are pressing state legislators to pass common-sense liability reform, especially given fire claims affecting all utilities (PG&E and public).
    • Hydrogen-ready plant in Lodi: Federal funding has been cut off and the state has not acted. Requesting more state funding for this clean energy partnership plant.
    • Small modular nuclear: Gaining traction in other states/utilities but not in California; NCPA pushing for this.
    • Noted that Silicon Valley Power is considered a “crown jewel” within NCPA and commands significant respect in the NCPA community.
    • Met with Assembly Member Aaron’s staff and Senator Wahab’s staff to raise these issues. Both Senate and Assembly were in session.

  • CM Jain: Reported on the NCPA Strategic Issues Conference (January 20–22, Kimpton Sawyer Hotel, Sacramento). Provided detailed summaries of multiple speakers:

    • Assemblyman Chris Rogers (Healdsburg): Explained PG&E’s profit incentive to overbuild — burying transmission lines ($4B) vs. insulating conductors ($400M) — because they earn a 10% return on capital investment. Also working on retraining oil/gas drilling workers for geothermal wells.
    • L.A. Fire Victims Trust Fund: $9B from utilities + $9B from the state = $18B total, but actual damages in the hundreds of billions.
    • Maria Pope (GM, Portland General Electric, Oregon): 950,000 customers, 4 GW in hydro/wind/solar, 45% clean energy. Oregon has more aggressive climate goals than California (CA target: 100% by 2045). Data centers (Digital Realty Trust, Intel) focused on renewables. Last wind project lowered customer bills by 2%. Portland is 6th largest EV market in the U.S. Typical data center sizes 6–200 MW. Proposed bill would have data centers pay 25% more for electricity.
    • State Senator Tim Grayson (Senate Majority Whip): CM Jain introduced him. Has SB 237 to stop refinery closures in California to address fuel affordability.
    • Christine Hernoca & Grant Mac (Senior Advisors for Energy, Governor Newsom’s office): Discussed Diablo Canyon extension, permitting reform, major CPUC and CAISO energy bills, CAISO queue reforms. California now has 16 GW of battery storage against a 55 GW peak load.
    • Elliot (Head of CAISO): CAISO serves 80% of California’s power. Discussed the Pathways Initiative / Extended Day Ahead Market — combining neighboring states’ power grids to share generation (e.g., wind from Arizona/New Mexico), which would lower utility rates.
    • Paul Lowe (CEO, SMUD): SMUD targeting carbon-free by 2030. Off-peak rate 12.8¢/kWh, peak rate 17.6¢/kWh (cheaper than Santa Clara). Peak load 3,300 MW, 600,000 customers, of whom 160,000 can’t afford their bills even at those low rates.
    • Also noted SVP employees participated in a panel.

• Questions raised: None

• Amendments proposed: None

Outcome

• Motion: N/A (informational item, no action taken)
• Vote: N/A
• Result: RECEIVED (reports heard)

Newsworthiness Assessment

• Score: 2
• Factors:
  • [ ] Controversial
  • [ ] High fiscal impact
  • [ ] Affects many residents directly
  • [x] Ongoing/recurring issue with prior coverage (energy policy, data center power demand, fire liability)
  • [x] Involves notable entities (PG&E, CAISO, SMUD, Portland General Electric, Silicon Valley Power/NCPA)
  • [ ] Policy change or precedent-setting
  • [ ] Generates strong public turnout
  • [ ] Viral potential
  • [ ] Notable speaker
  • [ ] Cross-referenced

Rationale: Informational reports only, no action taken. However, the substantive policy content — particularly around fire liability reform, federal funding cuts to clean energy, data center electricity pricing, and SMUD’s carbon-free 2030 target — provides useful context for energy policy reporting. The detail about Silicon Valley Power being NCPA’s “crown jewel” is a notable local angle. CM Jain’s report was unusually detailed and substantive for this agenda item type.

Quotable Moments

“Silicon Valley Power is considered within NCPA as a crown jewel, and they demand a lot of respect within the NCPA community.” — CM Chahal

“PG&E could either bury transmission lines through the forest, which is $4 billion, versus insulating the conductors, which is $400 million — one tenth the cost. But they’d rather bury the things because they’re going to get a higher return, like a 10% return, on $4 billion instead of a 10% return on $400 million.” — CM Jain, paraphrasing Assemblyman Chris Rogers

“SMUD is going to be carbon free by 2030, which is unbelievable. And their electricity rates are actually cheaper than ours.” — CM Jain

“Out of all their customers, they have 600,000 customers, and 160,000 customers can’t afford their electric bills, even though their electricity is really cheap.” — CM Jain, on SMUD

“The last wind project that Portland General Electric invested in actually lowered their customer utility bills by 2%. So wind is incredibly cheap.” — CM Jain, on Portland General Electric