San Jose steers housing study to transit; SF Board finalizes CEQA rule changes

Changes the Administrative Code's local procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act. As read by the clerk, it removes shadow analysis as a specific type of environmental impact, cuts the time to appeal CEQA determinations to the Board from 30 to 15 days, removes some procedures for environmental documents CEQA doesn't require, and implements recent state law changes on when CEQA compliance happens. This was final passage, and the only divided vote of the meeting. 00:12:18

More on San Francisco's episode

• Final passage of the ordinance by roll call. Result: passed, 8-1. No: Connie Chan (Supervisor, District 1). 00:13:00

Requires online listings and leases for residential rentals to clearly show the total estimated monthly cost, rent plus any required fees and charges. Tenants who didn't get adequate disclosure could end their leases early without penalty, and landlords would be limited in evicting or charging late penalties over undisclosed fees. Passed on first reading. 00:22:42

More on San Francisco's episode

• Passage on first reading by same house, same call. Result: passed. 00:23:20

As read by the clerk, it amends the Administrative Code so a landlord may not evict a residential tenant for unpaid rent below a threshold tied to the local fair market rent for an equivalent-sized unit, as set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Passed on first reading. 00:23:51

More on San Francisco's episode

• Passage on first reading by same house, same call. Result: passed. 00:24:12

The Police Commission selection panel sent the council a slate of two nominees for the Oakland Police Commission, one of them a former mayor. Under the city charter the council can only accept or reject a slate as a whole. If it does neither within sixty days, the slate counts as accepted. Staff said that the day before, the second nominee had withdrawn because his law firm represents parties suing the city, and then asked to take the withdrawal back. City code bars attorneys who represent anyone with a pending claim against the police department from serving. On the city attorney's advice, the council rejected the slate so the panel can send a new one. The city attorney's office said its advice was not a judgment on either nominee's qualifications. 00:22:15

More on Oakland's episode

• Motion to adopt the second resolution, rejecting the selection panel's slate of two Police Commission nominees; the clerk attributed it to Kevin Jenkins (Councilmember, District 6; President, City Council; Chair, Rules and Legislation Committee), seconded by Rowena Brown (Councilmember, At Large; Chair, Community and Economic Development Committee; Chair, Education Partnership Committee). Result: passed, 8-0. 01:09:11

• City staff reported for staff that one nominee withdrew because his law firm represents parties suing the city, later asked to rescind the withdrawal, and that staff had no recommendation 00:22:56
• An official explained that under the charter the council must accept or reject the entire slate, and a slate not acted on within sixty days is deemed accepted 00:24:38
• A councilmember asked why the council could not vote on a slate of just one person 00:25:09
• A councilmember asked whether the law could be changed so nominees are taken one at a time 00:26:07
• An official said the slate requirement is in the charter, so changing it would take a charter amendment 00:26:45
• A councilmember said she hoped the former-mayor nominee would still be on the slate that comes back 00:27:12
• A councilmember said one candidate withdrew after questions from a news outlet and that rejecting the slate had nothing to do with either candidate 00:27:25
• An official clarified that the attorney's office was not saying either candidate was or wasn't qualified, and that rejecting the slate simply resets the process 00:27:53
• A councilmember asked whether the selection panel had alternates ready, and the answer was that it has a reserve pool 00:29:44
• An invited speaker said, as the former-mayor nominee, that the mayor asked her to serve on the commission at a critical time for the city 00:49:26
• An invited speaker said she will never run for office again and so cannot be pressured by the police officers union 00:51:28
• An invited speaker said she supported the commission's work this year on an immigration policy and on a drone policy 00:54:38
• Ken Houston (Councilmember, District 7) pressed the nominee on the commission's revised vehicle pursuit policy, which he tied to smash-and-grab crime in his district 00:55:37
• An invited speaker said she wanted to see data before taking a strong position on the pursuit policy change 00:56:37
• An invited speaker said she would push to change the pursuit policy if data showed it harmed the community, and stressed officer training 01:07:16
• Charlene Wang (Councilmember, District 2; Chair, Public Safety Committee) praised the nominee's past work on Ceasefire and sex trafficking and said the commission needs AAPI representation 01:00:48
• Charlene Wang (Councilmember, District 2; Chair, Public Safety Committee) said she will support the former mayor's appointment 01:04:42
• A councilmember asked colleagues to save detailed questioning for when the slate returns and to move the agenda 01:05:48
• Ken Houston (Councilmember, District 7) said it took about a year and a half, and a letter from the governor, for the commission to revise the pursuit policy 01:08:40

An ordinance from Zac Unger (Councilmember, District 1; Chair, Public Works and Transportation Committee) amending Municipal Code chapter 1.08 to raise the maximum civil penalty for nuisances. Per the agenda, the cap would be up to $2,500 a day for repeated or continuing violations and up to $10,000 a day for nuisances on real property left unabated after notice and a chance to fix them. The sponsor said the $1,000-a-day cap dates to 1968 and that some repeat offenders treat it as a cost of doing business. City attorney staff said the cap is a ceiling: the city administrator sets a schedule of fines under it, and it applies to every department that enforces nuisance rules. The council approved it on first reading. Final passage is set for November 10. 01:28:09

More on Oakland's episode

• Motion by Zac Unger (Councilmember, District 1; Chair, Public Works and Transportation Committee), seconded by Rowena Brown (Councilmember, At Large; Chair, Community and Economic Development Committee; Chair, Education Partnership Committee), to open the public hearing. Result: passed, 8-0. 01:28:47
• Motion by Zac Unger (Councilmember, District 1; Chair, Public Works and Transportation Committee), seconded by Charlene Wang (Councilmember, District 2; Chair, Public Safety Committee), to close the public hearing and approve the ordinance on introduction (first reading). Result: passed, 8-0. 01:55:02

• A councilmember said the city's maximum penalty of $1,000 a day was set in 1968 and no longer deters the worst offenders 01:29:52
• A councilmember said the ordinance raises the cap from $1,000 to $10,000 a day, aimed at chronic offenders such as owners of rotting buildings and unpermitted builders 01:29:52
• A councilmember said the ordinance still lets people fix problems in good faith, with escalating fines before the maximum 01:30:55
• A councilmember said the goal is compliance, not revenue 01:30:55
• Ken Houston (Councilmember, District 7) said he signed Measure RR, which he said changed the 1968 law, and has fought illegal dumping for years 01:32:14
• Ken Houston (Councilmember, District 7) said illegal dumpers should face jail, not just fines, and asked for trained staff to gather evidence for the district attorney 01:33:17
• Charlene Wang (Councilmember, District 2; Chair, Public Safety Committee) asked whether the ordinance only sets an overall cap, and was told it raises the ceiling for anything now capped at $1,000 01:34:50
• A councilmember questioned who will enforce and collect higher fines when current fines are not enforced 01:36:00
• A councilmember said code enforcement imposes the fines, is short-staffed, and he wants more officers in the next budget 01:37:29
• A councilmember said the cap was raised to $5,000 in 2020 and that did not stop dumping 01:38:53
• A councilmember asked whether automatic inflation adjustments could legally be built into civil penalties 01:42:12
• An official explained for the City Attorney's Office that the city administrator sets a schedule of fines under the $10,000 maximum, and that it applies to all departments that enforce nuisance rules 01:42:54
• A councilmember added that higher fines make it easier for the city to put liens on properties 01:44:22
• An official advised that adding enforcement-staff requirements was outside the scope of the item as noticed and would need a separate item 01:53:36

This is a citizen-sponsored initiative petition called the 'Oakland Living Wage for All Act of 2026.' According to the agenda, it would amend Oakland's minimum wage ordinances to raise the minimum wage to $30 for Oakland employees by July 1, 2037, among other things. The legislation from the Office of the City Clerk has two parts. First is a resolution accepting the certification of the results of the examination of the initiative petition. Second, under California Elections Code section 9215, the council must then adopt one of three options: (A) adopt the initiative as an ordinance without alteration; (B) submit it to the voters at the next general municipal election, November 7, 2028, or at a special election held 88 to 103 days after the election is called; or (C) order a report under Elections Code section 9212 on the initiative's effects, to be presented to the council within 30 days. This committee did not decide the measure itself. It only scheduled the item for the December 1, 2026 City Council agenda as a non-consent item. Under Rule 24, election matters go straight to the council without a committee hearing. 00:04:19

More on Oakland's episode

• Janani Ramachandran (Councilmember, District 4; Chair, Finance and Management Committee) moved, seconded by Rowena Brown (Councilmember, At Large; Chair, Community and Economic Development Committee; Chair, Education Partnership Committee), to approve item three as is, which scheduled items 3.1 and 3.2 as requested. Result: passed, 4-0. 00:11:39

• The city clerk explained that the Elections Code requires the council to pick one of the three options, which is why the item goes straight to the council 00:06:24

Sets what the city's long-range planning staff will work on through December 2027. Staff say they are at about 130 percent of capacity, mostly because of state housing mandates. That means council-requested projects, such as the Coyote corridor study, keep getting pushed back. The central issue was 'missing middle' housing in single-family neighborhoods, which the city's state-certified housing element commits it to. In August the council directed study of 16, 24 and 32 units per acre. Two council memos sought changes. The memo from Matt Mahan (Mayor), Pam Foley (Councilmember, District 9; Vice Mayor), Pamela Campos (Councilmember, District 2), Anthony Tordillos (Councilmember, District 3) and Michael Mulcahy (Councilmember, District 6) asked staff to study tiered densities based on distance from transit and to add childcare policy work in place of the retail-in-residential-neighborhoods work. The memo from Domingo Candelas (Councilmember, District 8), George Casey (Councilmember, District 10), Peter Ortiz (Councilmember, District 5) and David Cohen (Councilmember, District 4) sought to keep current densities in areas with limited transit. Staff warned that excluding high-resource areas could put the housing element at risk with the state housing department (HCD), and that losing certification would reopen the 'builder's remedy'. The council passed the first memo 9-2 after rejecting a substitute that would have added the second. 02:01:49

More on San Jose's episode

• Substitute motion by George Casey (Councilmember, District 10): approve the memo from Domingo Candelas (Councilmember, District 8), George Casey (Councilmember, District 10), Peter Ortiz (Councilmember, District 5) and David Cohen (Councilmember, District 4) together with the memo from Matt Mahan (Mayor), Pam Foley (Councilmember, District 9; Vice Mayor), Pamela Campos (Councilmember, District 2), Anthony Tordillos (Councilmember, District 3) and Michael Mulcahy (Councilmember, District 6), with the return timeline changed to as soon as possible, plus a friendly amendment from Bien Doan (Councilmember, District 7) directing city staff, including the City Manager's intergovernmental relations team and the City Attorney, to research local land-use control options for the January 2027 legislative program discussion. Result: failed. No: Rosemary Kamei (Councilmember, District 1), David Cohen (Councilmember, District 4), Pam Foley (Councilmember, District 9; Vice Mayor), Anthony Tordillos (Councilmember, District 3), Pamela Campos (Councilmember, District 2), Michael Mulcahy (Councilmember, District 6). 04:02:22
• Pam Foley (Councilmember, District 9; Vice Mayor) moved the memo from Matt Mahan (Mayor), Pam Foley (Councilmember, District 9; Vice Mayor), Pamela Campos (Councilmember, District 2), Anthony Tordillos (Councilmember, District 3) and Michael Mulcahy (Councilmember, District 6), changing the return date from end of March to as soon as possible, adding consideration of current densities for sites in moderate to severe fire hazard zones, and adding Bien Doan (Councilmember, District 7)'s local-control research amendment. Result: passed, 9-2. No: Domingo Candelas (Councilmember, District 8), George Casey (Councilmember, District 10). 04:02:59

• City staff said the citywide planning team is at about 130 percent of capacity for the coming year 02:04:36
• City staff said meeting all current timelines would take 3.3 more full-time staff the division does not have 02:04:36
• City staff said the legislature considered 1,800 bills in 2026, 300 of them on planning and land use, after more than 450 such bills in seven years 02:05:36
• City staff said the next housing element is due in January 2031 and work must begin by January 2028 at the latest 02:12:02
• City staff used the ADU condominium ordinance as an example, saying even an accelerated, clearly directed change took about six months 02:16:15
• City staff said the next budget's planning fee update would aim to add at least two positions 02:17:20
• City staff warned that adding geography to a graduated density approach requires more analysis and complexity 02:19:23
• City staff said a March return with citywide outreach is unrealistic 02:20:29
• City staff warned that excluding high-opportunity areas, as the second memo proposes, risks the state housing department rejecting the program 02:20:29
• The chair said 90 percent of planning capacity goes to responding to state mandates 02:52:48
• The chair said the childcare work is not new city funding but removing barriers to opening and running childcare centers 02:53:55
• The chair described the group memo's intent as tiered density, higher closer to high-frequency transit 02:56:11
• The chair said council members are seeking a meeting with the state housing department to test what it actually requires 02:57:16
• A councilmember stressed that the council is approving an analysis of density, not any density 02:58:41
• City staff said reaching all 10 council districts for outreach in about a month and a half is unlikely 03:03:11
• A councilmember moved the group memo, changing the return date from end of March to as soon as possible 03:06:16
• A councilmember added consideration of current densities for sites in moderate to severe fire hazard zones, restating August direction 03:07:18
• A councilmember explained she did not include the second memo because she opposes carving high-resource areas out of possible upzoning 03:07:18
• A councilmember objected that smoke shop zoning work, directed by the council in May 2024, was deferred again in the staff-preferred option 03:10:09
• A councilmember argued East San Jose neighborhoods with more smoke shops and liquor stores also see disproportionate rates of cancer, diabetes and high blood pressure 03:13:02
• The chair said the council could choose in the next budget to fund more planners to speed up the backlog 03:14:02
• A councilmember said the department had previously told the council it did not need more planners, and urged staff to pursue outside grants 03:16:10
• The chair said he recently helped bring in $750,000 from Bloomberg to speed multifamily permitting 03:17:19
• George Casey (Councilmember, District 10) argued that if transit access justifies tiers, areas far from transit should stay at current density 03:17:52
• George Casey (Councilmember, District 10) urged first absorbing new state missing middle laws before upzoning, saying upzoning cannot be reversed 03:20:07
• Rosemary Kamei (Councilmember, District 1) said the current workload is not sustainable 03:22:05
• City staff said the tiered analysis would force deferral of other housing element work, including updates to the public outreach policy 03:24:59
• Rosemary Kamei (Councilmember, District 1) opposed the substitute, saying excluding areas would push density onto other districts 03:28:16
• A councilmember thanked colleagues for elevating the childcare policy work 03:29:45
• Anthony Tordillos (Councilmember, District 3) opposed the substitute as adding risk with the state and being unfair to other districts 03:31:34
• Anthony Tordillos (Councilmember, District 3) noted state law (SB 9) already allows four units on any single-family parcel 03:33:40
• Domingo Candelas (Councilmember, District 8) said his memo does not oppose the missing middle program but asks for judgment based on neighborhood conditions 03:34:34
• Michael Mulcahy (Councilmember, District 6) asked whether dropping the 32-units-per-acre study would free up capacity 03:36:13
• City staff said that before going that way, staff would want an early read from the state housing department 03:37:55
• A councilmember proposed directing the city attorney to prepare a local control protection strategy on charter authority and state preemption limits 03:39:41
• The chair suggested the city's intergovernmental relations team begin with research instead 03:41:49
• City staff said the administration could give an update on the local control work in January, as part of the 2027 legislative program 03:43:56
• A councilmember said she would vote against the substitute over fairness 03:46:28
• The chair said he would not back the substitute if it meant Districts 8 and 10 were removed from consideration 03:50:16
• City staff said transit access usually means within a half mile, so defining limited access beyond that is arbitrary 03:51:13
• City staff proposed seeking written feedback from the state housing department before investing heavily in the analysis 03:53:06
• The chair said the community has been told a final vote on the approach is expected by December next year 03:56:03
• A councilmember cautioned that a new state administration could change the state housing department's leadership and philosophy 03:56:40
• Anthony Tordillos (Councilmember, District 3) argued removing high-resource neighborhoods would push development into lower-resource areas 03:57:41

A hearing on an appeal of the city's use of a CEQA infill exemption for a special use permit allowing a data center use of up to 20 megawatts inside an existing R&D building of about 97,800 square feet (agenda) on 4.86 acres in North San Jose, District 4. The permit allows no exterior changes. The tenant is NVIDIA, which uses the building for chip testing. The appellant, Citizens for Responsible Industry, argued that the project leaves out generators, cooling and other equipment, citing a separate air district application for a diesel backup generator, and asked for a full environmental impact report. Staff said any added exterior equipment would need a new permit and new environmental review, and that the city's decades-old data center definition, due for update in December, is why this permit was needed at all. The council denied the appeal. 05:04:11

More on San Jose's episode

• David Cohen (Councilmember, District 4) moved to deny the environmental appeal and uphold the infill exemption for 300 Holger Way, per staff recommendation (seconder not named); Peter Ortiz (Councilmember, District 5) absent. Result: passed, 9-0. Recused: Pam Foley (Councilmember, District 9; Vice Mayor). 05:46:57

• City staff described the permit as allowing a data center use up to 20 megawatts inside an existing R&D building 05:04:48
• City staff said the permit includes no exterior equipment, including no backup generators 05:05:49
• City staff said the San Jose Municipal Water System confirmed sufficient water supply for the use 05:10:57
• City staff said any expansion with new exterior equipment would require a new permit, air district permits and new environmental review 05:13:07
• An appellant representative argued for the appellant that a diesel generator applied for at the air district would emit six times the daily NOx significance threshold 05:15:59
• An appellant representative argued the city is piecemealing approvals in violation of CEQA instead of analyzing the whole project 05:17:01
• An applicant representative said for the applicant that the building is an entirely existing facility 05:19:56
• An applicant representative said all work on the building was done by a union signatory contractor 05:22:01
• An applicant representative said for the property owner that NVIDIA signed a ten-year lease about two years ago and has spent over $100 million remodeling 05:23:29
• A councilmember criticized the city code's data center definition as so broad it covers any building that houses computers 05:35:04
• City staff said data center standards coming in December will update the base definition 05:36:09
• City staff said the permit would expire if the use does not begin within two years 05:37:57
• An applicant representative declined to commit to letting the permit lapse, noting it can be extended two more years 05:40:43
• An applicant representative said the building has 8.5 megawatts of service now and future power needs are unknown 05:42:50
• A councilmember said there were no grounds for the CEQA appeal, urged fixing the definition so this does not recur, and moved staff's recommendation 05:44:58

Planning staff explained where things stand on three state housing rules. Builder's Remedy let developers bypass San Jose's general plan and zoning while the city lacked a state-certified housing element. The housing element itself is the city's state-required plan to make room for about 62,000 new homes by 2031. SB 79 is a new state law allowing housing within half a mile of many transit stations. Together these determine where housing can go in San Jose, and how much say the city and the commission have over it. 00:06:07

More on San Jose's episode

• City staff explained that Builder's Remedy is a penalty on cities without a certified housing element, letting qualifying projects ignore general plan and zoning 00:06:33
• City staff said the city can deny a qualifying project only by proving a specific adverse impact on public health and safety, and the burden is on the city 00:07:35
• City staff said such denials are very rare and he could not recall San Jose doing it 00:09:04
• City staff gave the required affordability options as 7% extremely low, 10% very low or 13% lower income 00:13:01
• City staff said staff worked with the developer of the Camden project to make sure its very-low-income for-sale units could actually be filled 00:11:54
• City staff said the city received 33 SB 330 preliminary applications between February and December 2023, and 24 of them became formal applications 00:13:17
• City staff said eight have been approved and two are pending, including a Topgolf ministerial permit and 741 South Winchester, which comes to the commission on appeal on November 4 00:13:48
• City staff said three applications were withdrawn, two found a different path and 11 remain under review or inactive 00:14:50
• A commissioner asked whether the consequences of lacking a housing element are too severe, given they let anyone build regardless of zoning 00:15:09
• City staff agreed the penalty is very severe and said the city took over two and a half years to write and certify its housing element 00:15:52
• City staff said the city plans to start the next housing element at the start of 2028 because it is due in January 2031 00:16:59
• City staff said cities out of compliance can face further penalties, including losing the ability to issue building permits or action by the Attorney General 00:18:40
• City staff said the eight approved projects total 697 units and replace a mix of uses 00:19:46
• City staff listed existing uses being replaced, including medical offices, restaurants, retail, Little League fields and an elementary school 00:19:46
• City staff said permits carry a two-year entitlement with an option to extend two more years to start construction 00:21:04
• City staff cited the 1655 Berryessa Road project of 62 townhomes beside the Berryessa BART station as an example of lower density than the city would want 00:21:20
• City staff said none of the approved Builder's Remedy projects has broken ground yet 00:22:11
• City staff said the housing element has over 130 programs whose progress the city must report to the state each year 00:24:46
• City staff said penalties come from failing to carry out promised actions rather than from missing the housing target itself 00:27:06
• City staff said the city had to show sites for 62,200 units on roughly 500 sites under the state's realistic-capacity rules 00:30:50
• City staff said the goal is to finish the next housing element by June 2030, ahead of the January 2031 deadline 00:32:56
• City staff said the city has produced several thousand units a year but has generally fallen far behind its targets, and offered to send the figures 00:34:20
• City staff said the biggest barrier is approved units that have not moved to construction because of economics 00:36:40
• City staff said three projects have been approved through the city's staff-level ministerial process adopted in December 2024, in about 100 days 00:36:40
• City staff said residential entitlements previously took about eight to nine months at the fastest and up to two to three years 00:38:12
• City staff said getting applicants' plans to completeness takes the longest, and staff are exploring earlier joint review with developers 00:40:30
• A commissioner suggested the city offer some kind of class to help developers submit complete applications 00:41:21
• A commissioner asked what penalties the city faces if it does not reach its housing allocation 00:43:05
• City staff said the allocation is an aspirational goal and a capacity the city must show, since the city itself does not build housing 00:44:44
• City staff said SB 79 took effect July 1 and covers about 56 light rail, Caltrain and BART stations in or near San Jose 00:45:23
• City staff said five industrial areas were exempted, and since July 1 the city has received no formal applications and one preliminary application 00:47:25
• City staff said staff will likely not pursue the exemption for sites lacking a one-mile walking path and will explain why in an information memo 00:49:30
• City staff said staff are drafting an ordinance defining demolition for historic resources, targeted for the commission in November 00:51:33

City Manager's Office staff answered commissioners' questions about data centers before the proposed citywide data center standards come to the commission on November 18 and the City Council on December 8. Topics included where data centers are allowed, how they are permitted, the revenue the city expects, and emissions. Staff also described a proposed change that would send appeals of data center permits straight to the City Council, where today the Planning Commission has the final say. A commissioner objected that it takes away a hearing where residents can speak; staff said it answers residents who want the council to decide controversial data center cases. 01:33:05

More on San Jose's episode

• City staff said the standards will come before the commission on November 18, so this session would not present them 01:33:05
• City staff said data centers are already allowed with a special use permit in four industrial and commercial zoning districts, which limits what the city can require 01:35:08
• City staff said the California Energy Commission leads environmental review when backup generation exceeds 50 megawatts 01:36:11
• City staff estimated a 99-megawatt data center brings about $6 million a year in utility user tax 01:39:20
• City staff estimated annual property tax at $500,000 to $1 million for a 99-megawatt data center 01:40:22
• City staff said one-time construction tax is likely closer to $17 million, and a commercial linkage fee and an energy programs fee are being proposed 01:40:22
• City staff said the proposal caps backup generators at 25 hours a year with Tier 4 certification, versus the air district's 50 hours 01:43:17
• City staff said the city's proposed requirements add to state CEQA standards even when the state leads the review 01:44:42
• City staff said council directed the standards in a May rules memo voted in June, and an August memo added community benefits, tax revenue and design 01:45:28
• City staff said the proposal sends all appeals of data center special use permits from the director's hearing to the City Council, bypassing the commission 01:48:49
• A commissioner objected that removing the commission takes away a chance for residents to give input, noting community concern and moratoriums elsewhere 01:53:04
• City staff said the appeal change responds to residents who want controversial data center decisions made by the council 01:53:20
• City staff said council directed staff to develop standards, not a moratorium, and that choice rests with the council 01:56:12
• A commissioner relayed residents' reports that no council members attend the data center listening sessions 01:57:05
• City staff said the full package goes to the commission and then to the City Council on December 8, with materials public November 10 02:02:17
• City staff said a draft at roughly 80% was presented at a community meeting last week 02:01:08
• City staff said the last community meeting drew over 300 people 02:06:25
• City staff said remaining input opportunities include the Youth Commission on October 26 and an online comment form 02:05:24
• A commissioner praised staff outreach and said he would rather see data centers in San Jose than elsewhere, with safeguards 02:08:53
• City staff estimated about 20 data centers operate in the city, mostly much smaller than the 99-megawatt ones now proposed 02:10:32
• City staff said many projects cap at 99 megawatts to stay under the Energy Commission's small power plant exemption 02:11:24
• City staff said the standards are not streamlining, citing limits on cooling systems and generator hours 02:13:58
• City staff said Santa Clara has so many data centers because its utility costs are lower than neighboring cities 02:14:38